
<hansard version="2.2" noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd">
  <session.header>
    <date>2018-02-14</date>
    <parliament.no>45</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>0</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 14 February 2018</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 22 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private member's business on Monday, 26 February 2018. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed at the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 February 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee determined to amend the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 26 February 2018, as follows, with amended entries marked with a *:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 38</inline> <inline font-style="italic">th</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> AIPA General Assembly, September 2017.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Christensen — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 6 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misleading Representations About Broadband Speeds) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR HAMMOND: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Banking Act 1959</inline> in relation to loans to primary production businesses, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">*5 MR GEORGANAS: To move</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the latest:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>30<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Georganas — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR CREWTHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that commemorations are underway for the eighty-fifth anniversary of Holodomor, to mark an enforced famine in Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Joseph Stalin's Communist Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recalls that it is estimated that up to seven million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalin's policies in 1932 and 1933 alone;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns these acts aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns all similar acts during the twentieth century as the ultimate manifestations of racial, ethnic or religious hatred and violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) honours the memory of those who lost their lives during Holodomor;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) joins the Australian Ukrainian community and the international community in commemorating this tragic milestone under the motto Ukraine Remembers—The World Acknowledges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) pays its respects to the Australian Ukrainians that lived through this tragedy and have told their horrific stories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Crewther — </inline>10<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS O'TOOLE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that ongoing cuts to public sector jobs in regional cities like Townsville have had a detrimental impact on the local economy and include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relocation of Royal Australian Air Force's 38 Squadron King Air fleet from Townsville to East Sale in Victoria resulting in the loss of more than 40 aviation jobs in Townsville;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government's change of process in second division resulting in the loss of up to 10 Townsville Australian Public Service defence support staff;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Townsville having 50 fewer defence staff in June 2017 than it had in December 2012;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) 19 jobs having been cut from CSIRO in Townsville over the last few years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) regional Queensland Customs staffing being cut by 50 per cent with 30 job losses from Gladstone to Thursday Island with Townsville being one of the hardest hit; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (f) the consolidation of the Australian Taxation Office in 2014 resulting in the loss of 110 jobs in Townsville;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that maintaining public sector jobs is important in regional Australia and notes that job cuts are harmful to regional cities like Townsville; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to ensure the coming federal budget puts a moratorium on these regional jobs cuts in public sector agencies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms O</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Toole — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR CHRISTENSEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) supports the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project because:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) its proponents, Adani Australia, already employ 800 workers in Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it will open up the Galilee Basin and lead the way in creating as many as 15,000 jobs across five potential mines for the workers of Central and North Queensland; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) it will improve the lives of millions of Indians by providing their country with affordable and safe electricity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the Opposition is now opposed to the project, endangering both existing and future jobs in regional Queensland as evidenced by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Leader of the Opposition stating that 'Labor is increasingly sceptical and today's revelation, if true, is incredibly disturbing, and if Adani's relying on false information, that mine does not deserve to go ahead';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Senator Singh stating that 'I believe the Adani coal mine is a big mistake for this country';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Shadow Minister for Environment and Water stating that the Carmichael coal mine 'will simply displace existing coal operations elsewhere in Australia. There will be jobs lost elsewhere in Queensland or there will be jobs lost in the Hunter Valley...The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline and I think instead we should be talking about other economic developments and job opportunities for North Queensland'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Member for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Charlton tweeting that 'Hunter coal mining jobs are endangered by the Adani project'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Gellibrand stating that 'the reality is, the Adani coal mine has always been something that regional Queenslanders know well: snake oil'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 6 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Christensen — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HOME CARE PACKAGES: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Mr Georganas:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) notes that the latest:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 TRADE: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Mr van Manen:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CREWTHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) genocide is a crime under international law, which has been enacted into Australian law through Division 268 of the Australian Criminal Code;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that ISIL committed, and is continuing to commit, genocide against the Yazidis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Iraqi Council of Ministers, United Nations institutions, and many parliaments have recognised that ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis constitute genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) welcomes the Australian Government's decisive action in resettling Yazidi refugees;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the continuing genocide perpetrated against Yazidis by ISIL;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls for an investigation by Iraqi and international organisations into the disappearance of Yazidi women and children taken as captives by ISIL, and for continued support for the international coalition to defeat ISIL and liberate Yazidis in ISIL captivity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) recognises the importance of justice for Yazidi victims and survivors of ISIL and calls on the Australian Government to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis where possible in Australian courts, including by providing mutual legal assistance, and supporting other national, international and/or hybrid investigations and prosecutions of crimes committed by ISIL against Yazidis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Australian Government to continue supporting the formation of an Investigative Team pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 (2017) and, once established, to support it in the collection, preservation and storage of evidence of acts that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) supports the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) continued efforts to defeat ISIL militarily and ideologically via de-radicalisation and countering violent extremism programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) continued consideration of the plight of the Yazidis in the development of Australian humanitarian policies and programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) continued provision of psychological and other social support services for Yazidi refugees living in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) right of the Yazidis and all minorities to live in peace, safety and freedom in Syria and Iraq and to participate in relevant political processes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) protection of Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq, under United Nations supervision and in cooperation with relevant authorities and minorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>30<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Crewther — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">*2 UNIVERSITIES FUNDING: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Ms T. M. Butler:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's short-sighted $2.2 billion in cuts to universities are equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018, and again in 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) across the country this month, students will be attending university, with orientation periods beginning, and that these students are faced with more uncertainty about how the cuts will affect their student experience; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Government's short-sighted cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities and their students the most; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>70<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 14 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 ORDER OF AUSTRALIA HONOURS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Mr Leeser:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour award and the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 500 recipients of Companion of the Order of Australia, almost 3,000 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 10,000 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 23,000 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes the almost 900 recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2018, from an array of fields including education, arts, sport, science and social work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>35<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) both the <inline font-style="italic">Building Code 2013</inline> (2013 Code) and the <inline font-style="italic">Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016</inline> (2016 Code) require code covered entities to protect freedom of association on building and construction worksites;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the 2016 Code includes requirements in respect of building association logos, mottos or indicia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Australian Building and Construction Commission's fact sheet <inline font-style="italic">Freedom of Association—Logos, Mottos and Indicia</inline> specifies that 'logos, mottos and indicia' that would breach the 2016 Code include 'the iconic symbol of the five white stars and white cross on the Eureka Stockade flag';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Eureka Stockade flag was:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) first used in 1854 at Ballarat; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a symbol of resistance of the gold miners during the rebellion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) beneath the Eureka Stockade flag, the leader of the Ballarat Reform League, Peter Lalor, said 'We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the people at the Eureka Stockade defending the original flag came from nearly forty nations from around the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Eureka Stockade flag design has gained wider acceptance in Australian culture as a symbol of democracy, protest and the notion of the Australian 'fair go';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) freedom of speech and freedom of association are valued by all fair-minded Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Eureka Stockade flag has been a symbol associated with building and construction unions for over 40 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) restricting an individual's right to wear union logos or preventing a construction site from displaying a union flag implies that workers cannot join a union; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) it is an attack on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) an individual's freedom of association to prevent them from wearing the Eureka Stockade flag on their clothing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) freedom of association to prevent a construction site from displaying the Eureka Stockade flag; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to immediately act to protect the rights of workers in the construction industry by making clear that displaying the iconic symbol of democracy, the Eureka Stockade flag, is not a breach of the 2016 Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="s1093" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report from Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That consideration of government business order of the day No. 1, Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>7</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>7</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6046" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>7</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill now be read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>This bill amends the Bankruptcy Act 1966 to comprehensively reform Australia's debt agreement system.</para>
<para>Debt agreements are a statutory alternative to bankruptcy for eligible insolvent debtors. They provide a viable solution for managing personal debt. Debtors can regain and maintain control over their personal affairs and creditors can receive a portion of what they are owed.</para>
<para>Modernising the debt agreement</para>
<para>This bill is the first major reform of the debt agreement system since 2007. Since the last major debt agreement reforms in 2007, the system and its popularity have significantly increased. Between 2007 and 2016, new debt agreements increased from 6,560 to 12,640 per year. Over the same period, new bankruptcies declined from 25,754 to 16,842 per year.</para>
<para>To respond to increasing usage of debt agreements and evidence of consumer exploitation by the debt agreement industry, the government is proceeding with a comprehensive reform of Australia's debt agreement system.</para>
<para>It will boost confidence in the professionalism of debt agreement administrators, deter unscrupulous practices and enhance transparency. This bill will ensure that the debt agreement system is accessible to debtors who have the financial capacity to enter into debt agreements.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill include measures to modernise debt agreements to suit today's financial environment. In light of the increasing value of Australia's property market, we are doubling the asset threshold at which debtors can access the debt agreement system. The higher threshold will open the system to debtors with some equity in their family home. However, the system will also require appropriate safeguards.</para>
<para>Appropriate safeguards for debtors</para>
<para>Under current arrangements, debt agreements can be proposed or extended to well beyond the five-year mark. In some cases, they can extend beyond seven years. Longer debt agreements and subsequent variation of debt agreements are a sign that a debtor is unable to meet or maintain their obligations under the agreement.</para>
<para>This bill will now require debt agreement proposals to include a payment time frame that is three years or less. This measure will allow debtors to manage their debts in the short term and work towards a fresh start.</para>
<para>Despite the benefits of the debt agreement system to both debtors and creditors, a minority of debt agreements propose to pay amounts which significantly exceed the debtor's income, imposing substantial financial stress on the debtor and their family. This is a contributing factor to the repeated variations and extensions to debt agreements that the existing scheme permits, keeping debtors in financial stress for longer periods.</para>
<para>This bill will address this concern and issue in a number of ways.</para>
<para>Firstly, we're introducing the concept of a payment-to-income ratio, which will ensure proposals to set up or vary a debt agreement include an affordable payment schedule, whereby the total payments to be made do not exceed the debtor's income by a prescribed percentage.</para>
<para>To ensure the ratio is balanced and suited to the market, it will be determined by legislative instrument in close consultation with the debt agreement industry, consumer advocacy groups and creditor representatives.</para>
<para>Secondly, we are bolstering the authority of the Official Receiver in bankruptcy to intervene in exceptional cases and refuse to accept debt agreement proposals which would cause undue financial hardship to vulnerable debtors.</para>
<para>The reforms will also deter unscrupulous practices of a small minority of debt agreement administrators, by setting stricter practice standards, introducing tougher penalties for wrongdoing, and granting the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy additional investigative powers to address administrator misconduct.</para>
<para>To mitigate the risk to a debtor of debt agreement administrator error or malpractice, we are now requiring administrators to take out and maintain professional indemnity and fidelity insurance as a requirement of their registration.</para>
<para>This brings requirements for debt agreement administrators into line with registered trustees and provides a safety net for affected debtors and creditors.</para>
<para>Debt agreement administrators</para>
<para>Debt agreements should be administered by appropriately skilled people to achieve the best outcomes for both debtors and their unsecured creditors.</para>
<para>To boost confidence in the professionalism of the system, the bill introduces a requirement that only those who meet enhanced registration benchmarks will be eligible to administer a debt agreement.</para>
<para>An unregistered administrator will have 12 months from royal assent to the bill to register as a debt agreement administrator or trustee if they wish to keep administering debt agreements.</para>
<para>The bill also enhances transparency, providing clarity to debtors and creditors about an administrator's financial and organisational arrangements.</para>
<para>It is essential that debtors and creditors have the opportunity to review any business practices of an administrator that might affect a debt agreement—for example, the administrator's expenses arrangements or any relationships with debt management brokers or referrers that an administrator might have.</para>
<para>Requiring administrators to disclose their relationships is important because any money paid to brokers or referrers is money that could have been paid to creditors.</para>
<para>These amendments provide that a debt agreement proposal must disclose any relationships between administrators and brokers, and detail the types of expenses the administrator can recover, allowing debtors and creditors to make informed choices in proposing or accepting a debt agreement.</para>
<para>The enhanced standards for debt agreement administrators will be further enhanced by the development of industry-wide conditions, to be implemented by legislative instrument in conjunction with this bill.</para>
<para>These conditions will be developed in close consultation with the debt agreement administrator industry, consumer advocacy groups and creditor representatives.</para>
<para>As a whole, these measures will ensure the debt agreement system is an effective, fair and functional debt management option for debtors and creditors alike.</para>
<para>The bill will commence six months after royal assent, giving the debt agreement administrator industry enough time to prepare for the changes.</para>
<para>The bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2018, and I look forward to the consideration of the committee's findings on this important piece of legislation.</para>
<para>These long-awaited reforms will revitalise the debt agreement system, providing better outcomes for creditors and supporting Australians living in financial distress to control their personal affairs. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6051" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 amends education and other legislation that underpins student loans, in particular the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and the Student Financial Supplement Scheme (SFSS).</para>
<para>It introduces a revised new set of repayment thresholds for student loans, changes indexation arrangements for repayment thresholds, amends the order of repayment of some student loan debts, and introduces a combined lifetime loan limit for HELP.</para>
<para>On 18 December last year, the Turnbull government released its Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), including legislative measures affecting higher education that are the subject of this bill.</para>
<para>The policy measures announced in MYEFO will ensure that Australia's world-leading, income-contingent student loan system can continue to be available to future generations of students.</para>
<para>Australia must face up to the task of putting our higher education system on a more sustainable, responsible path for the future. The measures in this bill are proportionate and they help achieve that goal.</para>
<para>The government will not proceed with the previous legislative proposals from the 2017-18 budget.</para>
<para>Instead, the measures in this bill:</para>
<list>set a new schedule of repayment thresholds for HELP from 1 July 2018, with a lower minimum repayment threshold of $45,000 at a one per cent repayment rate, with smaller incremental rises in thresholds and repayment rates, up to a top threshold of $131,989 at which ten per cent of income is repayable;</list>
<list>align the indexation of the repayment thresholds to the consumer price index (CPI);</list>
<list>from 1 July 2019, bring repayment thresholds for the Student Financial Supplement Scheme—managed by the Social Services portfolio—into line with HELP repayment thresholds, and make corresponding changes to the order of repayment of student loan debts; and</list>
<list>introduce a new combined loan limit on how much students can borrow under HELP to cover their tuition fees. The combined limit is $150,000 for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses, and $104,440 for other students. While the loan limit is not new, it will now apply to Commonwealth supported students borrowing through HECS-HELP as well as fee-paying students accessing FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP and VET student loans.</list>
<para>The case for change</para>
<para>HELP lending has grown rapidly with the expansion of the demand driven system—the amount of HELP loans accessed has increased from $3 billion in 2009 to nearly $7 billion in 2016.</para>
<para>Since 2009 funding for Commonwealth supported places has grown at twice the rate of the economy. There has been no limit on how many degrees a student could undertake, as long as they undertook this study in a Commonwealth supported place.</para>
<para>A small number of people have treated this as a blank cheque to a lifetime of university education, rather than as a stepping stone into a fulfilling career. The objective of public investment is to assist people to actively participate in the workforce, earning an income that enables them to pay back their debts. It's not to take their fellow taxpayer for a ride.</para>
<para>Some individuals have amassed hundreds of thousands of dollars of HELP debt—more than they will ever be able to repay in their lifetime. This is an unintended consequence of taxpayers' generosity.</para>
<para>This bill extends the lifetime loan limit that is already in place for fee-paying students accessing FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP or VET student loans to Commonwealth supported students receiving HECS-HELP assistance.</para>
<para>HELP debt is not limited to the higher education system.</para>
<para>The expansion of HELP to the VET sector in 2008 led to VET FEE-HELP loan debt escalating to over $1 billion by 2016.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government shut down the runaway VET FEE-HELP loan scheme at the end of 2016 and replaced it with VET student loans. This is a much more tightly controlled scheme, with caps on tuition amounts and extensive safeguards against rorting by unethical providers.</para>
<para>However, damage was done, both to the reputation of our student loan schemes and to the budget bottom line, in terms of overall outstanding debt.</para>
<para>As at 30 June 2017, outstanding HELP debt was $55.4 billion and the 'fair value' of HELP—the amount we may expect to be eventually repaid by borrowers—was valued by the actuary at $35.9 billion.</para>
<para>The fiscal challenge for the government is that HELP repayments have not kept pace with HELP lending growth. From 2010-11 to 2016-17, the level of new debt not expected to be repaid increased from 16 per cent to 25 per cent.</para>
<para>It is no longer possible to ignore the long-term burden of this debt on the taxpayer.</para>
<para>And so, the measures in this bill, in a number of sound, evidence-based ways, will achieve a more sustainable future for student loans.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill proposes a new set of repayment thresholds commencing from 1 July this year.</para>
<para>There is a new minimum repayment income of $45,000 at which one per cent of income is repayable. The second threshold is $51,957 with a two per cent repayment rate.</para>
<para>Each progressive threshold increases by six per cent income amounts and by 0.5 per cent increments in repayment rates, which smooths repayment obligations. Importantly, this new schedule of thresholds will also reduce incentive for debtors to 'cluster' below thresholds to avoid repayments as they do now.</para>
<para>There are increased repayment rates for those earning the highest incomes, who are best placed to repay their debts sooner—with those earning $131,989 or more paying at 10 per cent of their income.</para>
<para>From 2019-20, the revised HELP thresholds will also apply to Student Financial Supplement Scheme debts under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. Currently, these debts are repaid concurrently with HELP debts but according to a subset of just three thresholds.</para>
<para>To improve rates of repayment of SFSS debts, and to achieve consistency in debt administration, the current three-tier threshold approach applied to SFSS repayments will be replaced with the full range of HELP thresholds. There will be a transitional year in 2018-19 that maintains the three-tier threshold arrangement while systems changes are implemented, and to allow these debtors additional time for transition.</para>
<para>Schedule 1 of the bill also implements new indexation arrangements for the HELP repayment thresholds, which are currently indexed according to average weekly earnings.</para>
<para>For a number of years now, the HELP repayment thresholds have been rising relative to earnings. The higher growth in average weekly earnings has meant that people have dropped from a higher repayment threshold to a lower one, or have dropped out of the repayment stream altogether as the thresholds rise faster than their income growth.</para>
<para>This bill provides that the minimum and all subsequent thresholds will be indexed using the consumer price index. This will ensure repayment requirements are adjusted in line with the cost of living. It also streamlines indexation factors used throughout the Higher Education Support Act 2003, as all amounts will be indexed in the same way.</para>
<para>This amendment also reflects the National Commission of Audit's 2014 recommendation to improve the sustainability of HELP in part by indexing using this method.</para>
<para>Schedule 2 of the bill amends the order of repayment of student loan debts by loan type.</para>
<para>Currently, student debts under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1993 are repaid concurrently with HELP debts.</para>
<para>From 2019-20, when the full threshold of HELP thresholds will start to apply, old debts from SFSS will be repaid after HELP debts are discharged rather than concurrently. This will avoid debtors under both schemes facing excessive repayment liabilities.</para>
<para>Student start-up loans will be repaid after HELP and Student Financial Supplement Scheme liabilities are extinguished.</para>
<para>Trade support loans will be repaid after all other student loan debt liabilities.</para>
<para>That is, from 2019-20, a person is not liable to repay their trade support loan debt if they have repayment obligations under HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP, VET Student Loans, the Student Financial Supplement Scheme or student start-up loans.</para>
<para>To put it in the simplest terms, this schedule of the bill establishes that HELP debt takes priority over other student loan debts.</para>
<para>Schedule 3 of the bill provides for the expansion of the lifetime loan limit to all HELP loans for which a student can defer their tuition fees.</para>
<para>Tertiary education students accessing FEE-HELP, VET FEE-HELP and VET Student Loans have always been subject to a lifetime limit on the amount they can borrow.</para>
<para>This schedule of the bill:</para>
<list>sets new loan limits from 1 January 2019 onwards, including an increased loan limit for higher education students enrolled in medicine, dentistry or veterinary science courses;</list>
<list>applies the loan limit to Commonwealth supported students accessing HECS-HELP loans for the first time, meaning all new borrowing after 1 January 2019 will reduce a student's available HELP balance;</list>
<list>makes a number of consequential amendments to the act to broaden the application of the existing FEE-HELP limit and FEE‑HELP balance to include HECS-HELP loans.</list>
<para>New loan limits</para>
<para>The new $150,000 loan limit for students undertaking medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses as defined in the act is an increase on the estimated FEE-HELP limit of $130,552 for 2019. Students in these courses who had previously reached their FEE-HELP limit will, from 2019, have access to additional funds up to the new $150,000 limit. The new limit is considered more than sufficient to cover the government's subsidised tuition fees for these longer and, therefore, more expensive courses.</para>
<para>Apart from annual indexation increases, the loan limit applying to students in other courses remains the same, with a base amount of $104,440 in 2019.</para>
<para>The combined lifetime loan limit is unlikely to present a financial obstacle for the vast majority of tertiary students, even if they undertake more than one course of study or undertake studies in both vocational education and higher education.</para>
<para>This is because, with the recently introduced VET Student Loans program, the Turnbull government put in place loan caps on the amount of financial assistance available to be borrowed each year up from $5,075 to a maximum of $15,225, depending on the course, for a year of full-time study in the 2018 academic year.</para>
<para>VET courses are typically shorter in duration than higher education courses and the amounts borrowed will tend to be lower.</para>
<para>Similarly, student contribution amounts under HECS-HELP are capped and will continue to be capped, up from $6,444 to a maximum of $10,754, depending on the student contribution band, for a year of full-time study in 2018.</para>
<para>The new combined HELP tuition limit, up from $104,444 to $150,000, is more than adequate. In fact, it is sufficient to cover almost nine years of full-time study as a Commonwealth supported student in higher education, even in the most expensive courses. The loan limit is also sufficient to cover students who choose to undertake a mix of Commonwealth supported and fee-paying courses.</para>
<para>It is reasonable and fair that there is a limit on how much any one person can borrow from the taxpayer for their tertiary education.</para>
<para>Commonwealth financial assistance through the HELP scheme is there to support students through their tertiary education. It exists to help them acquire the educational foundation for their working lives by removing the barrier of up-front tuition fees.</para>
<para>It was never meant to be a lifelong buffet for all you can study.</para>
<para>To be clear, all new HECS-HELP borrowing will reduce a student's HELP balance—the amount that they can still borrow within the new lifetime loan limit. Previously accumulated HECS-HELP debt will not be counted, but any new amounts deferred through a HECS-HELP loan from 1 January 2019 will count against a person's HELP balance.</para>
<para>Any FEE-HELP, VET-FEE-HELP or VET student loan debits already accrued under the existing FEE-HELP limit will be transferred to the new HELP tuition limit for that student. A person will only be able to borrow up to the new loan limit.</para>
<para>A person's accumulated HELP debt will still, of course, need to be repaid in the same way as it is currently—through the taxation system—including if they go overseas for a substantial period of time.</para>
<para>These reforms ensure our high-quality higher education system can grow while meeting the global challenges it will increasingly face. It ensures that eligible students will continue to be able to access higher education and vocational education irrespective of their background or financial means. The focus of our higher education system is where it should be: on our students both now and in the future.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6044" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAWKE</name>
    <name.id>HWO</name.id>
    <electorate>Mitchell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018 amends the Migration Act 1958 and other related legislation to support the effective and efficient management of migration litigation.</para>
<para>The bill clarifies that relevant migration decisions are subject to the judicial review scheme set out in the Migration Act and ensures that those migration decisions are subject to uniform judicial review requirements.</para>
<para>The relevant decisions will be defined in the bill to put beyond doubt what is a migration decision and subject to the judicial review scheme set out under the Migration Act.</para>
<para>The current judicial review scheme under the Migration Act is contained in part 8 and part 8A of the Migration Act. The scheme provides uniform judicial review requirements and procedural provisions for decisions described under the Migration Act as migration decisions.</para>
<para>A key feature of the judicial review scheme is that a challenge to a migration decision must be subject to limited exceptions instituted in the Federal Circuit Court at the first instance. It is appropriate that migration decisions are heard at first instance in the Federal Circuit Court to provide a uniform and streamlined framework for managing the high volume of migration decisions that are litigated and maintaining the efficient use of the court's resources.</para>
<para>The amendments in this bill are necessary following the full Federal Court decision in the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v ARJ 17. In ARJ 17 it was held that, where there is an error in certain decisions, that decision does not fall within the definition of a migration decision.</para>
<para>The measures in this bill will restore the intended scope of the judicial review scheme under the Migration Act and restore the original policy intent so that there is a uniform judicial review scheme that clearly applies to all migration decisions. This will ensure a more consistent and official judicial review scheme in relation to migration decisions.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018</title>
          <page.no>12</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <p>
              <a href="r6037" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6038" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>12</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I continue from last night with my thanks to every member of our team who participated in the by-election. As every year, the local Young Liberals were the difference. One silver lining of the national spotlight on this campaign was it meant that Young Liberals came from all over the country. I was able to see that our young local volunteers are not unique in their impressive energy, commitment and intelligence. You all have brilliant futures ahead. Thank you to our Young Liberal dignitaries, including but no way limited to Cameron Dungar and Hugo Robinson. I will have more to say about other YL high flyers in the coming minutes. As always, I'm hugely grateful to our local Liberal Party leaders. Thank you to our local party chair, Mr Peter Graham OAM. Apologies that in the chaos of the weeks preceding the by-election I wasn't always in regular contact, as I should have been, but I look forward to working closely with you over the coming years.</para>
<para>As for other executives, James Wallace, Michael Evangelidis, Brigit Meney and Sarkis Yedelian, you have all been great supporters and friends in the time I've been representing Bennelong. It is a great pleasure to work alongside you. I'm also lucky to be joined by many wonderful Liberals who represent the area in Bennelong. At the state level there are four loyal, dedicated, talented state MPs who are all making sure Bennelong remains a vibrant, strong community. It was great to share street stalls with Dr Geoff Lee in the west and Anthony Roberts in the east, talking to the locals, and Damien Tudehope in Epping, who was a vital asset to our pre-poll there. He spent so much time rallying the troops. Of course there is my good friend and political mentor and big brother, Victor Dominello, who was regularly with me fighting for the community we love and getting real wins, like the commitment to save Blenheim Park from developers or the announcement of the transport interchange at Macquarie Park.</para>
<para>Locally our Liberal team is an incredible unit. They were there for me during the campaign and are always there for the people of Bennelong. Councillors Jordan Lane, Trenton Brown and Chris Moujalli are all new to the council, but have already left their mark and have proved to be a great asset to our community. Sarkis, on the other hand, is a stalwart of the local community and council. His help and advice was useful this year as it has been in every election. Thank you all so much for everything you did to help.</para>
<para>While I'm talking politically, I'd like to thank the many MPs, senators and ministers who made the effort to come to Bennelong and help out during the campaign. There are too many of you to name individually; however, I would like to single out my neighbours, who put in multiple long shifts for the cause. The members for Berowra, Bradfield, North Sydney and Reid all played critical roles on the ground. Thank you Craig, Julian, Paul and Trent. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my office, who by the rules of this place were forced to be passive spectators in this ordeal. I know it was a tough time for you and especially tough time for some of you. So I would like to extend my thanks to Frances, Daniel, Ursula, Brendan and Jonathan for your patience during this frustrating time.</para>
<para>Some of the most important volunteers are the booth captains. They find people to help, keep them energised and ensure that all voters are met with a smile and have the information they need to vote. The following people provided this service—apologies for the list, but to give each of you the individual praise you deserve would take too long and still do you a disservice: Krishnamurthy Ekambaran, Ujith Galhena, Bob Lawrence, Holly Dorber, Peter Small, Bill Tyrell, Michael Brereton, Scott Gumley, Councillor Ben Barrack, Natalie Ward, Elizabeth Frias, Phil Crealy, Mel Brown—congratulations on your engagement—Damien Pace, John Smibert, Hugo Robinson, De Yi Wu, Harry Coates, Nat Smith, Tim Millar, Steve Sim, Suzanne Fairhall, Tony Chappel, Hassib Elias and Sam Harma. Thank you all for the hard work in making this result possible.</para>
<para>There were some other volunteers who went above and beyond and deserve special mention. Councillor Craig Chung, the 'king' of Eastwood, has been a part of the Bennelong family for many years and has once again achieved great feats at the Eastwood booth. This year the Labor Party threw absolutely everything they had at this most critical of booths, focusing huge numbers there throughout the campaign and peddling falsehoods that did them a disservice. Craig stood tall through this and claimed a historic victory every bit as impressive as the 12 per cent swing he achieved in 2016.</para>
<para>John Bathgate, a former military man, is another committed local who threw his heart and soul into the campaign, taking time off from his job in a minister's office. The Leader of the House's loss was my gain. No job was too difficult, and he was a huge help to everyone in the campaign. Tim Burney Gibson is another ace who was essential to the campaign. He was on Army Reserve training when the campaign was announced, and we were concerned that he would not be there to help with the campaign. When he did rejoin us, he appeared at every street stall, train station and polling place and was once again a great supporter and dear friend.</para>
<para>The movement of 700 volunteers and the management of a campaign being watched by the whole country needs some steady hands at the tiller. I was fortunate to have a dedicated gang, seconded from all corners of the party, operating at the top of my campaign. At the very top of this impressive tree sat one dedicated local, Chris Stone. As a local, he's well aware of our achievements and well placed to lead the campaign. He was a committed and patient campaign director. Maintaining a five per cent margin was no mean feat and was only possible thanks to Chris's intelligent and dependable leadership. At his side, managing practical matters from the enormous to the minute, was Stuart Smith. Without him, many of the day-to-day actions that made up this great campaign would not have gone so smoothly, and many would not have gone at all. This campaign was his last with the party before moving on to greener pastures. Stuart, I hope I had nothing to do with your decision to move on. Thank you again for everything.</para>
<para>Every resident of Bennelong knows this by-election was not short on materials, which were delivered, posted and handed out by people by the thousands. Each one of these had to be designed, of course, and that is where the team of Lee Hamilton and Jamie Seckold did their excellent work creating everything physical and digital, making them some of the most read authors in Bennelong. Matt Edwards was our social media guy, who did great work curating social media and demanding everyone video my every move. Thanks Matt for your hard work in bringing my campaign into the 21st century.</para>
<para>We set new records in phone calls this election. At the same time as apologising to locals who felt overwhelmed, I would like to congratulate Kieran Douglas, who made these incredible numbers work and—despite what people may believe—ensured that people didn't get called multiple times a week. From federal headquarters we were lucky to pinch Luke Hughes. He made sure my life and diary were smoothly run throughout those chaotic weeks, but, more importantly, he never gave up smiling—an underrated trait when the going gets tough. Nick Westenberg gets points for frustrating the opposition the most with his infamous scratchie, which had the voters of Bennelong intrigued and impressed, while leaving the Labor candidate enraged and even litigious—a master stroke we will hopefully see in future campaigns. Thanks, Nick. Managing press was Ian Zakon, who was the first on the ground when the feathers started to fly back in November. Thank you for your guidance and patience in dealing with a self-confessed antipolitician.</para>
<para>Those committed people ran the show from headquarters, but it was the leaders of my ground team, who spent most of the long days with me, that I am most in debt to. Luke Nayna ran a tight ship from West Ryde, ensuring our volunteers were spread evenly across the electorate—all on message, full of energy and well aware of the photos they were allowed to appear in. Thank you all for your hard work and long hours. Manning every polling place in the face of huge union numbers and ensuring we outnumbered them on every corner was an incredible job. The credit goes to John Harris, who I also stole from a very lucky colleague. Your humour kept everyone going, and we were all in awe of the results that you pulled off.</para>
<para>A real highlight of the campaign was to be reunited with my old colleague Molly Hughes, who ensured we had people at pre-poll every day despite heatwaves, overwhelming numbers and a corrosive atmosphere from our opponents at the booth. To get everyone to volunteer for that was an incredible effort. Ensuring that we were stocked to capacity every day was also remarkable.</para>
<para>Easily the hardest working member of the campaign, bar none, was young Jacob Massina, who I first had the pleasure of encountering when he was a year 10 work experience student some years ago. It is impressive to see how you've grown, Jacob, and the energy with which you wrangled YLs, every activity under the sun, and kept running up to 15 hours a day. It was terrifying and inspiring. Thank you, Jacob.</para>
<para>Finally, thanks must go to the most patient and longest suffering member of my team, Alicia McCumstie. Alicia, you came to every event, every station, every stall—truly everything along the campaign trail. You were a constant pleasure to work with, at times my mother, my sister, my friend, and my singing partner in the car. Thank you, Alicia. Indeed, thank you to all my team and everyone who helped out in the campaign. I've been a part of a number of teams through my various careers, but the cohesion and tenacity of everyone involved formed this great team. I am grateful to you all.</para>
<para>Before I wrap up the list, there's one more group I need to thank—my family. No politician can get far without the support of their family. To my daughters, to my partner Deb, I'm sorry for the intrusion into private lives and trespass on your property by some members of the press. That is the end to my long list of thankyous for the campaign. Winning any election is never an individual effort. Without everyone who helped we wouldn't have had the resulted we enjoyed. Thank you all.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As millions of Australian families get the kids up, make the lunches, pack them off to school, and then trundle off to work today, working their guts out, some of them shiftworkers, away from their families in the afternoons and evenings, some of them workers who work on weekends, they are thrilled with the fact that the Turnbull government is trying to take away their penalty rates for being away from families and working on weekends. These families are struggling with the high cost of living, electricity prices going up and private health insurance premiums increasing above inflation levels on an annual basis now, with childcare costs recently increasing, the cost of education going up and of course the extreme cost of housing, particularly in Sydney and Melbourne markets. There are also the struggling pensioners who are finding it hard to put the air conditioner on in summer or the heater on in winter because they can't afford the increases in electricity prices. About 330,000 of these pensioners have lost their pension over the course of the last couple of years under this Turnbull government, and now the government is trying to take away their energy supplement. Then there are students who are facing cuts to TAFE colleges and dramatically increasing fees. There are universities that have had funding ripped away from them, which will no doubt be passed on to university students in the form of higher fees.</para>
<para>All of these hardworking Australians would be thrilled to know—very pleased to know—that the ABC has uncovered that about one in five Australian companies pay no company tax whatsoever in this country. Yes, that's right: 380 of Australia's largest companies pay absolutely no income tax at all—a big doughnut; a big fat zero. They include airlines, banks, financial service companies, mining, energy, clothing, steel, and telecommunications companies. There's even a condom manufacturer. That's rather appropriate, given what they've just done to the Australian taxpayer in paying no tax at all during the course of the last couple of years.</para>
<para>Given that these hardworking Australian PAYG taxpayers can't do what these big companies do—shift debts to other jurisdictions to avoid paying tax—they'd be very pleased to know that some of these companies have made an art form of it. I'm speaking of EnergyAustralia, which over the last 10 years—not just the last couple—has paid no company tax at all in this country. This is despite the fact that, when you look at the revenues, they have increased quite handsomely over the course of a few years—no doubt off the back of those skyrocketing electricity prices that hardworking families and pensioners have to pay on an annual basis.</para>
<para>In the almighty 'Up yours!' that's been given to the Australian taxpayer, some might ask why a company like Goldman Sachs, which employed none other than our illustrious Prime Minister in the past, would be rolling in funds from the New South Wales government that they've received over the last couple of years for advising on—yes, you guessed it—the sale of assets that are owned by the Australian taxpayer. Goldman Sachs recently received $16.5 million to advise the New South Wales government about the sale of WestConnex. They too are one of these companies that pay no company tax here in Australia. The approach of Goldman Sachs can be summed up not best by me but by a quote that appeared in <inline font-style="italic">Rolling Stone</inline> magazine: 'The great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.' That is a rather damning indictment upon some of these companies that we find today are paying absolutely no company tax at all here in Australia.</para>
<para>The hardworking Australian taxpayer would be extremely pleased to know as they go off to work today—after they've simmered down about the fact that these companies aren't paying any tax—that the Turnbull government think that these companies are doing it so tough that they want to give them a company tax cut. Yes, that's right—these companies that pay no tax whatsoever in Australia under corporations laws believe that they deserve a tax cut, and, yes, the Turnbull government is going to give them one. The Turnbull government believes that these companies do it so tough that they deserve a tax cut. This is despite the fact that 380 of these largest companies paid no tax at all over the course of the last couple of years. I kid you not; you can't make this stuff up! It's one of the greatest one-finger salutes to hardworking Australians that the Turnbull government has given them and a greater sop to their mates in big business that, despite the fact that 380 of these companies pay no tax, the Turnbull government is planning to give them a tax cut. What a disgrace! What a demonstration of just how out of touch this government has become.</para>
<para>Let's not forget the National Party in all of this. The National Party members, the MPs that predominantly sit over there, like to slink off back to their electorates and, when hardworking farmers and people on the land in Australia come up to them and complain about these sorts of things in the streets of Tamworth, Armidale and other rural and regional towns throughout the country, you find these National Party MPs will say: 'That's the Liberal Party. That's the Liberal Party philosophy. We don't believe in stuff like that. We don't vote for things like that.' But that's exactly what they do, because then they slink back into this chamber, put up their hand and vote for corporate tax cuts for some of these companies that are paying no tax whatsoever in Australia.</para>
<para>We're discussing here today the appropriation bills—the bills through which governments draw funds for the ordinary course of expenditure on government programs throughout the country. Labor of course has a principal policy of not withholding supply, unlike those opposite in Australian politics. But the fact is that this government has presided over, since they came to government in 2013, an increase in a budget deficit. The budget deficit is now $23.6 billion. What does this government want to do? They want to rip $65 billion over the next decade of revenue out of that budget to give these companies a tax cut, an ideological sop to their mates in big business. Labor won't cop it. We won't cop this argument about competitiveness and using the United States President's tax cuts as a justification for trying to say that Australia's biggest companies deserve a tax cut. We won't cop them trundling out the CEOs of these large corporations, many of whom, strikingly—it was revealed in papers today—pay no tax at all. But they trundle out these CEOs to immorally dangle this carrot of a prospective wage increase in front of Australian workers as a means of trying to convince them that these large corporations deserve a corporate tax cut in Australia at the moment.</para>
<para>The Australian people and the Australian Labor Party ain't buying it. We ain't buying these rubbish arguments that are being trotted out by this government and its representatives, and by some of the CEOs of these large multinational corporations. Labor will fight for a fairer taxation system, one that provides more equity in the system and seeks to curtail some of the excesses of particularly generous tax deductions that have existed and benefited wealthy Australians in the big end of town. I'm speaking, of course, of the current system of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount that exists on the sale of investment properties. Only Labor is fair dinkum about reforming these outrageously generous—in fact, the largest in the world—tax deductions that exist for the sale and purchase of investment properties.</para>
<para>Labor will fight for decent jobs and for fair wages in this country, for the hardworking nurses and for people like childcare workers, of whom those opposite say, 'Yes, they work very hard and they deserve more money,' but oppose their fair work cases in the Fair Work Commission and the like. They rile against them when hardworking childcare workers dare to go on strike to try and boost their incomes to be paid fairly under the current industrial relations system. Those opposite also seek to restrict public sector workers every year to below-inflation annual wage increases.</para>
<para>The hypocrisy of this government is rather striking when it comes to this argument about corporate tax cuts. The thing that they fail to mention to the Australian taxpayer, of this whole argument about corporate tax cuts, is that the overwhelming beneficiaries of a company tax cut aren't Australians. They're foreigners. Because of the operation of dividend imputation in this country, the people who will benefit from these company tax cuts will be foreigners because of dividend imputation and franking credits that Australian shareholders receive for the fact that company tax is paid by the company—when they pay it. Let's face it, after the revelations today, a lot of them don't, but when they do pay it, if they pay a dividend, the shareholder gets a franking credit. So they don't pay any further tax because it's already been paid by the company. The overwhelming benefit of the reduction in tax, if there is one for corporations, will flow to foreign investors. So it's hardworking Australian workers, pensioners, and students that will pay for a tax cut for foreigners. Can you believe it? In an environment when families are struggling with the cost of living, they're restricting the pension and taking people off the pension, they're cutting funding for education services and making students pay more and this mob want to give a tax cut to foreigners.</para>
<para>As I said, Labor won't stand for it. We will fight this tax cut and we will get out there in the community and explain to the Australian public that it's unfair what this government is doing, and the only party in this parliament that's fair dinkum about ensuring that we rein in some of the excesses that exist in the taxation system in this country and that support fair and decent wages and jobs for hardworking Australians is the Australian Labor Party.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CREWTHER</name>
    <name.id>248969</name.id>
    <electorate>Dunkley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to commend the Turnbull coalition government's commitment to fostering the opportunities and dreams of our young sports men and women. As well as the connectivity we've provided for the young people in my electorate of Dunkley, I have worked alongside the Minister for Health, my neighbour the member for Flinders, many local sporting clubs and community groups to advocate for and propose developments in Dunkley.</para>
<para>One example is the peninsula sports package, which has provided funding for numerous projects, including the newly-resurfaced Mornington netball courts, the brand new scoreboard for Lloyd Park in Langwarrin, an upcoming new hurdle shed in Ballam Park, funding for netball and other sports at Jubilee Park, an elite sports pathway program involving Peninsula Waves and others, lighting for the Frankston Dolphins Junior Football Club and a new athletics track for Mornington Little Athletics—just to name a few. We are investing in women's sport, funding female-friendly changing rooms and facilities, and funding solar installations for sporting and community groups, which also supports amateur community sport and assists those clubs with their running costs. Late last year, I officially opened the new Mornington Peninsula Hockey Centre synthetic pitch at Monash University's Peninsula campus, where I was told by players that the surface is world class and one of the best surfaces that they have ever played on. The Mornington Peninsula Hockey Centre has approximately 26,000 visitors every year between junior, senior, amateur and university club players and spectators.</para>
<para>The federal government also committed over $2 million to the upgrading of facilities at Civic Reserve in Mornington, following the 'where is our track' campaign by Mornington Little Athletics. This will deliver a new athletics track. In addition to that, we've been working with the member for Flinders to provide new soccer fields there, with an additional $1 million for the Mount Martha Soccer Club to relocate to Civic Reserve, providing further opportunities for the peninsula's junior players. Investment in sporting infrastructure is important for a number of factors. Aside from the obvious, attracting sporting talent to our communities and our sporting clubs, there are enormous benefits to residents' health for people of all ages keeping active. The peninsula sports package, worth over $6 million, will help our organisations cater for growing participation, particularly by women and young people, and support them in the construction and maintenance of infrastructure so that the clubs' funds can go towards training and other facilities for their members.</para>
<para>Being the youngest member of the House of Representatives, I am also particularly supportive of young people's participation in sport—the demand for which has been steadily increasing in recent times. Young people's involvement in sport helps their engagement in their communities. It links in with their education and work prospects and also prevents engagement in some of the negative things in our communities, such as drugs or crime. That's why the federally funded local drug action team in my electorate, for their first grant round, put forward a proposal to work with 95 peninsula sporting groups to help prevent alcohol and drug use. In Dunkley we are gaining a reputation as being an area that facilitates both families and young people in being not only a premier sporting region in both facilities and talent but also a community that wants to integrate people of all ages into what is a wonderful community.</para>
<para>As the federal member for Dunkley, I am committed to ensuring that our community has many opportunities and the resources to participate in sport at all levels. That's why, putting aside politics, I worked with different levels of government to advocate for the return of the Frankston Dolphins football club's VFL licence. This leads to the aspiration of young people participating in football, both women and men, who are aiming to go higher, whether from a junior club or a more senior club. I'm very pleased that they will be having their first game back in 2018, having had their VFL licence restored.</para>
<para>In addition, the federally funded Local Sporting Champions grants, available to Australian citizens between the ages of 12 and 18, who are travelling significant distances to compete in sport, are also very important. That is something that I have advocated for on behalf of a number of local residents. It is something the federal government contributes to ensure in a small way that Dunkley locals are able to participate in sporting competitions and potentially go on to elite competition in the future. The most recent grant round provided 13 young people in Dunkley with funding for them to travel interstate or internationally to competitions to represent their club, school or state. For example, Zac travelled to Western Australia to compete in basketball. Shayla and Shauna went to Western Australia to compete in hockey. Alana went to South Australia for soccer. Caleb and Rupert went to Queensland for rugby union. Hannah, Miles and Jordan went to South Australia for softball. Glenn went to New South Wales for orienteering. Chloe went to Western Australia for sailing and yachting. Monte went to South Australia for athletics. And Sophie also went to South Australia for touch rugby. Congratulations to all these participants, whom I know will go on to greater things.</para>
<para>While we work on our local sporting facilities—and we have a fantastic number of infrastructure projects underway—it is terrific that we are able to help young sporting men and women to pursue their goals at a higher level. Perhaps one day soon we'll see local sporting champions from other states travel to Dunkley to compete in competitions, for certainly we will have the facilities as well as the community optimism to host them.</para>
<para>Another point on this appropriations bill I wanted to speak about was some of the funding we've delivered locally for safety on roads in my electorate. Just recently, I went out to Two Bays Road in Mount Eliza, along with representatives from Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and others, to announce almost $2 million for the upgrading and widening of that road as well as a dedicated bike lane. This will be great for safety for local residents but also wonderful for road users and cyclists.</para>
<para>Another project that has been delivered recently through our Roads to Recovery funding is the upgrade of North Road in Langwarrin with $230,000 of federal funding. It upgraded North Road between Centre Road and Dandenong-Hastings Road. That is also a wonderful thing for improving road safety in that area. One of the things I was also proud to advocate for was the $280,000 federal funding towards the car park facility to provide safety for local students Mount Eliza. I'm very pleased that that project is now nearing completion. Advocacy around that project followed working with local community groups, local parents and others, particularly the Room to Move movement, which involved over 280 parents and others advocating for the urgent need for safety around the schools in that area in Mount Eliza. I'm very pleased to see that project around Nepean Highway and Canadian Bay Road now nearing completion.</para>
<para>Another project that I advocated for and achieved funding for was for the improvements to Barkly Street and Main Street in Mornington, which received $271,000 to upgrade the existing roundabout. Furthermore, we've also secured from the federal government an additional $104,000 for intersection improvement at Barkly Street and Tanti Avenue in Mornington to increase the radius of the roundabout's centre island to reduce the speed of approaching vehicles. In addition, last year I was also very pleased to go with the former minister to see some of the other developments we've achieved through our Roads to Recovery program. We achieved through the last round $1.1 million in funding for our local area for the Frankston City Council for improved construction of kerbs and channels and an asphalt overlay for driver safety at Fenton Crescent, Violet Street and Foot Street in Frankston and Frankston South.</para>
<para>These are some of the few things happening in my electorate I wanted to raise because road safety, for anyone in my electorate but in particular for young people and children using roads or cycling on those roads, is a very important thing. As the youngest MP, I want to support our young people to have a safe community to live in but also a community they can participate in, whether it's in sport or other activities, where they can achieve their dreams and aspirations. They can be involved in education. They can be involved in employment. As parents—as I know, being a parent of a young two-and-a-half-year-old daughter myself—parents want to achieve the best for their kids, and that's what I want to help achieve for the electors of Dunkley and their children. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today on this appropriation bill, and I look forward to working with my local community, the local community groups, sporting clubs and others, to advocate for further funding for things that are needed in my electorate, including infrastructure, road funding, sporting clubs, community groups and others, because that connectivity in the community is so important.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, may I wish you and everyone else in the chamber today a Happy Valentine's Day. If only that love could travel across the Hay plain to my home state of South Australia. Two days ago in this place the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for New England, boasted about his government's generosity to infrastructure projects in South Australia. This was despite the fact that Commonwealth infrastructure grants to the state of South Australia will fall from $921.4 million in 2017-18 to $95.2 million by the time we get to 2020-21. That is a massive reduction in infrastructure funding for my home state of South Australia. Yet we see the government side and the Deputy Prime Minister twist it around, turn it around, package it and put a bow tie on it and tell us how great they are with their generosity to infrastructure projects in South Australia. When asked about the South Australian infrastructure budget, the Deputy Prime Minister began talking about Commonwealth investment in the defence industry. That has absolutely nothing to do with the infrastructure side of what he was asked the other day in question time. The reality is that there is a massive cut. It's dropping from $921.4 million down to $95.2 million.</para>
<para>When we were in government we saw some great projects taking place in South Australia. I was very honoured and proud, together with my colleague the member for Adelaide, to advocate and push for the Torrens to Torrens upgrade, which borders the two electorates of Hindmarsh and Adelaide. Many times we met with the Minister for Infrastructure at the time, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler. To his credit, together with the state government, he entered into a partnership for a great infrastructure project that will actually take 15 minutes off for travellers from south to the north. That's 15 minutes every day each way. Imagine the three or four hours that those people will now be able to spend with their children at home, reading them their bedtime stories, spending more time with family. That is a project that really will make a difference, make the road safer, and has created hundreds and hundreds of jobs. That's ready to open soon. I'm sure the members opposite will want to take credit for that, even though we remember the former member for Boothby saying at the time that we shouldn't spend that money on that particular piece of infrastructure.</para>
<para>That's a little example of how they always came kicking and screaming to the table when we needed infrastructure in South Australia. I want to pay credit to the member for Grayndler for his great vision in pushing for this project together with the member for Adelaide and me. It has nearly come to fruition. It's nearly finished. You will see a great piece of work that goes through the electorate of Hindmarsh and the electorate of Adelaide.</para>
<para>We now have a $23.6 billion-dollar deficit, and the government wants to hand out $65 billion to Australia's biggest businesses, which have many shareholders who are overseas. A lot of those profits will be going overseas. Instead of putting $65 billion into really good projects that could create some jobs and get the economy going, we're giving $65 billion to some of the biggest multinational companies as a tax break. At the same time, your lowest paid income earners, workers, will get an increase in tax of approximately $350 per year. Where is the fairness in that, when you see massive cuts to big business, in terms of giving them handouts, and increases of $350 per year in the tax on your workers with the lowest income? There is no fairness in that. Maybe the Prime Minister and the ministers opposite might actually bother to visit South Australia and spend some time on the ground and see what's going on in South Australia. They would then appreciate it much more.</para>
<para>Despite the federal government abandoning South Australia—not just in infrastructure but in a whole range of other things—and the removal of funds from our state, the state Labor government, led by Premier Jay Weatherill, has done remarkably well. What we have seen since 2013 when the Abbott coalition came to power—and then the Turnbull government—is a $355 million shortfall for rail and roads in South Australia over the past three years. This is according to its own estimates. It didn't deliver what it promised. Straight after that 2013 election, we saw all the backflipping that took place—on everything, including the submarines, which the government did not wish to give to South Australia. Even though they made promise after promise at the 2013 election, they only came to the table when it was their jobs that were at risk, not what was for the betterment of South Australia. I am pleased that they are being built in South Australia, but, if it wasn't for those on the Labor side of this chamber and the workers down at ASC, this wouldn't have happened, because they were quite happily ready to wipe their hands of it and ensure it didn't come to Adelaide. The Abbott-Turnbull government have had a $355 million shortfall on rail and roads in South Australia over the last three years. It said it would commit $1.44 billion, and it has spent $1.08 billion in Adelaide. Where did that extra money go that was promised and never occurred?</para>
<para>As I said, the government also cut $3.6 million from road safety funding through the Black Spot Program, which is absolutely criminal, because the road safety Black Spot Program is for dangerous roads where tragedies or near tragedies have taken place. These are roads that need to be fixed, that need to be made safer, to make our transport drivers, families and the everyday public that use those roads safer, because these are spots where there are absolute dangers right now, and this money has been cut from South Australia. It's a program that's focused on saving lives. It is not an extra infrastructure spend just for the sake of it. It's a project that saves lives, and it is criminal to take that money away from it.</para>
<para>In addition, there has been a lack of investment by this government in manufacturing in my home state and other states around this country. Let's never forget the abandonment of South Australian manufacturing by this government. Under the leadership of prime ministers Abbott and Turnbull and the then Treasurer, who were all part of cabinet, Holden was unceremoniously chased out of the country. Those of us from South Australia will never forget the speech that the former Treasurer made in this place, basically goading them. A few days after that speech, an announcement was made by the CEO of General Motors Holden, Mr Devereux, saying that they would be leaving the country. Why do nations around the world support car manufacturing? We heard from the other side that we couldn't go on giving handouts to General Motors Holden. As I've said in this place before, every country that manufacturers vehicles has a subsidy for each assembly line worker on that production line, and there is a reason they do that. It is not just to hand out money to manufacturers; it's because they know that value-adding creates more jobs. For each assembly line worker, you're creating another 30 jobs out in the real world. That is real value-adding. It helps the economy. It creates jobs. That's why, all around the world, nations that produce motor vehicles subsidise their industry. They subsidise it because they know it helps the economy. It creates jobs, and the spin-off, in the return from taxes, far outweighs the amount they give.</para>
<para>The subsidy that we gave, when compared to that of other nations, was very minimal. I've looked at the figures of Japan, Korea, US, Germany that produce cars—their subsidies are much higher, and they do so because they are smart. They understand that each and every job they create in the manufacturing circle creates more jobs, and the spin-off helps the economy and the nation. We will not forget what they did to South Australia with GMH, where they basically said, 'There'll be no more subsidies.' This meant that GMH pulled out and went to another country that was more than willing to give subsidies, a smart country that understands creating an economy around the car industry. But, no, this government wanted to make additional dollars available in the budget at the expense of our South Australian working men and women. Again, the country has been left behind by policy decisions that are based on ideology and not the facts. I just explained some of those facts in the car manufacturing industries.</para>
<para>Another great example is Labor's superior future-proof fibre NBN that we were promoting in 2013. That was butchered by this government, but I'll get to that a bit later. So they've walked away from the car manufacturing industry and they've walked away from the national electricity grid. They've walked away from infrastructure and they've walked towards big businesses and multinational companies with overseas entities that have major shareholders, with their pockets open and their smiles a mile wide, with a $65 billion handout. That's the signature policy of this current government—a $65 billion handout to some of the biggest and richest multinationals in Australia.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Hindmarsh the demographics show that as one of the oldest electorates in age around the country with, at one stage, nearly 20 per cent of the electorate 65 and over. This brings me to pensioners and self-funded retirees, people who've worked all their lives, paid their taxes and built this nation—literally built the foundations that we stand on. What has this government done to make their lives easier or better in retirement? These are the people who, as I've said, have already contributed so much to Australian society and done so much for this nation. Let's not forget that Australia would not exist without those who came before us, those who sacrificed their lives—many of whom were veterans; they fought in wars—and some of whom are still alive today. In addition to our veterans, there are the men and women who literally built the buildings, the bridges, the airports and the infrastructure that we still use today.</para>
<para>How does the government look after those people? What do they do? From 2013 right through to today, to 2018, all we've seen is snip, snip, snip and cut, cut, cut for all those people who are now at retirement age. We've seen changes to deeming rates, for example. This is one of the only governments that's actually lowered the threshold. Usually, the threshold goes up with CPI. This is a government that lowered the threshold that kicked thousands of aged pensioners off the pension—people who'd worked hard and saved a little bit of money on the side to ensure that in retirement they could live comfortably, and this government has just pulled the rug from under their feet. They won't forget. They come to my electorate office regularly and tell me how upset they are by that government decision.</para>
<para>Again, pensioners who choose to go and live overseas—why not? They've worked all their life here. They've paid taxes. They've worked hard. They've contributed. It is their right to choose where they want to live when they're 65, yet we're seeing different cuts and different rates for people who decide to live overseas in their retirement and allowances that just do not keep up with the CPI and cuts made in that area. It's a little bit rich, isn't it, that we're giving out $65 billion to those top-end businesses and cutting from the people who built this country?</para>
<para>As politicians, we have a tribunal which awards pay rises for parliamentarians and senior public servants—and quite hefty ones, too, I've got to say. What do pensioners get? A CPI increase to keep things in check while costs explode around them, and we've seen energy costs rise. I talk to pensioners who are struggling to pay their electricity and gas bills. All this government can do is sit around and point the finger at state governments and a whole range of things. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and ensuring that we have a good national energy policy that creates competition and ensures that we lower prices, all they can do is point the finger at South Australia, Victoria and other places, wipe their hands of it and say, 'It's nothing to do with us.' It is something to do with us. This is a federal government. We can show some leadership and we can ensure that we do something about energy and the price rises of over 70 per cent in the last six years. You do that by ensuring that you have a national energy policy, something that's lacking in this government.</para>
<para>All we have is the National Party saying: 'We don't believe in climate change, and anything to do with renewables is not good; we're not interested.' We had the Treasurer come in with a hunk of coal and plonked it down to show how great coal is. This shows the way this person thinks. Sure, coal plays a role. But throughout the world there is billions and trillions of dollars being invested in renewables and new technologies that we're missing out on. There's a prediction of about $6 trillion within the Asian region over the next 10 years in the economy for renewables. We've sat back and all we can do is play politics with it, instead of ensuring that we have a good national policy on renewables that allows business to plan for the future so that we have more energy in the market to bring prices down. That's what a government should be doing. But, no—these guys just want to point the finger at different people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great privilege to be able to stand and speak on the appropriations bills. What Australians should be absolutely rock solid on, as we get closer to the next election, is that Australians will have a very clear choice as to who is best set to manage the economy—who is best set to manage jobs and growth for the future. During the course of this speech, I want to have a look at the coalition's track record and put that against those who sit on the opposite side of this chamber.</para>
<para>The previous speaker, in his contribution, spoke briefly about energy costs, reminding the Australian public of what those on the other side of this chamber did in the way of energy costs for pensioners and how tough it was on cost-of-living pressures. I'd remind the Australian public that the Australian Labor Party took great glee in putting a tax on energy. Everyone would remember the carbon tax: 10 per cent extra for pensioners, mums and dads and small businesses—no-one escaped it. We have a subtle difference between the policies of this side of the chamber and those of the other side. There is not a tax that those on the other side of the chamber will not run to with great gusto, as opposed to this side of the chamber, which is actively promoting jobs and growth through sound policy, which the Liberal Party has driven. Jobs and growth—no less than 400,000 jobs, in contrast to the number of jobs that were grown when Labor was last in power.</para>
<para>The coalition government is heading in the right direction. We're making gains that will ease cost-of-living pressures, help ensure jobs and jobs security and ensure that we can afford to deliver social services and support those who are most in need. That's what this government is about. It's not about the rhetoric, the grandstanding or the picketing. We're about getting on and doing it. Those on the other side will oppose this concept, but the best way you can help someone in need is to give them a job—give them a reason to get out of bed every morning, give them a purpose and give them the capacity to go and buy a car or a home. You can only do that when you are in employment and making a contribution to this nation. We, hand on heart, believe in that concept. The same cannot be said for those on the other side of the chamber.</para>
<para>A strong economy is the key to creating more and better-paid jobs. Jobs and growth—look at our record: 400,000 jobs. I have a graph in front of me. Between 2008 and 2013—it's in black and white, so I'm having trouble. I need the colour graph. Regardless, it shows that under Labor I think there were 150,000 jobs—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hammond</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is it written in English?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, I did ask my office to send this down to me, and poor backbenchers don't have colour printers. Not to lose the point—under Labor I think there were about 200,000 jobs. This government has created 400,000 jobs—more than a 1,100 per week. Never before in history have we seen so many jobs created by some singular pieces of policy driven by the Turnbull government. It was the strongest calendar year growth on record. The Australian economy has created 1,100 economy jobs every single day.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Hammond interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You should write that down, Member for Perth, and aspire, if you ever get into government, to match those contributions that we have made. We are very proud of it, and I would encourage every member of the government, whenever they walk into this chamber, to remind the Australian public of how proud we are of the work that we're doing in creating jobs and growth in this economy. The vast majority of these jobs have been full time. They're not trickery jobs like you will see in some Labor state governments. They'll just ramp up their public service and think that they're stimulating the economy. Most have been in the private sector, because we all know that the engine room of the economy is that small business sector. The number of new jobs created in this year represents nearly five times the jobs growth of the last year of the previous Labor government. That's an enormous contrast: five times the difference between our growth strategy and Labor's. Who is best set to manage the economy? Which side of the House is best set to look after your interests when you're looking at it through the prism of jobs growth and results on the ground? The decision for the Australian public is extremely clear. We are looking to build the economy with more and better paying jobs for Australians and locals in my electorate of Wright. This is why the business community is responding to the Liberal Party's policy. We have cut company taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and reduced the income tax of nearly 500,000 middle Australians.</para>
<para>Some of those on the other side, who have come up through the union ranks, who have never been in a business, scoff. They scoff about why you would give business a handout. Why would you give business a handout? But how is it that we're creating 400,000 jobs—1,100 every day last year, 2017? How are we creating those jobs? Because we're incentivising small business—3.2 million small businesses. We're doing it in a number of ways, and we're doing it through tax incentives. As part of the government's Enterprise Tax Plan, the company tax rate for small business has been cut to its lowest rate in 50 years, from 30 per cent down to 27.5 per cent for businesses with a turnover of up to $25 million this year, and for businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million for the years 2018-19.</para>
<para>What does that mean? If you have a business employing four or five or 10 people, and you reduce their company tax rate, what happens is that their net profit at the end of the year is greater. Those on the other side, as I heard when they were making contributions to this debate the other day, said, 'Business is there to make profit.' Whilst that is so true, business is also there to grow their business. The way that you grow your business, as an owner, and the way you reduce the amount of time you invest in your business, is to put more people on. As the wage pressures become greater and the staff look to move on for better opportunities, that is when wage growth comes. Both sides of the House are focused on wage growth. I will speak to that in due course. For unincorporated businesses with a turnover of less than $5 million, we've introduced a tax discount of eight per cent capped at $100,000. These changes will benefit 3.2 million businesses employing around 6.7 million Australians, including many small businesses in Wright, which will help them to invest and create more jobs.</para>
<para>So when we say 'jobs and growth', it is not just a slogan. The Australian public is going to hear a lot more about jobs and growth as we move into the next election phase. Labor's refusal to support lower taxes means Australian workers will be left behind on wage rises, as the jobs and the wage rises they should be getting are sent to the government in continued higher taxes and also go offshore.</para>
<para>We've seen in America the enthusiasm with which the markets have responded to their enthusiasm to reduce company tax rates. We have seen those in Singapore. We have seen those in the London. Their economies have flourished and prospered as a result of lower taxes.</para>
<para>More recently, in Sydney, we were very fortunate to host, as a nation, the Australian Economic Forum, the A50—50 being representative of 50 influential people from around the globe who have their fingerprints on the Australian economy. The Minister for Trade was there and spearheaded the message to the 20 investors from around the world, coupled with the 20 biggest companies of Australia that were in the room and 10 regulators and senior members of the Australian parliamentary landscape. There was a panel session in that room where the investors from around the world spoke wholeheartedly about the competition for their money. Australia is a net importer of finances. The investors sat in that room and said, 'If Australia does not become competitive with its tax rate, there are many other places around the planet where we can invest our money.'</para>
<para>Labor is holding this country to ransom. If we are looking at Australia to continue to be a net importer of finances, the way that we will remain competitive in the future is to reduce our company tax rate. Those on the other side say they will oppose that. Previously, before the legislation came before the House, virtually everyone from a financial position on the other side of the House indicated that that was a good thing and that in government that would be their policy. But, because we have come up with it, the class warfare ticket comes out from those on that side—that it's giving to the big banks and big business. If we do not, we will do not at our peril, and our nation will be poorer for it because we will not be able to attract the foreign investment that is needed. If those on the other side are suggesting that putting company tax rates down will not have a net benefit in trying to attract foreign investment, I challenge those on the other side to say to the Australian public that they are going to increase company taxes because increasing company taxes, by the same juxtaposed position, will not have an effect on company tax—and they know that is not the truth.</para>
<para>Each year since 2015, the coalition government has provided an instant asset write-off for small business—and hasn't that been a cracker! The small business sector has just loved it. Underpinning those 400,000 jobs—those 1,100 jobs every week—that instant asset write-off of $20,000 has been one of the valuable peak weapons in our arsenal for providing growth for the nation. In a nutshell, the instant asset write-off means that if you were to buy an asset for your business, valued at anything up to $20,000, such as office equipment—for example, new computers or new photocopiers—so that your administration can find efficiencies, historically, under the Australian Accounting Standards, you would depreciate those assets according to the depreciation schedule set for that product. I think computers are quite high. They might be 30 to 40 per cent or possibly 50 per cent. So you would amortise or depreciate that over a period of three years or the life expectancy of the product.</para>
<para>The instant asset tax write-off allows small businesses to claim the entire $20,000 back that year. It is an enormous stimulus to a small business. If a small business is able to reach out and claim that depreciation back in that first year, it means that business is going to reinvest that money back into their business. We are seeing firsthand that businesses are reinvesting that money back into their business, and they are reinvesting it by employing more people—and that's where those 1,100 jobs are coming from. That is where the record five times more than Labor's 400,000 jobs are coming from. They are coming from the very salient tax policies that this side of the House, the Liberal Party, has put in place—and that should never be jeopardised.</para>
<para>At the beginning of my speech I suggested that there will be a very clear choice as to who is best set to manage the economy as we move forward. Last year, around 300,000 small businesses accessed the instant asset write-off to invest in machinery and equipment and to help grow their businesses, including more than 2,500 in my electorate. Labor have not seen a tax that they would not run to and grasp with both hands. If Labor were to be trusted with the books, Australian households and businesses would be slapped with no less than a crushing $164 billion tax bill. Those on the other side would impose that on the Australian public with, firstly, Labor's housing tax at $20 billion. Then there's Labor's investment tax, estimated at around $13 billion—which is an increase in capital gains for assets by 50 per cent, by halving the capital gains tax discount. Then there's Labor's tax return of $1.5 billion, courtesy of Labor's proposal to slap a $3,000 cap on the amount that individuals can deduct for management; Labor's higher income tax at $22 billion; Labor's tax of $22 billion on families; Labor's tax of $25 billion on superannuation; the tradie tax, which will touch 800,000 tradies; and, finally, Labor's growth tax of $59 million. Winston Churchill once said that trying to tax the nation into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We've just heard from my colleague and friend the member for Wright, who said, 'Who is best set'—I think those were the words—'to look after Australia's economy?'</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Buchholz</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Jobs and growth!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And jobs and growth—yes, the talking points have had a good working out today in this place. I do want to talk about who is best set to run the Australian economy in my opportunity of addressing the House about the bills before the House: Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. It enables me to place on record on behalf of the people of Oxley that they are worried about how this economy is running. They are worried about the future of our economic growth in this country and they are concerned, more importantly, about the standard of living as a result of the economic settings of this government. From where I sit and from those I represent, the time for excuses is over. The time for the blame game, which we've heard about from speaker after speaker today, is over. The time now is for this government, the Turnbull-Joyce—for the time being—government, to literally own up and start taking responsibility for the gigantic debt that they are building day by day, week by week.</para>
<para>This facade cannot continue any longer. We know that the Prime Minister is a master of shifting blame. When in doubt, he starts talking about the Leader of the Opposition and Labor, in question time after question time. There's never a narrative about what this government wants to achieve and never a narrative about the values that this government stands by. There's always one default: attack Labor. That's it. No ideas; no vision for this country.</para>
<para>We know that the government, every day of every month of the five years they've been in government, have been racking up the debt on the nation's credit card. Today, I'm asking them to take responsibility for it. Time and time again, we see the government looking to hop, skip and run away from the heavy burden that they are inflicting, not only on the people of the south-west of Brisbane, whom I proudly represent, but right across the country. No more finger pointing and no more what could have been or what should have been; just owning up to the here and now, which is what this government should be taking responsibility for. Instead of saying, 'We need leadership. I am a strong leader,' it's about time the Prime Minister came in here and started owning up to the facts. The narrative or the myth that the Liberal Party, or the Liberal-National Party—the coalition—are somehow superior economic managers when they are instead presiding over a record amount of growing debt—just as they have done for the last five years—needs to be put on the table. Gross debt has already crashed through half a trillion dollars on this government's watch, rising to at least 2027-28 when it will reach a new record high of just under $700 billion.</para>
<para>I can remember, before I was elected, seeing the language around 'debt and deficit emergencies'. I can remember 'debt trucks'. I can remember hearing, 'Under the coalition, debt will always be lower.' Well, it's not. In fact, it has gone through the roof. We know that net debt is also blowing out to reach new highs over the next three years. Despite the never-ending pile of growing debt, this government is hell-bent on its one signature policy. Debt is rising. It's going through the roof. It's the highest it has ever been in this country. We see the one silver lining that this government has of a $65 billion handout to big business. As we have seen, at all costs this is the prerogative and agenda of this government. But the truth is that the tax cuts for multinationals will never, ever deliver anywhere near enough bang for the $65 billion that we are giving away to large multinational companies. They will simply jeopardise budget repair and investment in the productivity capacity of our economy.</para>
<para>We are seeing in the tabloids day after day captains of industry, multibillionaires and multimillionaires demanding that they pay less tax and saying that somehow wages growth in this country will benefit, with no evidence to suggest that, apart from multimillionaires and billionaires saying that it will. But we know, in fact, the advice given by Treasury to the Treasurer shows any benefits of the $65 billion handout to big business are negligible at best and will not be felt for a very long time. The Treasury modelling indicates the tax cut will boost GDP by just one per cent in 20 years time. We are forgoing $65 billion of revenue. Big corporations and large multinationals get a tick, but there will be an average increase of just 0.05 per cent per year. In anyone's language—and we hear this a lot—this is the definition of trickle-down economics at its most ridiculous. It is a cash grab for the government's supporters in the big end of town in the largest proportions, but we see very little for every other ordinary Australian.</para>
<para>Today we see reports that company profit margins have risen to levels not seen since the early 2000s, but wages growth has been slower than at any other time since the 1960s. I will put it this way. Try coming to my electorate and going to the mighty Blue Fin Fishing Club or the Goodna RSL or maybe grabbing a coffee at the Coffee Club at the Forest Lake Shopping Centre and going up to people who I proudly represent and saying: 'We've got an economic plan and the plan is that we are going to give large multinational companies huge tax breaks to allow them to pay less tax. That is the people right at the top. We are going to give millionaires a tax break. But everyone else here sitting in this Coffee Club is going to have to pay more tax.' What sort of alternative universe are members of the government sitting in? If you go out into the communities that the members opposite represent, maybe they get a great reaction when they visit shopping centres and supermarkets and do street-corner meetings and turn around and say: 'Guess what? I have got great news for you. The largest companies in Australia which, as we are already seeing today, aren't paying their fair share of tax are going to be paying even less tax. For good measure, people on extremely high incomes will get a $16,500 tax break. But for everyone else here we're going to increase your taxation. That's for a family on $60,000 to $80,000.' I don't know if they are talking to the same people in the supermarkets, the coffee shops, the newsagents and the post office who come up to me and talk about the rising cost of living, the pressures of insecure work and the fact that they haven't had a wage increase. I don't get that reaction. I certainly do not hear that on the streets from the people I represent.</para>
<para>What have those opposite put on the table to pay for the $65 billion handout that will give an economic boost of just 0.05 per cent per year? How do we do this? Well, we make cuts to families through changes to family tax benefits and we make cuts to pensioners through scrapping the energy supplement. We make cuts to jobseekers, forcing them to wait for support from Newstart. We make cuts to young people by forcing them from Newstart onto youth allowance, and we make cuts to new parents and families through changes to early childhood payments.</para>
<para>Sadly, in my electorate of Oxley around one in four families will be worse off under this government's childcare proposals. But we know it doesn't stop there. As we know, through the media today, those opposite, representing the parliamentary friends group of payday lenders, aren't even interested in implementing commonsense reforms to protect vulnerable Australians. And I want to put this on the record, because it is a burning issue across my community. I know they are feeling the pressure, and I can see my friend the member for Perth and shadow minister for consumer affairs, who is really leading the charge on this to help the people who are feeling pressure—the 1.8 million families who are feeling financial distress.</para>
<para>We are seeing record numbers of people taking out payday loans. Why? Because of the facts that I spoke about earlier in my remarks today. Under this government, if you're doing well and you are earning a heap of money and you are a captain of industry or you're running a corporation, you do very well under this government. You do extremely well under this government. But if you're a pharmacy worker, a retail worker, a cleaner, a teacher's aide, a police officer or a nurse living in my electorate, you don't do so well under this government. In fact, you're going backwards.</para>
<para>So, regarding the real pressure for families, who are turning to payday lenders to make ends meet—the research is up, and we know that the government knows this as well. In fact, the minister for revenue endorsed a package of recommendations and delivered a draft bill to explain the government's agenda. From what we understand, it passed through the cabinet processes. Minister Keenan is at the table. He would have signed off on it. We know that this was approved and delivered by the then spokesman for the government, who said that this will be law by the end of the year. But what has happened? Nothing. The extreme right wing of those opposite, the economic rationalists, have got their hands on this to roll the minister for revenue. They've rolled her. We know that the parliamentary friends of payday lenders in this place have enormous sway. They've got the sway, but as for the consumers and the battlers who are being preyed upon by some of these practices: if members of the government think it's reasonable and fair for a low-income earner or a pensioner to have to spend over $3½ thousand on a fridge or a washing machine that should cost them a couple of hundred bucks, they are in fantasyland. They are so far beyond the realms of what is happening in the community.</para>
<para>We often say, with the Prime Minister being described as Mr Harbourside Mansion, and given all the trappings that go along with having millionaires running this country, that the government are not in touch with the community. I've witnessed that by listening to speeches from those opposite. But here is a bill, here is legislation to deal not with looking after the top end of town but with real people and real lives, and this government has signed up to it. They've agreed to it. They've signed on the dotted line and have said, 'This is a way forward to deal with these unscrupulous practices.' The minister for revenue has been delivered a report with 24 recommendations, with bipartisan support, as well as an exposure draft of a bill to set the record straight, to deal with all of this. So what has happened? What's the hold-up? That's the question we want to know the answer to, and we will continue to ask it. On this side of the chamber we stand for action. We stand for protection for vulnerable Australians. We're not going to stand by and do nothing. We hear often that we need bipartisanship: 'We want the opposition to work with us. Why won't you come in and join with us?' Well, we are joining with you. We are going to stand with you.</para>
<para>My question to the ministers at the table and the government members is: why aren't you standing by your own bill, which has been endorsed by the cabinet processes of this government? It has been ticked off by the cabinet, ticked off by a cabinet minister, the minister for revenue—who, I may add, was silenced by the Treasurer when I and the member for Perth asked basic questions about where the legislation is and why the government won't protect vulnerable Australians. She was muzzled. She was silenced. We haven't had an explanation as to why that was the case.</para>
<para>We know that this government is looking after one section of the community, but we know Bill Shorten and Labor will look after everyone else in the community as well. The Liberals were once known as the party of economic managers; we know that they've crumbled to be a party of handouts and hope and tax cuts and, simply, more talk of growth. While I'm talking about the tax cuts, where are they? What is the government's plan for delivering tax cuts? When this government gets into trouble and there are crises engulfing it—as we see on a weekly basis now, whether it be a dysfunctional Deputy Prime Minister or a backbench that is revolting against the government—we know that, when it comes to tough times and, in particular, when Australians are dealing with the very tight wages situation of record low wages growth and income inequality in Australia, this government has one trick: look after big business and then vaguely talk about tax cuts for everyone else.</para>
<para>We know that even small businesses are deserting the government in droves. The latest census business index confirms what we and business owners at the coalface have known for some time: the Prime Minister is nothing but hot air when it comes to backing small business. We know that, when it comes to delivering fairness, only this side of the chamber will deliver an economic plan to deliver that. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-18 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-18. I welcome the opportunity to inform the House about the nature of the Turnbull government's commitment to investment in nation-building infrastructure. I want to make three points in my remarks this morning. Firstly, we are seeing unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment by the Commonwealth government. Secondly, this substantial investment is driving economic growth; it's driving investment; it's driving employment outcomes. Thirdly, our program of infrastructure investment reflects key policy priorities of the Turnbull government, including increasing and improving productivity and efficiency in the Australian economy and finding a greater role for private investment and private capital in the infrastructure sector.</para>
<para>Let me turn to the unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment we are presently seeing. In the first budget given by the coalition government after coming to government, we promised that we would invest $50 billion in infrastructure by 2020-21. We are well on track to doing that. Let me take you through the actual spending levels over the past few years. In 2013-14 the total Commonwealth infrastructure spend was some $7.3 billion, in 2014-15 it was $6 billion, in 2015-16 it was almost $6 billion, and in 2016-17 it was more than $9 billion, whereas in 2012-13, the last full year of the previous Labor government, the amount spent on infrastructure by the Commonwealth was $4.5 billion, materially less than the kinds of numbers I've just been quoting.</para>
<para>If we look at the average annual spend on infrastructure across the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years, the average Commonwealth spend on infrastructure across those years was just over $6 billion. By contrast, since 2013-14, under the coalition government, average Commonwealth infrastructure funding is around $8 billion a year. That is, on the one hand, $6 billion under Labor on average each year and, on the other hand, around $8 billion on average each year under the coalition. So do not be fooled by the ludicrous claims repeatedly made by the member for Grayndler that in some way the Turnbull government is spending less on infrastructure than was spent by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, because the facts say precisely the opposite. The Turnbull government is spending more on infrastructure than the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government spent and, in fact, we are spending at record levels. In last year's budget we committed that, over the 10 years from 2017-18 to 2026-27, there will be $75 billion in infrastructure funding and financing across grants, equity investment and loan investment. Some of the highlights of that $75 billion spending will include a commitment to spend $10 billion over the next 10 years on the National Rail Program, a $9.4 billion equity investment in the massive Inland Rail project and a $5.3 billion equity investment in Western Sydney Airport.</para>
<para>So it's interesting to note that not only are we spending more—materially more—in absolute terms than the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government; it's also instructive to note that the share of total public infrastructure spending coming from the Commonwealth is materially higher now than it was in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, 24 per cent of total public infrastructure investment came from the Commonwealth. That figure now stands at 29.9 per cent.</para>
<para>Let me mention some of the major projects and classes of project that are being funded by the Turnbull government. The first class of project is major highways connecting or running from our capital cities. For example, there is a commitment to spend $6.7 billion towards a whole range of projects at various points along the Bruce Highway, which runs approximately 1,700 kilometres from Brisbane to Cairns. We're spending $5.6 billion to upgrade the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane so that by 2020 there will be four lanes all the way between our largest and third-largest cities.</para>
<para>We have committed $9.4 billion to Inland Rail. That will be an equity injection into the ARTC—the Australian Rail Track Corporation—to build a 2,000-kilometre inland rail route between Melbourne and Brisbane. That will allow rail freight to go between those two cities in 24 hours, much faster than the current times, and, in turn, will make rail freight a more attractive proposition compared to road freight and increase rail's mode share of the freight travelling between Melbourne and Brisbane. That's economically desirable. It's also desirable from a road safety perspective, as we shift some freight, which presently goes in trucks, onto rail.</para>
<para>One of the other major classes of project is the transformational investment we are making to build Western Sydney Airport. Due to be operational by the end of 2026, Western Sydney Airport will give Sydney much-needed additional aviation capacity. According to the joint study into the aviation needs of Sydney, which reported to the previous government in 2012, by 2027 there will be no additional slots available at Kingsford Smith Airport, and by the mid-2030s there will be no additional capacity. So it is vital for Sydney and vital for the nation that we have additional aviation capacity in Sydney, and the Turnbull government is getting on with delivering Western Sydney Airport to meet that objective.</para>
<para>A second benefit of Western Sydney Airport is that it will give the people of the rapidly growing Western Sydney area much better and more convenient access to air travel at an airport located within their community, rather than having to travel all the way across the Sydney metropolitan area to an airport located on the far-eastern fringe of the city. The third benefit of Western Sydney Airport is it will attract businesses and jobs to Western Sydney, an area where another one million people are expected to live over the next 20 years. It will support tens of thousands of jobs—some 11,000 anticipated direct and indirect jobs through the construction phase, and by 2031, five years after operations commence, there are expected to be around 28,000 direct and indirect jobs.</para>
<para>Let me mention just a few of the range of major projects presently underway within our capital cities: the $16.8 billion WestConnex motorway project in Sydney, a transformational project supported by the Turnbull government with a $1.5 billion grant and $2 billion concessional loan; major rail projects in Sydney like Sydney Metro City and Southwest with a $1.7 billion Commonwealth contribution; a $789 million Commonwealth contribution in Perth; the Monash Freeway and the M80 Ring Road in Melbourne, where the combined contribution by the Commonwealth is $1 billion; the enormous North-South Corridor set of projects—three projects, in Adelaide—with a total Commonwealth commitment of over $1.6 billion.</para>
<para>The second point I want to make to the House is that this unprecedented level of infrastructure investment is generating economic growth and creating investment and business opportunities. Interestingly, if you look at Australia's level of transport infrastructure investment and maintenance spending and compare it to other countries in OECD, looking at the 2014 data—which is the most recently published by the OECD—Australia's level of spending at 1.4 per cent of GDP was equal highest in the OECD.</para>
<para>Let me cite a recent report by BIS Oxford Economics which highlights the strong growth in publicly-funded engineering construction. The report says that in fiscal 2016 publicly funded engineering construction commencements was up 24 per cent and work done rose 11.3 per cent. The report observed the:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… pick-up in publicly funded work has been underwritten by the commonwealth government's Infrastructure Investment Program as well as strong growth in state government infrastructure programs.</para></quote>
<para>The most direct effect of this investment is in employment outcomes. According to the economics team at the Commonwealth Bank, the lift in public infrastructure spending in fiscal 2018 will generate an extra 36,000 jobs in Australia. The same team finds that that lift in public infrastructure spending will directly add half a percentage point of GDP growth in fiscal 2018 and, including the multiplier effect, it puts the impact as high as 0.7 of a percentage point of GDP growth.</para>
<para>The Treasurer highlighted the impact of infrastructure investment when he recently announced the September quarter national accounts figures which found that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">New public final demand, across all levels of government, was up a solid 1.2 per cent in the quarter, to be 4.4 per cent higher through the year.</para></quote>
<para>He noted that this growth was driven by government investment in building the capacity of our economy and our Defence Force. The total value of public and private construction work done in Australia increased by more than 15.7 per cent to a total of $61.8 billion—almost 30 per cent more than the same time last year.</para>
<para>The third point I want to make is that this unprecedented level of infrastructure investment is giving effect to key policy priorities of the Turnbull government, including driving productivity and efficiency in the Australian economy and finding a greater role for private capital in infrastructure.</para>
<para>Let me talk about the productivity consequences of the $5.6 billion I've mentioned that we're investing in the Pacific Highway. Already the journey time between Sydney and Brisbane is around an hour and a half less than it was before this massive program commenced. Heavy vehicles are saving a bit more—105 minutes. The total travel time saving will be 2½ hours when this massive project is complete or five hours on a return trip. The productivity benefits of that, with all the trucks going up and down the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane, are very, very significant.</para>
<para>In 2011, New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services commissioned an economic appraisal of the Pacific Highway upgrade program, including projects open since 1996, projects committed to completion by 2014 and remaining projects required to complete the duplication of the Pacific Highway. That appraisal found that the overall program would return $3.20 for every dollar invested. That is a very good rate of return, and it just demonstrates the productivity and efficiency benefits that are being secured through this unprecedented level of infrastructure investment being delivered by the Turnbull government.</para>
<para>One of the other policy priorities of the Turnbull government is maximising the role of the private sector in infrastructure investment. Let me mention that many of our major airports are of course now privately owned, including Brisbane Airport, which is investing some $1.3 billion in a new runway. It is private capital that is going to deliver public benefit with more capacity at Brisbane Airport, more flights and even better economic integration between Australia, Asia and other parts of the world, facilitated through flights taking off from and landing at Brisbane Airport. That capital cost is not required to be met by the taxpayer; it's met by the private owners of Brisbane Airport based upon their assessment of the fact that there is an economic return there. We are keen to encourage increased private sector involvement in infrastructure. Of course there will always be a strong role for government, but the more we can have private sector involvement, the more we can meet the large requirements for infrastructure that we face in our growing and prosperous country.</para>
<para>The points that I wish to make to the House this morning are that we are seeing unprecedented levels of infrastructure investment under the Turnbull government. That is generating economic growth, generating jobs and strengthening business opportunities. It reflects policy priorities, including driving productivity and efficiency in our economy and getting a greater involvement of private sector capital in the infrastructure sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. The difference between the Turnbull-Joyce government's idea of a fair Australia and the Shorten-Plibersek-led Labor government's idea of a fair Australia is becoming more obvious and clearer day by day. The centrepiece of the 2017 Turnbull-Joyce budget is a $65 billion big business tax cut—a tax cut that will cost $15 billion a year by the end of the medium term. Think about that: a $15 billion tax giveaway annually.</para>
<para>It has been revealed in media reports today that Qantas has not paid any tax for almost 10 years—none, nada, zip. The tax rate for Qantas has been zero for most of the last decade. So if you believe the Turnbull-Joyce government's economic theory, the wages of Qantas employees would have correspondingly increased with this decrease in their tax rate, but the wages of most Qantas employees have barely kept pace with inflation. In fact, their wages have increased less than three per cent over the last decade—with one exception. The Qantas CEO's salary has almost doubled from an already lofty $12.9 million to a sky-high $24.6 million. So much for trickle-down economics! Within Qantas there is a serious drainage problem—some blockages.</para>
<para>We have a $65 billion tax cut for big business. It's not fair budget reform. A handout to big business when working Australians are reeling from cost-of-living pressures and record low wages growth is unfair and, dare I say, un-Australian. People in my electorate of Moreton are doing it tough. They want to see their wages increase. They want their cost-of-living pressures eased. They want their children to have a good education and they want affordable health care. That's what I'll be fighting for.</para>
<para>The Turnbull-Joyce government is making health care more expensive and less accessible for Australians. You cannot trust this government with health care. We know that. We've seen it over the last 40 years with conservative governments. The Turnbull-Joyce government is intent on cutting Medicare, cutting public hospitals and failing to stand up to big-profit health insurers. The out-of-pocket costs for people living on the south side have never been higher. The Turnbull-Joyce government has not dropped any part of their freeze on Medicare. The rebates for GPs, specialists and allied health services all remain frozen until 2020 even though the costs they experience are going up. The government is ripping $2.2 billion out of Medicare over the next four years. Before the last election, Prime Minister Turnbull promised Australians that they would not pay any more to see the doctor due to his freeze on Medicare. That was incorrect. Queenslanders are now paying about $7.50 extra to visit a GP. People in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the ACT are all paying more to see a GP or a specialist.</para>
<para>I do acknowledge that Australia has a world-class healthcare system, but private health insurance plays an important role in making sure that everyone has access to the care they need. The premiums for private health insurance have increased 27 per cent since the Liberals were elected in September 2013. That is an average increase of $1,000 to the annual private health bill of Australian families—$1,000 extra that has to be found every year by families doing it tough. As a result, Australians are walking away from private health coverage. Coverage has dropped to the lowest level since 2011.</para>
<para>This is a crisis for our healthcare system, and the Turnbull-Joyce government is failing to address it. Once again we see where their priorities lie. The private health insurance industry raked in $1.8 billion in pre-tax profit last year, and the government gave the insurers $1 billion in savings. But the health insurers still increased the premiums of Australians by twice the CPI. This is unfair. Labor has a plan to stand up to private health insurers and shift the balance back to consumers, back to Australians, back to families who are doing it tough. Under Labor's plan, families would save $344 on their private health insurance.</para>
<para>Australia's public hospitals are the work horses of our health system. I say that as the son of a nurse. In my electorate of Moreton we have the QEII hospital and, right across the road, the PA hospital, servicing much of Queensland. I would also mention in passing the Sunnybank Private Hospital. The two public hospitals I mentioned are crucial in providing good health care to the people living on the south side. But last week we saw the Turnbull government try to lock in seven years of public hospital cuts. This is a government that fundamentally is not supportive of health.</para>
<para>Under the Turnbull government's watch, waiting times for elective surgery are the worst they have been since records have been kept. Patients requiring urgent medical attention are being left in the emergency departments of our hospitals longer. In the last financial year, only 66 per cent of urgent emergency department patients were seen within the recommended 30 minutes. More than 50 per cent of public hospital doctors are working unsafe hours, putting these doctors at significant risk of fatigue and burnout. The AMA has complained that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The strain and pressure on our public hospitals is having a detrimental impact on the health of our doctors.</para></quote>
<para>The Turnbull-Joyce government does not think that our public hospitals deserve to be funded. Instead, we have a Prime Minister who wants to give big business a $65 billion handout. Labor will always fight for health care. It is in our DNA. We believe fundamentally in health care.</para>
<para>In recent months, my office has received a number of phone calls and emails from Moreton locals wanting to know what is going on with the NBN, the largest infrastructure project in Australia's history—something kicked off under Labor. Under the last Labor government, every Australian was set to have access to internet speeds of 100 megabytes per second. Under the last Labor government all Australians in every electorate could easily go to the NBN's website and find out when the NBN rollout would begin in their suburb. For so many Moreton suburbs that was supposed to have already happened.</para>
<para>Putting aside the substantial delay and blowout in costs that occurred because of Prime Minister Turnbull's leadership, there's actually a more pressing problem for the people of Moreton. Well over 80 per cent of my electorate is set to receive a technology called 'hybrid fibre coaxial'. HFC is what the government likes to call a 'legacy' technology. If I can translate this for everyone to understand, it means old technology. HFC uses old cables built—and, in many cases, poorly maintained—by Telstra and Optus in the 1990s. In November last year my electorate, like the rest of the country, got the surprising news that there would be a pause in the HFC rollout and the NBN. That's right: the second-rate NBN coming to Moreton is being delayed further because Prime Minister Turnbull can't actually give us a technology that works. Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise, considering how terrible the Turnbull government's NBN policy has been.</para>
<para>The introduction of HFC has been of great concern for people in my electorate, and very few of them have actually been able to get connected so far. Lack of access to broadband for local homes and businesses has reached crisis point. Feedback from local residents and businesses has been loud and clear—the substandard copper NBN rollout is simply unacceptable in 2018. Moreton locals have told me about their terrible internet connections and how it's affecting their everyday lives. Richard, who manages a business in Acacia Ridge, contacted my office following a horror experience on the NBN. His business is heavily reliant on internet connectivity, and NBN problems seriously damage his operation. Neil in Tarragindi told me his daughter is doing a summer semester at university to help her get ahead in her degree and eventually her career, but she can't access her work or submit her assignments over the network because it is unreliable. This is in 2018 in an inner-city electorate. Unfortunately, these stories from locals that I have shared are not surprising, and that's not the end of it. I could give you many more examples.</para>
<para>In August the Senate heard that the HFC cabling had 50 times more network downtime than fibre connections. Mr Turnbull's NBN is a joke. It needs to be fixed. This government needs to do something about it. The costs have blown out under the Turnbull-Joyce government and so too has the time frame for its delivery. The fact is this: under Labor, all of Moreton was scheduled to get world-class fibre-to-the-premises NBN, delivering superfast internet speeds using fibre optic cable to every home, every school and every business. This would mean superfast internet supporting future curriculum resources and benefiting education for our kids and schools. A modern network with 21st century technology is the key to preparing students for the jobs of tomorrow with digital learning and online research and collaboration—the hallmarks of many future careers.</para>
<para>Also we know that fast and reliable connectivity is going to be essential for the jobs of the future. We know that. But more pressing are the advantages for local small businesses that should be available to them right now. The NBN will enable businesses to access markets well beyond their current reach, helping them grow from small businesses to medium-sized and then bigger. I know local businesses in my electorate demand more fibre, the modern and reliable technology to set them up to compete and succeed on a larger scale. They've told me this election after election and meeting after meeting. I'll do everything I can to fight for more fibre in Moreton. Fibre is the technology. I ask everyone who has written to me or called me, frustrated about their terrible internet, to join me in the fight. Let's get the best possible NBN rollout for our local suburbs. Let's fight for more fibre.</para>
<para>As a former teacher and the parent of a high school student and a primary student, education is very important to me and to my family. Education is important to every one of my constituents—their own education, their children's education and the education of all those who provide services in our community. Tragically, the Turnbull-Joyce government is ripping funds out of the schools that need them most. Eighty-six per cent of the cuts will actually be to public schools. Low-fee Catholic schools will get 12 per cent of the cuts, and independent schools—including some elite, high-fee-paying schools—will get a cut of just two per cent. Compare that—86 per cent cut to public schools, 12 per cent cut to Catholic schools and two per cent cut to the rest. In my electorate of Moreton, $15 million will be ripped from public schools and $8.6 million will be ripped from Catholic schools. These cuts will mean fewer teachers, less one-on-one attention for children and less help with the basics of reading, writing and maths.</para>
<para>I was at an event in Parliament House last night for the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers. I am a co-chair of this group. The theme for our event was education. Professor John Hattie spoke at the event about his work around how children learn. He spoke of the importance of positive teacher-student interaction for effective teaching. Teachers are crucial to the education a child receives. Fewer teachers will have a dramatic impact on the quality of teaching and education and, therefore, outcomes. At the same time that the Turnbull-Joyce government is ripping money out of our schools, it's making life easier for big business and millionaires by giving them tax cuts. This is short-sighted. Investing in our schools will benefit everyone in the long run.</para>
<para>In January I had the pleasure of visiting Sunnybank Hills State School with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek. Sunnybank Hills State School has nearly 1,400 students. That probably makes it one of the biggest P-to-6 schools in the country, but it's an outstanding example of government provided education. On our tour we visited year 1 and year 5 classes to see their robotics and coding courses. I learnt things about coding from kids in grade 1! As coding and robotics will be critical for the jobs of the future, it's important that they learn this stuff early at our schools.</para>
<para>We also visited a prep class to see the innovative phonics program that is used to help children from non-English-speaking backgrounds to get up to speed and then get ahead. This genuine needs based funding at Sunnybank Hills State School means these prep kids are getting really intensive one-on-one help. In fact, we were in the prep classroom looking at groups of five or six children being taught by one teacher. This start will stay with these children throughout their whole schooling. It will provide a firm foundation from which they can springboard into lots of opportunities.</para>
<para>But Prime Minister Turnbull has made his choice. He wants a $65 billion tax giveaway for multinationals, big banks and wealthy companies, while slashing $17 billion from schools. What does this mean for Sunnybank Hills State School? It means a cut of $1 million over the next two years alone—and other schools in my electorate will suffer a similar fate. All the school programs we visited at Sunnybank Hills State School could be at risk.</para>
<para>Labor will restore the funding to schools that Prime Minister Turnbull is cutting. This means that we'll put back the $1 million cut from Sunnybank Hills State School and ensure these essential learning programs, which are so important, can continue for our kids. Labor believes in fairness. We believe in everybody having a fair go. Labor believes in everybody being able to achieve their potential. That's what I'll be fighting for as the member for Moreton.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always a great pleasure to follow my good friend the member for Moreton. He's a great local member and a great fighter for the Labor cause. But, tragically, he's terrible at squash! He cannot win a game on the squash courts—and it's important that the country knows that fact. Even someone like me, who suffered from asthma in my childhood, can beat him. But it's about asthma that I want to talk.</para>
<para>Asthma is a really serious condition. I shouldn't make jokes at the member for Moreton's expense, and I shouldn't introduce this subject with such levity, because asthma is a very serious disease and a very serious issue. I suffered from it in my childhood, and there were numerous times my mum had to take me to the women's and children's hospital. I think she still carries a lot of trauma from those visits because they were very serious.</para>
<para>Asthma Australia have pointed out that one in nine Australians has asthma. It hospitalises 39,500 people a year and results in 419 deaths each year. That is a very, very serious problem for not just the individuals concerned and their families but also our hospital system because every one of those attendances in an emergency ward obviously consumes valuable health resources, valuable time and valuable funding, which our hospitals could put to other uses were those attendance numbers reduced in some way.</para>
<para>We know that children under 14 represent 52 per cent of those asthma hospitalisations. So it's absolutely critical that we have a national organisation—Asthma Australia, in this case—that can train and educate people to learn how to monitor their asthma, to prevent flare-ups, to prevent hospitalisations and ultimately to prevent deaths. That's why it's so concerning that this government cut funding to Asthma Australia in 2017 by 57 per cent. That is a cut of $4.73 million over three years. That is a very, very serious cut to a very, very important organisation.</para>
<para>Of course, those cuts are not really a saving to the government or to the taxpayer because, if people don't manage their asthma—or any chronic disease—properly, we know what happens. We get more attendances in emergency departments. We get more attendances in hospital. And a hospitalisation in acute care costs infinitely more than prevention does. This would seem to me to be a very foolish way of trying to manage the Commonwealth budget or manage state budgets. It's a very silly way to manage taxpayers' resources, because what you might save in the Commonwealth budget will be more than consumed through increased attendance at hospitals.</para>
<para>Of course, it makes a mockery of the Asthma Strategy 2018 that the government came out with earlier this year, committing $1 million over two years for school and youth programs. On one hand they cut; on the other hand they give. It's this sort of pea and thimble trick in health that does not save a single dollar, does not help families, does not help communities and doesn't help doctors, nurses and those in our emergency wards; it just creates confusion and makes it hard for organisations to operate. Of course, it can potentially cause desperate problems out there in the community. I don't want to slam into the government or harangue them; I just want them to fix what is a pretty simple thing to fix. It's not a great amount of money in the context of the health budget, and it's certainly not a great amount of money in the context of a Commonwealth budget, but it has a very real effect for families, children, sufferers of asthma and, more importantly, our emergency wards, which are obviously under pressure and which we are trying to better manage. I think the government should reconsider the cuts to Asthma Australia.</para>
<para>The other issue I want to raise is that of the GST. I know the GST concerns Western Australians greatly. I know that it's a hot topic in Western Australia. My great-grandfather and grandfather were both Western Australians, so I think I was educated somewhat about the mindset. Interestingly, my great-grandfather was a personal friend of Charles Court—I was shocked to find that out. It's interesting, because Western Australia, South Australia and other small states used to be on a unity ticket about horizontal fiscal equalisation. For years and years and years we were the recipients of funds that were allocated from New South Wales and Victoria. That was for good reason: we were larger states with small populations and we needed to develop this massive continent. That's why we have what is a very fair system, a system that has been developed over time in order to make sure Western Australians, South Australians, Tasmanians and New South Welshman are all treated in roughly the same way in terms of services. That's important because we're all one country. We're very, very fortunate to have a continent to ourselves, not to have divisions based on geography or separatist elements in our country. We're extraordinarily lucky that we live in a country where we are bound by this national ethos.</para>
<para>The GST and its allocations are very, very important issues. Of course, there seem to be mixed messages coming out of the government. On one hand we have the Treasurer telling the country that the GST allocation system is broken, is a mess that has to be fixed. He sent the Productivity Commission in to do a report, and those reports are very serious indeed for South Australia, because they propose $600 million in cuts. These are serious budget cuts to South Australia's GST allocation. They have a terrible consequence for the number of doctors and nurses in EDs, the number of teachers in schools or the number of police out on the streets. They have terrible consequences for the services provided. On the other hand we have two cabinet ministers, Minister Birmingham and Minister Pyne, saying, 'Nothing to see here.' In fact, in the Adelaide <inline font-style="italic">Advertiser</inline> on 7 February, Senator Birmingham said, 'Right now there's no proposal for change and nothing for people to fight over.' That is a strange thing to say when the Treasurer, on the other hand, said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The PC inquiry has already demonstrated in its interim report that the system is broken and needs a real fix.</para></quote>
<para>It's very interesting to see how different MPs have responded to this. We have Minister Pyne saying there's no policy to change things. We have Steven Marshall out there saying he would oppose any change to the GST carve-up. Then we have the Liberal backbench, who certainly seem to think that there's something going on in terms of South Australia's GST allocations. We've got the member for Boothby saying she would fight for a 'fair deal' for South Australia and she would fight 'to protect the state's interests'. We've got Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, who's a parliamentary neighbour of mine in South Australia, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Any attempt to undermine this principle will be met with a fierce fight from me and, I would expect, every other South Australian in Federal Parliament …</para></quote>
<para>So he's there saying that he would fight a fierce fight on that principle. He makes the same point I do about services in South Australia. We've got the newly-minted South Australian Liberal senator, Lucy Gichuhi, saying that she had concerns and that if such a change were pursued there'd need to be a cushion for South Australia for a possible impact. That's a different thing. However, she has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">South Australia continues to suffer from challenging socioeconomic issues such as a high unemployment rate, a low workforce participation rate, an ageing population … among other things.</para></quote>
<para>Rowan Ramsey, my colleague from Grey, seems to raise the white flag, although he does say: 'I will resist change until I'm sure SA's interests are protected.' That's less of a fierce fight than the member for Boothby and the member for Barker.</para>
<para>What this article shows is that there is an intention, a proposal, to change the GST allocations across this country, and the Treasurer has made it plain that he's going to take this to cabinet, but only after the South Australian election. What they're trying to do is, frankly, what they've done on shipbuilding, Holden and a whole range of issues that concern South Australia. They want to have a go at us; they want to have a crack at us—unfairly so. They maligned our shipbuilding industry. They maligned the car industry. They maligned South Australia's abilities and role as a state. But they don't quite have the courage to do it before a state election. They don't quite have the courage to do it when votes are on the line, so what we will find is that, after this state election, a horrible proposition will be made by this government regarding GST allocations to South Australia—and, probably, to Tasmania and the Northern Territory—without any capacity for South Australians to resist it.</para>
<para>If that's the government's grand political plan, I think it's going to go about as well as every other grand political plan they've had in South Australia. Let's not be under any illusions about it, because the Adelaide<inline font-style="italic"> Advertiser </inline>again reported, just this week on 13 February, in an article entitled 'GST black hole worth billions, report shows'. The article said that we will be $2 billion poorer if this carve-up is in place over the next five years. That will have a devastating effect on South Australia, and it is manifestly unfair. It is manifestly out of character with the way we have conducted ourselves as a country. The way we have conducted ourselves as a country is to say: we will have the same supports, the same level of services, the same ideas about education and health, no matter where you live. And, of course, that is most important for those who live outside our capital cities, because they are particularly vulnerable to cuts in services. The further away you get from the Commonwealth government office in Sydney the worse off you might be under such a proposition, and that is just not right. It won't help Western Australians. Those West Australians who live in rural centres relied on this system for years and years in the postwar situation. It allowed us to develop our great minerals industry in Western Australia, and it's allowing us to develop a great minerals industry in South Australia.</para>
<para>So I urge the government to take a longer view of this, not to jump to conclusions, not to embark on a course of action that will undermine the federation—a very important idea of a fair go, of equality, of the fact that we won't have a situation like they have in America, where there are some very great differences in wealth, in education, in social outcomes, in health outcomes and in employment outcomes from one end of the country to the other. It doesn't help outlying states; they're the ones which suffer. It doesn't help people in rural communities; they're the ones who suffer. They don't get a fairer go, if you look at those systems. What happens is that the big cities and the places that generate great wealth—which tend to be cities in this modern economy—are where wealth ends up residing, and that growth has this accelerating effect.</para>
<para>So, let's not embrace the worst ideas that operate in the United States of America, in their great union. Let's keep the spirit, the justification and the fairness that's inherent in an Australian federation—the idea that we should all be equal, that we should all give each other a fair go. I'd urge this government to back off their terrible plans to rip off South Australians to the tune of $2 billion.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No 3) 2017-18 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-18. Unlike some others, Labor is always committed to supporting supply, and for that reason I support these two bills. But please do not mistake my support of these appropriation bills in any way to be an endorsement of the government's fiscal policy. Do not mistake this support as an endorsement of the financial pain inflicted on families, workers, students and pensioners by this government—because it is not.</para>
<para>Every day the impact of this government's cruel cuts on everyday Australians is being felt in households across the country. They have cut to the bone of some of the institutions and services that make this country one of the best in the world—universities, schools, the public healthcare system. We have witnessed an attack on higher education by this government, where $2.2 billion in uni cuts has meant that 10,000 university places this year will go unfunded. We have witnessed this government introduce an unfair funding regime that cuts $17 billion from schools, hitting public schools the hardest. 'Not a dollar difference,' they cried at the 2013 election. It turns out that it's a $17 billion difference. And we've witnessed this government wallop vocational education and TAFE, with a whopping $3 billion ripped from their funding.</para>
<para>Unfortunately it does not stop there. We have watched this government stand by as private health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 27 per cent since the Liberals were elected in 2013. We've watched as this government, through its four-year freeze on Medicare, has ripped $2.2 billion in addition to the money already sucked from Australians who are in need of health care. These cuts are hurting people. These cuts are a heavy burden for families to carry, because people still need to go to the doctor, to school, to TAFE and to university. This government has the gall to say that these cuts are necessary while at the same time throwing a lazy $65 billion bonus to the big end of town. What a nerve! It's irresponsible, and it's an outrage.</para>
<para>On 2 July last year nearly 10,000 people in my electorate of Brand, through no fault of their own and with no renegotiation of their conditions, had their pay slashed when their penalty rates were cut. They didn't work fewer hours. They didn't change the work they were doing or the days on which they were doing it. These retail, pharmacy and hospitality workers—nearly one in seven workers in the cities of Kwinana and Rockingham—were just collateral damage for this government. Instead of sticking up for low-paid workers, instead of protecting workers' pay and conditions, this mean government failed to do the right thing for working Australians and to join with Labor to protect the penalty rates of 700,000 workers across this country.</para>
<para>But that is what we get when we have before us a government that does not understand that losing $77 per week from a pay packet hurts families, that it hurts the community. We have before us a government that made the decision to ignore the burden these penalty rate cuts would place on those who could least afford it and instead chose to bestow a $65 billion tax cut bonus on those who do not need it. This government does not protect workers. Its Jobs and Growth slogans are just hollow words for the thousands of people across Brand and the rest of the country who are doing it tough.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago, some disturbing figures came across my desk—the January illion bankruptcy analysis from an illion data and analytics media release, summarising their findings of Australian household financial health across the country. More than 32,000 Australians went bankrupt in 2017. That's a 6.1 per cent aggregate increase across recent years, and it follows on from a 4.7 per cent rise in 2016. These figures paint a devastating picture of how people are faring under this government. They show us how desperate people are. They show us that people are struggling to get by. Don't take my word for it. The author of the bankruptcy analysis—illion CEO, Simon Bligh—has said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Consumer debt levels are rising steadily in Australia as a result of record mortgages and a surge in everyday essentials such as utilities, petrol and healthcare. These factors, combined with weak wage growth, are putting pressure on the wallets of Australians.</para></quote>
<para>I'm not an economist, I admit, but it would not take an economist to work out that cutting wages and increasing the costs of health care and education at a time of high underemployment will put people under financial pressure. And it is very worrying that the age at which the extreme end of financial distress is affecting people is falling. The average age of those declaring bankruptcy is falling fast, from nearly 48 years of age in 2013 to just over 40 years of age at the end of 2017. How proud the Prime Minister and this government must be to know that their legacy for the country involves presiding over an ever-lowering of the age at which people file for bankruptcy. Jobs and growth? I don't think so.</para>
<para>The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook confirms that the top end of town—the millionaires and the banks—will enjoy generous tax breaks. It also confirms that those who can least afford it will carry the burden of the government's budget's failure and attacks on essential services. That is something that I and many members here see daily. The suburb of Baldivis in my electorate of Brand is in the very unenviable position of having the highest concentration of personal insolvencies in 2017. The figure of 103 personal insolvencies is 10 per cent higher than the next-highest suburb. I ask the government to think about the impact this has on communities. We are talking about 103 families living under a cloud of debt and fear and despair. This is a dark reality lived out across the country, one that drives vulnerable people and desperate families into sickening arrangements with unscrupulous payday lenders. We know that 650,000 financially stressed households in this country have a payday loan. These loans are mostly last-resort situations for people who have exhausted all financial options. But when the loans and leases mean that hard-up families are having to pay interest rates of more than 800 per cent, and where they end up paying more than $3,000 for a household appliance, like a washing machine, that originally cost $350, there is an obvious problem that needs fixing.</para>
<para>Why has the government been sitting on a report on the payday loans industry instead of taking a stand against these ruthless lenders? What is it about this government that it not only prescribes its own cuts to services and budgets but also stands by idly as struggling households are bled dry by unscrupulous payday lenders? Fortunately, Labor will take action. I welcome the imminent introduction of a private member's bill by the member for Perth that will seek to enact the very legislation the government prepared last year to address the insidious practice of loan sharks that prey on vulnerable Australians.</para>
<para>The small amount credit contract and consumer lease reforms are admirable. In October 2017, the government released an exposure draft on this legislation to enact the recommendations of the SACC review and promised that a bill would enter parliament by the end of last year. But times change quickly with this government. Since the reshuffle of 17 December these reforms now fall to the member for Deakin to implement, and they are going nowhere. The minister for revenue has been rolled by the parliamentary friends of payday lenders, and that is a crying shame for Australian consumers. Make no mistake: this bill is identical to the government's exposure draft in every way, word for word. The SACC bill is government policy and, by all reports, the words of this bill have been approved and gone through all cabinet processes. So why do they not bring on the bill themselves? Why do they not support it? There are no excuses. This bill is their bill. It's very obvious to all Australians: this government looks after the top end of town and has little care for vulnerable consumers in this country. I would like to thank my friends and colleagues the members for Oxley and Perth for their tremendous efforts in the community and in this place in advancing the reforms that will put a stop to predatory payday lending and protect Australians, because the government sure wasn't going to do anything.</para>
<para>I would like to reflect for a moment on unemployment. Unemployment in my electorate of Brand rose from 6.7 per cent in June 2013 to 9.8 per cent in June 2017. This is an unacceptable rise of more than three per cent in four years. In the south of the electorate, the suburb of Port Kennedy has experienced a rise in unemployment from 7.6 per cent in the September quarter of 2016 to 8.2 per cent a year later in September 2017. In the west of my electorate, the suburb of Rockingham has experienced a rise in unemployment from 12.6 in the September quarter 2016 to 13.6 per cent in the September quarter of last year. And, in the north of Brand, the suburb of Parmelia near Kwinana has shocking figures: from 17.6 per cent unemployment in the 2016 September quarter to a whopping 18.9 per cent a year later.</para>
<para>We're still waiting on that 'jobs and growth' promise the Prime Minister likes to talk about. We are waiting for that to eventuate in Brand, and with the growing unemployment figures comes growing mortgage stress. With the 1.1 million underemployed Australians comes mortgage stress, and with the increased cost of living and stagnant wages comes mortgage stress. One in four households with a mortgage does not have enough money to pay their mortgage repayments and living expenses. Still, those opposite are not satisfied. No, they are not—not when they have more cuts to inflict.</para>
<para>They are still pursuing the energy supplement or, rather, ditching the supplement, which would leave pensioners $366 a year worse off. Why stop there? Why not make people work to the age of 70 before being eligible for an age pension? I honestly despair at what callous measures this government might think up next. These cuts, we are all told, are necessary and are being done in the name of budget repair but, I ask, what is actually being achieved by these cuts, apart from pain?</para>
<para>It has been said, and is worth saying again: the midyear budget update figures are not good. The deficit this year is eight times higher than the government said it would be in 2014 at $23.6 billion—and that's up from $2.8 billion. Gross debt is on the way up already, smashing the half a trillion dollar mark, and record net debt will hit new highs in the coming three years.</para>
<para>Australia is in need of a different fiscal policy; the current one is not working. Australia is in need of a new government; the current one has proved that it is not up for the task. We have policies that will improve the budget and will do so fairly and responsibly. Instead of squeezing people until they hurt, there are tens of billions of dollars in fair budget repair measures. Do not ask those who are doing it toughest, those who are the most vulnerable in our communities, to bear the brunt of unfair, harsh measures.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is always interesting to get up in parliament to talk about the federal budget and Tasmania. It's nice to remind members in this place that Tasmania exists, when it comes to the federal budget. Earlier this week, Tasmanians tried to get an answer out of the infrastructure minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, about projects that are locked in for our state. He mentioned agricultural irrigation—a Labor project. He mentioned the Midland Highway—another Labor project. And then he mentioned Inland Rail. Well, unless the Deputy Prime Minister has figured out a way to get a rail line across Bass Strait, while still calling it 'inland rail', I can only imagine that the Deputy Prime Minister has some secret plan to build an inland rail system actually in Tasmania that does a choo-choo circuit of the island. All aboard the 'Barnaby Express'! It would no doubt, like the Deputy Prime Minister, cost a lot of money, go around in circles, make a lot of noise but eventually not achieve very much at all.</para>
<para>Tasmanian members of this House well recall the dim, dark day of last year's federal budget—the so-called infrastructure budget, in which not one significant new infrastructure project was announced for Tasmania—$74 billion for projects across the rest of the country but nothing beyond previously announced projects for Tasmania. If there were any one thing that this government could do to demonstrate its contempt for Tasmanians in recent memory, that was it.</para>
<para>Tasmania has a number of infrastructure projects that could benefit our state economy. Take, for example, the Bridgewater Bridge—a 70-year-old bridge that has been lined up for decades for an upgrade, which is getting increasingly more urgent as the industrial sector and population grow around the Brighton area in my electorate. The current old bridge carries, on average, 18,500 vehicles per day and it locks down into a bottleneck of two lanes. It is a lifting bridge. Boats have to go past every now and then, so it has to lift and vehicles stop, but the heritage lifting mechanism is wearing down and subject to breakdown. Let's face it, things have come a long way since the 1940 build date. So, a new replacement bridge has been on the drawing board for years, but there has been no substantive action by this government to make it happen.</para>
<para>There are the possible upgrades to the Tasman Highway along the east coast of my electorate. It is affectionately known as the 'Great Eastern Drive'. It's fair to say the views are great and so are the communities along the way, but the road itself could not be described as great. It's a winding road with most of it being one lane each way, carrying increasing numbers of tourism traffic.</para>
<para>Arthur Highway on the Tasman Peninsula, which connects the town of Sorell to Port Arthur, is one of the busiest tourism destinations in the country. Sure, it is a state government road, but the state Liberal government has been so inept that it has failed to ensure this road can accommodate its growing traffic needs. And there's the Bass Highway in the north of my electorate, especially the stretch between Hadspen and Deloraine, which could do with additional lanes.</para>
<para>There is a dam or two on the East Coast that could be funded to improve water security. There are the facilities at Mount Field and Ben Lomond to give tourists a better skiing experience or the footy oval at Boyer, the sportsgrounds at Longford. The list goes on. There are many, many infrastructure projects in my electorate alone, let alone the rest of Tasmania, that could have been funded by this government in the so-called infrastructure budget but were not. This minister, this Treasurer, could have nominated any one of these projects. Instead, what we had the other day from the Deputy Prime Minister was the mythical inland rail, which, of course, is going nowhere near Tasmania.</para>
<para>But, of course, this government's Tasmanian failures are not just in infrastructure. In 2015 the Senate held an inquiry into biosecurity in Australia, chaired by Tasmanian Senator Anne Urquhart. It red-flagged, amongst the 26 recommendations, federal funding cuts to biosecurity, which have led to cuts in frontline staffing and less money for research and prevention. Fast forward to 2018 and we now have a fruit fly crisis in Tasmania where 18 cases of flies and larvae have been discovered in Flinders in the north of the state. We've never had fruit fly before, but, since biosecurity cuts came in under state and federal Liberal governments, it has emerged for the first time in Tasmania, putting at risk a $200 million fruit and vegetable industry and the reputation of Tasmania as a clean, green agricultural state. These are the real, practical effects of cuts to biosecurity.</para>
<para>There's not just fruit fly; we've had the POMS outbreak—Pacific oyster mortality syndrome. We don't blame the government for the outbreak. It's a natural virus that comes down from the East Coast as the waters are naturally warming. But, if we had better biosecurity in place and the Liberal government in Tasmania and the Liberal government in Canberra took biosecurity more seriously, perhaps it could have been arrested earlier, instead of seeing the outbreak occur and oyster farmers in Tasmania pay the price. There is a clear need to increase federal and state oversight of biosecurity related issues that have the potential to ruin multimillion-dollar industries and impact thousands of people.</para>
<para>Farmers in Tasmania are demanding that information that has been posted about fruit fly and the exclusion zones be made available on the front page of the newspapers, included in mail-outs and texted to people in the area using the emergency text systems in place. They make these requests because they know that, if people don't know what the exclusion zones are and how important they are, people will unwittingly take infected fruit out of the exclusion zone and spread the disease. The government needs to get serious about doing this. Farmers want to take an eradication approach to these matters, not a management approach—not: 'Oh, well, it's here now; throw up your hands and surrender and just live with it.' Farmers want these issues eradicated. That means that the federal government and the government in Tasmania need to get much more serious about this issue.</para>
<para>Many farmers in Tasmania are from generations of a family working on the land. The impact of Taiwan and China putting a halt to hard-won trading deals, hard-won fruit deals, has a huge impact on employment and cash flow, and, once you have lost those customers, it is hard to get them back. The $1 million cut to Biosecurity Tasmania three years ago—which has been found in leaked documents—had an immediate and catastrophic effect on the Tasmanian market. So it is a series of biosecurity issues. These are not isolated incidents; it is a pattern of behaviour. It is complacency and arrogance.</para>
<para>Tasmania is in an education crisis, with $68 million ripped from Tasmanian schools over the next two years. That had been previously budgeted. The money was there. The money was available and it has been ripped back. The Tasmanian Treasurer will not fight for this funding. In fact, he denies that there has been any loss. What else would he say with his Liberal mates here in Canberra? Just imagine the difference $68 million would make: more resources, more teachers, more science, more coding, specialist teachers, smaller classrooms and more pathways for Tasmanian kids, who are already behind the eight ball compared to kids on the mainland, to open the door to a life of opportunity.</para>
<para>Last year, <inline font-style="italic">The Mercury</inline> newspaper surveyed the public about the Tasmania that kids wanted to live in. The common theme to emerge from responses was the need to place a greater value on education and, in particular, an emphasis on completing year 12. Tasmanian people believe that improving Tasmania's educational opportunities will be the key to sharing the state's wealth more fairly, but that is going to be very difficult to achieve with the education cuts that this government has introduced. Tasmanians also rated as very important improving digital connectivity—it was rated as very important by 40 per cent of respondents—and lifting the minimum wage was rated as very important by 33 per cent.</para>
<para>Lyons, my electorate, lags behind the Australian average when it comes to education at every level. Only 10.9 per cent identify as having post-school qualifications, compared to 22 per cent being the Australian average. Of people aged 15 and over in Lyons, 9.6 per cent reported completing year 12 as their highest level of education, 19 per cent completed a certificate III or IV and only 7.5 per cent completed an advanced diploma or diploma. Across the board, these figures lag well behind the mainland—and the figures are not going to improve with the funding cuts introduced by this government.</para>
<para>So it follows that Lyons, my electorate, sits in a challenging place for finding a job. According to the latest census, 14½ thousand people reported being in the labour force in the week before census night in Lyons. Of these, 52.7 per cent were employed full time, 34.3 per cent were employed part time and 6.3 per cent were unemployed. Now, 6.3 per cent doesn't sound bad, until you go into the regions. There is 24 per cent youth unemployment in places like Sorell. It's a patchwork outcome of unemployment in my electorate.</para>
<para>The vocational educational system is also in crisis. After years of neglect and the opening to unscrupulous VET industry training companies who popped up to take advantage of the open market, this government is madly scrambling to get the sector under control. There are still plenty of people in my electorate and my state paying off dodgy certifications that they didn't get to complete after the closure of some of these dodgy operators. Telstra's 2016 <inline font-style="italic">Digital inclusion</inline> report revealed that Tasmania hits the bottom of the list when it comes to digital literacy. This all comes back to this government's sense of priorities. Tasmania just isn't a priority for this government. In digital literacy, Tasmania falls way behind. With virtually no investment from either the federal or the state government, a very dodgy NBN rollout—it's way behind schedule and way above cost—and under-resourced regional schools, Tasmanian kids are simply falling behind, and they're going to find it much harder to catch up.</para>
<para>I think the general perception that if you can use a phone and get on Facebook then you are digitally okay needs sorting out. The internet and good broadband means much more than that. The internet's not just some toy to watch movies on or to play games on. It's an essential economic business tool. It's an essential educational tool. Increasingly it will be an essential medical tool, and for that you need good bandwidth, of which there's far too little in my electorate. Industry expert William Kestin from TasICT presented evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on the NBN last year showcasing the incredible gap between the delivery of the NBN in Tasmania and people understanding how to use the NBN. He recommended that Tasmania start including digital and coding training from kinder upwards—something Labor wants to do in government: increase the level of digital literacy by getting the kids involved, learning coding in schools. That is something this government could learn.</para>
<para>The government has not jumped on this at a federal level or at a state Liberal level. But additional resourcing from a Rebecca White Labor government—Rebecca White's the opposition leader in Tasmania—should she win will come from prioritising bridging education gaps and building skills from birth up. Tasmania needs a comprehensive plan to address the gaps in education and training—one that will address, in the long term, strategies to create a learning state with real outcomes.</para>
<para>Finally, and certainly not least, I come to health. So much has been said about health in this place, and the crisis Tasmania is facing in health. We are in absolute crisis in Tasmania. Ambulance ramping is out of control. Rebecca White, the opposition leader, has been posting photos just in the past couple of days about the level of ambulance ramping at Royal Hobart, and it's scary to see. The ambulances are down the ramp and on the road. That's real patients in real ambulances waiting just to be admitted to hospital. A Rebecca White Labor government will introduce $560 million into the health budget in Tasmania and put 500 more health workers into Tasmania, and that's a hell of a lot more than this government is doing for Tasmania. I certainly urge everybody to consider voting '1' Rebecca White.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The two appropriation bills that we have before us in the House provide appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund for the annual services of the government for the remainder of 2017-18 and facilitate implementation of a number of 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, or MYEFO, measures. A total of around $1.5 billion is sought for the remainder of the 2017-18 financial year. These amounts are already incorporated into the budget bottom line as presented in the 2017-18 MYEFO. The Labor Party will support supply, but I don't think we can let the opportunity pass to examine in some detail the priorities of this government as demonstrated by its budget.</para>
<para>What this budget delivers is tax handouts for multinationals and millionaires whilst hurting every Australian family in the name of discredited trickle-down economics and, all the while, peddling the distortion that Australia's corporate tax rate is internationally uncompetitive. It demonstrates a clear lack of vision and highlights just how out of touch Prime Minister Turnbull and the Liberals are with everyday Australians.</para>
<para>The constituents in my electorate of Bass have little interest in the Prime Minister's $65 billion tax cut for big business in that they cannot see any connection between giving big business a tax cut and the claim of more jobs or increased jobs in the electorate of Bass. What they are concerned with is the day-to-day cost of living, paying their bills and having opportunities for them and their families to get ahead. What they also see, in contrast to what the government trumpets in its economic plan based around tax cuts for big business, is a government that fails to stand up for those who have lost part of their income through cuts to penalty rates. They see a government that does not stand up for our maritime workers, for example, or, in the face of the outsourcing of Australian jobs and the destruction of our car industry, for our manufacturing workers. They see a government that does not stand up for the individual.</para>
<para>Budgets are about making choices, and you can see what choices this government makes, writ large, in the budget and its so-called economic plan. The government underinvests in education whilst claiming the implementation of Gonski. It claims record investment in health care whilst negotiating long-term funding agreements that see more and more money being ripped from our public hospitals. It also fails to understand that investment in our universities and in technical and further education will drive economic growth. That investment would also drive future employment, supporting healthy communities where working-class and middle-class Australians—middle Australia—can aspire to home ownership and a decent standard of living.</para>
<para>The government continually seeks to justify the increase in taxes for ordinary Australians on the basis that the NDIS was not properly funded, despite the evidence within the budget papers that establishes otherwise. In any event, why should anyone accept the word of the government as to whether the NDIS was funded or not, when this government of no ideas and no-hopers proposes an unfunded $65 billion handout to big business as the central plank of their economic plan? This economic plan increases the tax burden on low- and middle-income earners whilst reducing the corporate tax rate, without regard to the average corporate tax rate paid or, indeed, the effective corporate tax rate, which is amongst the lowest in the world. This approach is economic vandalism.</para>
<para>This is the same government that spoke of a debt and deficit disaster, that sought to penalise young people by refusing access to Centrelink benefits for six months of each year. However, it's failed to do anything that is fiscally prudent to reduce the deficit and our national debt, whilst at the same time it's proposing to hand out tax cuts. Labor in contrast has proposed responsible savings that significantly improve the budget over the medium term, including ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share. We have also ensured that reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax will address not only housing affordability but also the budget bottom line.</para>
<para>Finally, reforms to the taxation of trusts are long overdue. We on this side of the House know that it's possible to use trust structures in a manner that reduces the tax burden of high-income earners. The government must surely know that reform in this area is necessary to ensure fairness within our income tax system, but it refuses to do anything meaningful to ensure taxation compliance.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House know that investment in education drives economic growth and, in particular, is instrumental in combatting disadvantage. Economic analysis undertaken for the university sector suggests that the mere presence of more university graduates in an economy drives increases in wages for non-university graduates. In other words, at its most basic, the presence of more university graduates within an economy is likely to be a positive influence on the local economy. This has direct relevance in my home state of Tasmania. Federal, state and local government have recognised and supported the University of Tasmania's transformation project, which is not just an infrastructure project; more importantly, it's also tasked with improving the presence of university graduates within the Tasmanian community and the associated beneficial effects on the Tasmania economy. The Liberals' response, despite their welcome investment in the University of Tasmania transformation project, is to cut funding to the university sector. Students are also being saddled with a higher debt associated with higher education.</para>
<para>We know that investment in public education produces significant benefits for our wider communities. Time and again, whilst door-knocking, I had useful conversations with constituents about the importance of ongoing investment in education. Every parent knows that investment in education produces a benefit for that person's child or children. Every person should know that investment in education produces general benefits for our community in a very real sense. Every person needs to be comforted that investment in the education of a child living over the road is of real benefit to the local community. The child next door receiving a good education means that that person is likely to receive the best possible opportunity in life in order to obtain employment and play a fulfilling role in society. In this respect, there is a direct connection between investment in education, education outcomes and community benefits, but in Tasmania the state Liberals are also missing in action on education. We also know, for example, from experience in the United States and elsewhere, that programs like Justice Reinvestment and programs designed to divert offenders or those most likely to offend from the justice system have a heavy reliance on education. Just as the social determinants apply to predicting health outcomes, so too does educational attainment have a linkage with offending, incarceration rates and more general disadvantage. Choices were made by this government to favour $65 billion worth of tax cuts rather than additional investment in universities and TAFE.</para>
<para>This government speaks about record investment in infrastructure, but its actions in advancing infrastructure projects demonstrate either extraordinary cynicism or, in the alternative, breathtaking incompetence. Either the government promises record expenditure on infrastructure projects and deliberately constrains expenditure on that infrastructure or, in the alternative, it is so incompetent that it is unable to plan and deliver the infrastructure spend provided for in the budget. We recently had the absurd sight of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport responding to a question as to the underspending on infrastructure in the state of Tasmania, but making reference to Inland Rail, the Badgerys Creek Airport and other projects outside Tasmania. It also goes to show how ineffective the state Liberal government is in arguing the case for Tasmanian infrastructure. What Tasmanian projects the minister ultimately referred to were projects announced and commenced under the former Labor government.</para>
<para>This side of the House understands the importance of our public health system. The government protests that it supports Medicare, but this is like the very worst friend that any person could have, the friend who promises support but runs away at crunch time. This government extended the former Labor government's Medicare freeze beyond its original end date and as a result has made it more and more difficult for GPs to rely upon the Medicare rebate to bulk-bill. My community suffers from significant disadvantage. It is not possible for GPs in my electorate to maintain bulk-billing rates. I have consulted extensively in my electorate about the effect of the rebate freeze. There is no doubt that this government's cynical unfreezing of the Medicare rebate is more about appearances and less about providing practical relief to people seeking to access GPs. It's also significant to note that the program of unfreezing the Medicare rebate is extremely limited in scope, again failing to provide practical relief to people that need to consult their GP on a regular basis. This most affects the elderly or people with chronic medical conditions. Many constituents speak to me of the practical problem of trying to afford to pay the gap charged by a GP in maintaining their health. Sometimes it is impossible without accessing the public health system—in this case our overburdened emergency departments, which have been abandoned by the Tasmanian Liberals.</para>
<para>I congratulate the government for using our Labor commitment to fund the University of Tasmania transformation project as the central plank of the Launceston City Deal. I have spoken in this place about the potential of the Launceston City Deal and the fact that Labor will hold federal, state and local government, as well as the University of Tasmania, to the promises made which underpinned the City Deal. It is vitally important, nevertheless, that we consider the northern suburbs of Launceston and the redevelopment of the Newnham campus of the University of Tasmania. The Australian Maritime College, Australia's peak maritime training college, will remain at Newnham. There is great potential for Newnham to be redeveloped with a focus on advancement in research, the liveability of our city of Launceston and top-quality town planning principles so as to enhance Mowbray and Newnham and not diminish the present university campus at Mowbray. It is certain that the commitments made on a bipartisan basis to the development of Launceston need to be bold in realising the potential of our city not just for the university but with a focus on the liveability of our city, its heritage past, top-quality tourism, commercial development and the creation of a vibrant CBD and surrounds.</para>
<para>Above all, people within my electorate have a right to expect that we in this place do our best to create the conditions for the delivery of decent and secure well-paid work, particularly for those who may have been excluded from the benefits associated with the transformation of the Australian economy. The Liberals' insistence that tax cuts will facilitate increases in wages are hollow words, without positive leadership to support an increase in wages either at a state or federal level. Cuts to penalty rates send a message that corporate profits are more important than a wage earner's ability to support their family and that person's ability to make a decent contribution to our communities. Whilst at the time it was claimed that cuts to penalty rates would facilitate an increase in employment, there is little evidence that that is in fact the case.</para>
<para>There is much to be positive about for the future of Northern Tasmania around not only the implementation of the city deal but also significant private investment led by entrepreneurs like Josef Chromy, Errol Stewart and others. There are innovative businesses and service providers who time and time again demonstrate that innovation underpins much of what we do in Northern Tasmania. There are also tourism industry legends and icons like Stillwater restaurant, The Black Cow, Me Wah Restaurant and others in addition to the thriving food and tourism scene in southern Tasmania. It was wonderful to see a recent tweet by Nigella Lawson from one of my local restaurants, The Black Cow, singing the praises of the staff and experience at that restaurant.</para>
<para>This government lacks a vision for the future other than the hollow catchphrases of 'jobs and growth' and 'trickle-down economics'. Australia deserves better. Australians deserve better. They deserve better and well-paid jobs, secure employment, the opportunity to live fulfilling lives, decent education, health care and aged care. That vision is total lacking in the Treasurer's budget. That vision is not expressed when we turn up here to question time day after day. The Prime Minister keeps talking about an economic plan for the future which they are delivering. They keep talking about jobs, but they're not delivering higher living standards for anybody. The feedback we continually hear when we communicate with our constituents is all about the increased pressures from the cost of living and all about the fact that people cannot access decent healthcare. In my home state of Tasmania, much of the blame for that lies with the incompetent state Liberal government. But this federal government needs to own up to the fact that it has cut billions of dollars from the healthcare system, billions of dollars that would support ready access to our healthcare system.</para>
<para>Finally, I'm a very strong believer in investment and continued investment in our education system. Areas like Tasmania, which lag in economic terms behind the rest of Australia, really will benefit from continued and sustained investment in our education system and in our university sector.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to bring attention to a diabolical state of affairs that, at this point in time, affects over 650,000 Australians who are vulnerable: those who are crippled financially by an ever-present debt spiral that they simply do not have the capacity to crawl out of. The reason they are stuck in that debt spiral under insidious and crippling circumstances relates to a largely unregulated area of finance and lending commonly known as payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes. They are finance arrangements that are commonly called small amount credit contracts, or SACCs. Quite frankly, what we have seen from this government in relation to its inability to do anything meaningful about reform in this area is disgraceful. The government got off to a promising start on the back of Labor's good work in putting regulation and restraint around this area—firstly in 2009, and then, secondly, in 2012, in relation to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. It was a very good start. It put some efficacy into the area to make sure that the mercenary sharks who were preying upon vulnerable consumers in the payday loan and rent-to-buy space were reined in somewhat.</para>
<para>One of the things that was built into those reforms in 2012 made sure that the industry was the subject of a regular review. That was the SACC review. The SACC review was implemented back in 2015, and the industry was covered very well by those in charge of the review. They reported back to government in March 2016. Understandably, these things take some time, and there is no criticism of the steps the government took at that point. The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services—by that stage, Minister O'Dwyer—had conduct of these reforms. In November 2016, to her credit, she published a comprehensive analysis from the government of the 22 reforms that were recommended in this small-credit space in order to make sure the balance was maintained between those who desperately need credit at short notice and those who wanted to provide it.</para>
<para>Make no mistake, this is not a situation where Labor says that the industry should be shut down. We acknowledge, more than most, because we see it time and again, that struggling families and single-parent families—which I'll come to a little bit later on—who are working really hard to make ends meet and watching every dollar count, do have unforeseen problems that require ready access to finance quickly. Try telling a family of five or a single mum with five kids whose washing machine has blown up and who simply has no money to go and buy another one. There needs to be some form of credit available to make sure that the household can continue. The same goes for fridges. Perhaps we can park tellies and other bits and pieces, but we certainly do not shy away from the need to provide lending facilities in this area.</para>
<para>Again, to her credit, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services published a very comprehensive statement on 28 November 2016, and it is important to record for posterity that Minister O'Dwyer made it very clear that the government supported the vast majority of recommendations in part or in full. The press release from 28 November goes on to make it explicit which recommendations the government was prepared to support. They were: retaining existing price caps on SACCs, extending the SACC protected earnings amount requirement to all consumers and lowering it to 10 per cent of the consumer's net income, introducing a cap on total payments of a consumer lease which is equal to the base price of the good plus four per cent of the price per month, and introducing a protected earnings amount requirement for consumer lease providers—again, of 10 per cent of the net income for all consumers—equivalent but separate to the requirements of SACCs. We have small-amount credit contracts on one side and rent-to-buy or consumer leases on the other. These reforms are designed to capture both.</para>
<para>So it was made very clear back in November 2016 where the government intends to go. We had stumble after stumble in 2017, and the community, quite frankly, were misled by this government in relation to the progress that was being made converting that government position into legislation. On 28 February 2017, Minister O'Dwyer on <inline font-style="italic">Lateline</inline> confirmed that 'there is no delay in enforcing these recommendations as legislation is being drafted as we speak'. That wasn't true. The reason we know that wasn't true is that Senator Gallagher, doing brilliant work in that other place in her capacity as shadow minister for financial services, asked in estimates whether the drafting had started for the credit card and small amount credit contract reforms. The Treasury official on 1 March 2017 said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We are not currently drafting that legislation.</para></quote>
<para>So we have absolutely nothing insofar as March 2017 goes. But, again, we get to a point, under Minister McCormack, as he then was, the minister for small business. Why this reform hasn't gone to the current minister for small business is for reasons that will be abundantly clear. Quite frankly, you can say a lot of things about the minister for small business at the moment in relation to his position on penalty rates, but the one thing we know about Minister Laundy is that he would not crack and he would probably back-sack, which is more than you can say for the assistant minister in charge of these reforms.</para>
<para>Minister McCormack released the draft legislation on 23 October 2017 under very prescriptive terms. He said that the consultation window for the legislation was open for two weeks. He also said in his release of 23 October 2017:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government will introduce legislation this year to implement the SACC and consumer lease reforms.</para></quote>
<para>It could not be clearer.</para>
<para>The legislation was the subject of supportive submissions from the Consumer Action Law Centre as the peak body for other affected consumer groups. But then the reshuffle occurred. After that point in time, we know that Assistant Minister Sukkar appears to have carriage of this so-called legislation, presumably reporting to the Treasurer. But it gets worse, because we have seen absolutely no form of action from this government to take clear steps to implement this legislation—legislation which has bipartisan support.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—and I am sure you are not Robinson Crusoe—when you go out into your electorate, your constituents will tell you, as they tell me and those on the other side, 'You know what you guys need? You just need a little bit of bipartisanship. You need to show us that you can find common ground and something to put through parliament that you all agree on.' I'm sure we all share those kinds of conversations. Guess what? That's what we had here, and yet we see the inexorable creep from those on the other side who want to backtrack on SAC, so much so that we see the 'parliamentary friends of payday lenders' being formed to lobby the Treasurer in order to pretend that these reforms do not exist—to just make them all go away. We take this opportunity today to say that that will not happen.</para>
<para>We will take every step available to make sure that that does not happen, and here's how. There are always parts of legislation and reform at the edges which could be refined and improved. But this is a circumstance where we have a consultation period for all sides of over two years—lines in the sand being drawn on both sides and a clear demonstration of bipartisanship. We get so far as to have draft legislation that has been through the government's cabinet process. It's been approved by government, and it's just being hidden away as if it doesn't exist. Well, here's what we have done as of today. We have said, 'Look, if you don't do it, we will. If you don't back SACC, we will. If you won't stare down your conservative backbench, we will. And what the Labor Party has done is what the government should have done the entire time, but for one of two things. It is absolute incoherent paralysis that surrounds them, because they are so engulfed in scandal, so engulfed in distraction, so engulfed in division that they cannot do their job. All they need to do is back SACC, and they have failed to do it.</para>
<para>There is another plausible excuse, which is that it has finally happened, and we finally have exhibit A, in black and white: the relentless pressure applied by the conservative rump of this backbench on those more moderate, sensible forces on the government side. We have it in black and white. We have clear supporting statements from the minister for revenue, the then minister for small business, saying that this should be implemented without delay. Yet there is no sign of it from them over there, so we've done it. We have introduced a private member's bill in the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contracts and Consumer Leases Reforms) Bill 2018 that matches—word for word, sentence for sentence, full stop for full stop, comma for comma—the draft legislation produced by this government.</para>
<para>So, the government has a choice, and it is a fork in the road of integrity for this government. Do they support their own bill in this place, or will they find a reason to kick it off to the long grass? And that can mean only one thing. It can mean only that those far right conservative forces have won. It can mean only that the Prime Minister is completely devoid of any authority whatsoever in relation to how his government runs and what agenda it purports to control. It can mean only that we will fail to see any meaningful progress whatsoever from this government in relation to truly protecting vulnerable consumers. To those 650,000 Australians who are hopelessly trapped in a debt spiral as a result of mercenary predatory sharks, all I can do is apologise for the failures of this government to take any meaningful steps when we got so close to actually making sure that there are responsible reforms in this area. It is a symptom of a sick government, it is a symptom of a lack of reform, and it has to stop now.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018, which the Labor Party has publicly committed to supporting, as convention would require. I speak here to support these bills because, let's face it, $1.5 billion in proposed appropriations that these two bills address is, for this Turnbull-Joyce government, the equivalent of some small change down the back of the lounge, a few bob in the central console of the car or maybe an extra coffee. But, where I come from, $1.5 billion—with a 'b'—is not small change. It's not funny money that can change hands with a mere formality such as this. It's a mind-boggling sum—more than a lotto win of your dreams. This kind of money can build region-shaping infrastructure, fund life-saving research and even get a contaminated community off their contaminated land—but I digress.</para>
<para>In the real world, which is where I reside with my constituents in the electorate of Paterson, you'll find many middle- and lower-income Australians, people in towns such as Kurri Kurri, Raymond Terrace, Maitland and Williamtown. There are hospitality workers, skilled tradespeople, entrepreneurs and innovators, Defence personnel, retail employees, nurses, teachers, farmers and police. There are elderly people and there are unemployed people, and there are jobseekers and there are those who have given up seeking. Yes, I'm talking about middle Australia—real Australia, if you like—as opposed to unreal Australia where the wages and the privilege are beyond the reach of most. Perhaps you've heard of us, real Australia.</para>
<para>I have no doubt that the hardworking people whom I represent will struggle to accept the fact that this parliament is approving revenue for this government to put into play a number of its economic and fiscal outlook measures—measures such as a $65 billion tax cut for multinational companies and banks and measures such as deliberately misleading the Australian people about the impacts of abolishing negative gearing. In essence, we stand here in this parliament today, rubber stamping the Turnbull government's priorities—conservative policies from a conservative government whose only priority is to look after the top end of town, while people in electorates such as mine foot the bill.</para>
<para>Middle Australia, real Australia—you've heard of us, no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker Irons—is the place where some workers are up to $70 a week worse off because their penalty rates have been cut. It's a place where the casualisation of the workforce is rife. It's the place where taxes on workers are rising. It's the place where unfair dismissal laws in many workplaces are non-existent or unworkable. It's the place where there's high unemployment and chronic underemployment. It's the place where wages have grown just two per cent in the past year, while energy prices have skyrocketed by 22 per cent. It's the place where universities and their students have lost funding and, for many, a tertiary education is becoming a financial impossibility. My colleagues and I have risen to speak about these matters on numerous occasions. We railed against this Prime Minister's decision to slice the pay packets of some of our most low-paid and vulnerable workers by abolishing penalty rates. We've decried the Turnbull government's lack of a national energy policy and the effect this has had on the hip pockets of our constituents.</para>
<para>I want to digress for just a moment and retell a story. Over the break I had to go and have a blood test and the pathology nurse, as she took my blood, said 'Gee, it's going to be a hot one tomorrow, Meryl. They're saying it could get to 47.' She said, 'The problem is I'm on my own and I honestly don't know if I can afford to put on the air-conditioner.' This is not someone who's wasted money or is at the lower end of the income scale; this is someone who has a good job and is hardworking, on her feet for all those hours a day extracting blood from those of us who need to have a blood test, and she says: 'I just don't know if I can afford to put the air-conditioner on'—on a day when it's going to be 47 degrees! Where are we? We are in Australia in 2018, and I truly cannot fathom that a hardworking person has to even have that thought process.</para>
<para>In this very room, I've also shared the heartbreaking accounts of elderly people going to bed with the sun in winter to avoid turning on the heat, and putting themselves at risk of deadly heat stroke, again to avoid turning on the air-conditioner. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker: why does this Prime Minister doggedly pursue the abolition of the energy supplement which put up to $366 a year back into pensioners' pockets? Extreme cold and heat kill. In the year 2018, exposure is entirely avoidable—and this policy is cruel to the point of neglect. How many families could enjoy air-conditioning without the stress of bill shock for $1.5 billion?</para>
<para>How many young and predominantly female hospitality and retail workers could receive penalty rates for $1.5 billion? How much support could be provided for tertiary students? I am aware that part of this appropriation bill is destined for the Department of Education and Training—and that is fantastic—but how much of it will actually reach the educators and the students? They're the people who really need this sort of money. It will be very little, I think. While $69 million will go to the Australian National University for a super computer, where's the justice? Where's the parity? Why must money be ripped from the pockets and pay packets of the hardworking people of the regions to fund big business tax cuts and elite wage earners? Those who are least able to afford it are being whacked with the burden of this Turnbull government's budget failures. It's the hallmark of Liberal national governments and it's one of the great many reasons I'm proud to stand on this side of the House to represent the workers of this nation and, most of all, to represent the people of Paterson.</para>
<para>While convention dictates that we must support the $1.5 billion appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, I must again underline that the worthy people in my community could make great use of those kinds of funds. The lower Hunter has a deep and indelible tie to agriculture. In fact, this Friday night, the Hunter River Agricultural & Horticultural Society will open its 156th show. While we celebrate this bond with the land, we are this year in mourning as well. Much of my electorate of Paterson and indeed the Hunter Valley is in the grip of a diabolical yet hyperlocalised drought. Over the Christmas season we had day after day of 40-degree-plus temperatures. In fact, a number of days were over 45! It is just indescribable how hot that is. You don't even want to go outside because it feels as though every breath you take in is just a blast of hot air. It's almost like a hair dryer.</para>
<para>On the land, many dams are dry. The mighty Hunter, Paterson and Williams rivers are dwindling and full of salt. The earth itself is powder. Any moisture has long been stripped away by the baking heat and arid conditions. According to the Bureau of Meteorology, Maitland has recorded its driest January since 1932. I was born in the electorate, and it's as dry as I've ever seen it. This doesn't just impact the horticultural offerings at the Maitland show and people's front lawns; this is about people's livelihoods. It's the difference between keeping valuable breeding stock or flogging it at market rather than forking out tens of thousands of dollars for feed. It's the difference between a profitable harvest and watching the topsoil blow away. I'd like you to consider how much difference $1.5 billion could make to the farming families who are now at the mercy of these unprecedented weather patterns and global warming. Generations of history are at stake. Mental health is also a concern.</para>
<para>The<inline font-style="italic"> Maitland Mercury</inline>is a fantastic local publication that serves my community. It's banded together with its sister Fairfax publications, the <inline font-style="italic">Newcastle Herald</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Singleton Argus</inline> and the <inline font-style="italic">Hunter Valley News</inline>, to reveal the terrible hardships being experienced by drought affected farmers in our area. I commend the Newcastle and Hunter Fairfax group for this series and, in particular, the journalist Belinda-Jane Davis—good on you, Belinda! She's been a staunch advocate for our community and for those who live on the land. Not surprisingly, Fairfax reveals that farmers are saying the Turnbull government's version of 'help' in these dire circumstances is falling short of the mark. These people don't want financial advice or debt restructuring services. If they wanted a low-interest loan like that being offered, they would think about going to a bank. But the last thing many of them want is to go into debt to stay afloat, and a household allowance feels too much like a handout for many of these proud people who are already reeling psychologically.</para>
<para>The pressures in my farming community are so great that Hunter New England Health experts are expressing deep concern for landholders. As Rural Adversity Mental Health Program coordinator Sarah Green told Fairfax media:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you’ve got a shop in town you can escape it for a period of time. For farmers, they can't. They're sitting there looking at brown dirt day in and day out praying for rain. So many farmers I speak to have a big debrief about what's going on but then they say "but mate, I'll be right when it rains". I have to sit there and say: "It’s about being alright when it's not raining".</para></quote>
<para>I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, it's not raining. The paddocks aren't just dry—they're scorched. They literally crunch under your feet. There is no subsoil moisture at all. The timing of this diabolical dry is even more devastating for the community of Maitland, where there has been a movement, spear-headed by our city's 2018 Citizen of the Year Amorelle Dempster, to reconnect the city to its agricultural roots. In 2016, Amorelle and the slow food movement volunteers of the Hunter Valley came to the rescue of farmers whose acres of pumpkins were destined to be ploughed into the ground. They took those pumpkins to a pop-up stall in Maitland's main street, High Street. Council supported the initiative, the media took up the campaign, and the community came and bought hundreds of tonnes of pumpkins, which I was happy to stand beside Amorelle and sell. Farmers put money in their pockets instead of ploughing pumpkins, and essentially dollars, back into the earth.</para>
<para>This rescue mission was the genesis of the Hunter's own produce markets. Today, there are regular markets in Maitland's CBD, in the levee, which provide farmers with a food hub that does not rely on the traditional distribution network. Food miles have been stripped back to a bare minimum and primary producers have diversified their crops to allow them to sell directly to consumers at a fair price. The movement has even seen new farmers join the ranks and younger members of the farming families make a choice to return to the land. Our diabolical dry now puts this world-leading venture at risk. Not only are the markets facing the very real risk of not having enough fresh produce to proceed; the farmers themselves are at risk of being chased off their land. I ask you, what could be done with $1.5 billion? How many farmers, families and communities could be supported through this terrible time?</para>
<para>But let's really lift the lid off this. Let's come back to the Turnbull government's tax handouts for the top end of town, which will put $65 billion into the coffers of multinational companies and banks. I ask you: was it in the interest of real Australians? Is it really tax breaks for the top end of town? Is it really fair to have tax breaks for the top end of town while our most vulnerable are forced to carry the can? Is it really fair to rip away funding and support from students and universities? Is it really right to axe penalty rates, ditch the pensioners' energy supplement and increase the pension age to 70? I think not.</para>
<para>The Turnbull government is manifestly out of touch with real Australia. Let me tell you: real Australia is hurting and they won't forgive this government. They will remember the hurt and that feeling when the electricity bill comes in, thinking, 'How am I going to pay it? How is this going to pass? How can I provide all the things I want to provide for my family?' And more to the point: What's wrong with me? Why haven't I been able to earn the big dollars like these people that are being handed tax breaks can? Where have I gone wrong in life? Why doesn't my government do more for me? Why does it have to be so hard to try and bring up a family?' These are the real questions. 'Why can't I afford to do the things that I want to do?' These are actually the real questions that people in real Australia are asking every day. They are the questions they so desperately want answered by the likes of us here in this place. The policies that they need crafted by the clever people who we do need to celebrate—where are these good policies? They're certainly not coming out of this government. I really do hope that this side of the House is given the opportunity to put in place some of the policies that we have that I think will answer the questions of real Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise to speak on the appropriation bills. For those playing at home, this gives all members of the House an opportunity to look at the government's priorities as expressed through its budget processes. It allows us to stand here and represent the electorates that put us in this place and look through that local lens on this government's priorities. I'm pleased to follow the member for Paterson who, like me, was born and raised in her electorate and speaks proudly and loudly for the people that she represents.</para>
<para>One of the priorities that I'd like to talk about today that this government has got completely wrong is housing affordability. What we've seen from this government is an absolute drought in terms of ideas about how to tackle housing affordability. In question time they'll ask whether there are other ways, or is there an alternative for this? In housing affordability there's a clear alternative. There is the absolute lack of action from this government compared to the work that's been done in policy in this space by those on this side of the chamber. In my community, we've just ticked over 250,000 residents in the City of Wyndham. That makes us larger in population terms than the City of Greater Geelong. That has been the back end of 20 years of sustained and dramatic growth. As you can imagine, the housing industry is fairly important in my neck of the woods. It employs a lot of people locally.</para>
<para>I am really proud to say that the Labor Party's policy around housing affordability, the changes that the Labor Party would make in relation to the taxation provisions, will not impact on new housing stock. This is a critical fact that people need to understand, particularly if they've been listening to those opposite suggesting that Labor's policies will make housing prices go up on one day and the next day arguing they'll make housing prices drop dramatically. Labor is proposing fair changes that will mean that, when young people in my electorate go to buy a first home, they will not be bidding against somebody investing in their sixth property. But it won't put a brake on new housing stock because that will still attract those tax concessions.</para>
<para>Labor's approach is logical. It is also indicative of how serious this government is in tackling housing affordability. This side of the House is about fairness. We understand electorates like Lalor because we represent them. We understand when people sit with us and tell us that they're worried that their children won't be able to afford to buy a home. In modern Australia it seems to be the most desirable thing; it seems to be more desirable than it's been since 1920 that people be able to buy their own home. It's about security. Working-class people seek security. Low- and middle-income families want the security of owning their own home, and Labor's about ensuring that that is possible in modern Australia.</para>
<para>The other area that shows us a really strong contrast between the government and the opposition is energy prices. In my electorate, as in most electorates, we are feeling the heat when it comes to energy prices. No-one is safe when it comes to skyrocketing electricity and gas bills. Local residents, small and large businesses alike are all struggling because of unsustainable increases in the cost of electricity and gas. I've spoken many times in the House about the direct effects felt by businesses and residents in my community, and I'll take this opportunity to do so again. Manufacturing businesses like Miltech Martin Bright and Victoria Wool Processors, among others, have spoken to me and to the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, about these issues. I spoke last week about Andrew's Choice smokehouse, who are looking at a 130 per cent increase that they've signed to in their new contract. It is verging on the point where energy is costing business more than labour, more than the people who work in these companies. This government needs to address this issue. They need to be taking action, not having cups of tea, not having hard chats with the industry, but taking action, using the federal levers to ensure that we have certainty in this space. We know that some of that's going to be about renewable energy. We know some of that is going to be about certainty for investors in renewable energy. We know that some of that's about pulling the federal triggers around national interest when it comes to gas pricing. But it is all important, and this bill obviously demonstrates that the government has failed to do all these things once again.</para>
<para>There's another area that I raised in August last year. I moved a private member's motion around the failings in the retirement village sector. The motion received bipartisan support. Members in this place, from both sides of the chamber, were calling for a national approach to address concerns about 100-page contracts that were very difficult to understand, about a lack of consumer protections, about complaint resolution procedures. We know that COAG met on these issues, yet we've still had no action in this space.</para>
<para>The only thing I can report to the House in terms of what has happened here is that the Retirement Living Council has released a draft code of conduct, perhaps in response to some of the controversy around retirement villages that was raised in August last year. If you remember, the ABC was very interested in this. A light was shone on some very shoddy practices, particularly highlighting those in Victoria. In the electorate of Lalor we have 10 retirement villages, and that number is growing. An area that is seen to be affordable is obviously a place where retirement villages are going to be established.</para>
<para>So, since that controversy we've had a draft code of conduct. Now, I have heard from the Consumer Action Law Centre in the last week, and I'd like to thank them for the work they've done in following up on these issues and keeping a light shining in this space. They've done a bit of a review of this code of conduct, and I want to put this into the public record. They're not impressed, as it's plain to see:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Overall, the Code has a disproportionate focus on promoting industry interests and fails to address the harm caused by bad practices in the retirement industry. Much of the Code reads as a public relations exercise without genuine regard given to how resident outcomes might be improved or measured. Importantly, it fails to address key resident concerns, which include:</para></quote>
<para>…   …   …</para>
<quote><para class="block">• lack of mandatory training and qualification standards;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">• inadequate skills and poor attitude of management;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">• problems with maintenance including delays, poor quality work and lack of clarity about responsibilities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">• lack of resident consultation and limited opportunities to participate in village/park decision making.</para></quote>
<para>This code of conduct is driven by the industry in response, I believe, to the controversy. But it's important to note here that we've seen no action from the government, and, going on the Consumer Action Law Centre's appraisal of that code of conduct, we're not in for any good news soon. I raise this because it's an important issue in my electorate. I call on the government to address these issues as soon as they practically can, because although the controversy may be off our television screens it is certainly not off the agenda—and certainly not off the agenda in the communities that I represent.</para>
<para>Another area that's been attracting a little bit of attention of late is payday lending. Vulnerable Australian families are being taken advantage of by payday lenders; 650,000 financially stressed households are now paying payday loans. I don't have an electorate-by-electorate breakdown, but I can only imagine that many of these will live in my electorate. These people are paying interest rates of up to 800 per cent. For example, for a clothes dryer, which retails at $345, families are paying back over $3,000. That is equal to an interest rate of 884 per cent. This needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I note the work of my colleagues on this side of the House in the last few weeks in raising this issue. I note, too, that the government had made recommendations about this. They had made some decisions. They had had a look at this. Yet here we are, two years later, and they have failed to act. Two years ago the review of the small amount credit contract laws was released. The government is yet to introduce legislation that would clean up this industry, taking advantage of vulnerable families. And I say that because many of those families will be in my electorate.</para>
<para>This is an area where this government needs to act with a sense of urgency. It is an area where businesses are taking advantage of vulnerable people, offering them a quick fix with a big price tag in the longer run. The government must introduce legislation, and if they will not then on this side of the House we will take action.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>43</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Ballarat Electorate: Keeley's Cause</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CATHERINE KING</name>
    <name.id>00AMR</name.id>
    <electorate>Ballarat</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week I had the privilege to take part in the public launch of Keeley's Cause, a new initiative in my electorate started by Keeley, a 13-year-old who has autism spectrum disorder as well as an intellectual disability. Keeley's Cause works to provide iPads to school students and others with similar conditions to Keeley. This project was inspired by Keeley's own experiences, where she found that this technology helped her to interact and communicate with others as well as getting her school work done. Some of the recipients of the iPads so far are diagnosed with autism, cerebral palsy, ADHD and Tourette's, amongst other conditions.</para>
<para>IPad technology provides the opportunity for young people with these learning challenges to engage more fully in learning. For those children and adults who are nonverbal, iPads allow them to communicate without words, enabling them to express their opinions and feelings when previously they may have been left more isolated. Where young people are not able to access these aids through the NDIS, Keeley works with local businesses and community organisations—in particular, the Ballan Lions Clubs—to get these children the tools that can help them to achieve at the highest level. Into the future, Keeley's Cause is looking to expand state wide, nationally and even internationally through the Lyons club. I commend Keeley and her family for a terrific local initiative. It's inspiring to see a 13 year old doing so much. Imagine what she is going to be doing at 20!</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Flagstaff Community Centre</title>
          <page.no>43</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Every week more than 3,500 people visit the Flagstaff Community Centre in my electorate of Boothby. It is a true community centre, providing a home for many sports and social clubs. More than 600 volunteers work together at the centre, supporting our footballers, athletes, netballers, tennis players and service clubs like Rotary. All ages use the centre, from pre-schoolers through to retirees. This is why I fought for and secured $400,000 in federal government funding towards a much-needed upgrade for the centre. The $400,000 of federal funding has been available since early last year. Unfortunately, there has been no matching funding commitment by the state Labor government so that the project can proceed. This is why I was delighted that, thanks to the hard work of Steve Murray, Liberal candidate for Davenport, $500,000 has been committed by the South Australian Liberal Party to the Flagstaff Community Centre upgrade.</para>
<para>Sports and social clubs are the lifeblood of our local communities, and the new facilities will ensure that the Flagstaff Hill clubs will be around for generations to come. The upgrades will also support the growth of female participation in sport, with new change-room facilities. There will also be improvements to the centre overall. The Flagstaff Community Centre serves as home to many local sporting clubs, including the Flagstaff Hill football, cricket and tennis clubs, the Southern Hills Little Athletics, the Happy Valley Netball Club and the Rotary Club of Flagstaff Hill. I'm so happy that they will finally get the facilities they deserve.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Northern Territory: Tourism</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You may have seen an ad on the internet recently called 'Dundee—The Son of a Legend Returns Home'. Many members would remember the Crocodile Dundee movies. They were great for tourism in the Top End. The 'Dundee—The Son of a Legend Returns Home' advertisement was put up by Tourism Australia. It was a campaign aimed fairly and squarely at the US market and aired during the Super Bowl recently. It had in it famous Territorians like Chris Hemsworth—I think a fine specimen of Territory manhood—Jess Mauboy, Robbie Collins—a champion Territorian—and Miranda Tapsell, who some members may be familiar with. The <inline font-style="italic">NT News</inline> has started a petition, and we're all jumping on board—because we love the ad but we want a film. We want to bring back Dundee.</para>
<para>Tourism is so important to our Top End economy. It supports around 17,000 jobs, both directly and indirectly. I want to congratulate the Northern Territory government, who yesterday announced a stimulus package for the tourism sector of $103 million, looking at marketing the Top End to the world. I also want to acknowledge the organisers of an event I'm involved with, called Top End Ideas Fest, and welcome entrepreneurs and tourism people to get on board.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Calare Electorate: Australia Day Honours</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Oberon has a wonderful history and community spirit, and today I'd like to pay tribute to those who were honoured at Oberon's recent Australia Day celebrations for making outstanding contributions to their local community. Neil Francis was awarded Citizen of the Year. Neil joined the Burraga rural fire service as a volunteer at age 13 and has served continually since that time. He's also a long-term volunteer for the Burraga and District Community Association and Burraga Ag Bureau and has served as a councillor on Oberon Council. Hannah Dusselaar and Victoria Webb were both named Young Citizen of the Year. Jackson Brien and Peter O'Neill were both named Sportsperson of the Year. Lachlan Gibbs was named Young Sportsperson of the Year. The Oberon Hot Shots under 11s netball team was named the Sports Team of the Year. Oberon District Little Athletics' community Christmas carols was named the Community Event of the Year. Janet Clayton was named Volunteer of the Year. I'm told Janet regularly assists with catering at the Uniting Church, has assisted with Accessible Living Options for over 12 years and is a long-term volunteer with Meals on Wheels. She also makes quilts for the Royal Women's Hospital's neonatal unit and provides quilts for foster children and children in care for Family and Community Services. The Oberon Anti Amalgamation Committee was awarded the special Australia Day Committee Award.</para>
<para>Congratulations to all of the nominees and award winners in Oberon. I'm sure all in this House join me in commending you on your contribution to building the great country community of Oberon and its surrounding districts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Herbert Electorate: Townsville Choral Society</title>
          <page.no>44</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Saturday, 10 February 2018, my family and I attended the Townsville Choral Society's 'We Will Rock You' performance. It was an amazing, stunning performance that showcased the depth of talent in our city. The lead performers, Judy Higgins-Olsen as Scaramouche and Sean Thomas as Galileo, were second to none that I have seen in any international or national performance. The support performers and chorus were also sensational. The script was witty, the directors did an amazing job, the band was exceptional, the sets reflected the story beautifully and the back of house, costumes, hair and make-up were brilliant. The choral society was recognised in the Townsville City Council's 2018 Australia Day Awards, and this performance was evidence of a very fitting acknowledgment.</para>
<para>Underneath this spectacularly entertaining performance was a truly relevant message. Whilst advances in technology are essential and moving rapidly, we must not lose sight of the need to develop lateral and creative thinking skills that will challenge the status quo where necessary because the arts contribute significantly to the development of new and existing innovative industry solutions, especially at a time when the nature of work is facing significant transformation. The depth of talent in Townsville never ceases to amaze me, and that drives me harder to fight for our fair share of opportunities for the community. I say well done to the choral society on another fabulous performance.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moore Electorate: City Deals</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I make the strong case in parliament for Joondalup city centre in my electorate to be included in the federal government's City Deals program. This exciting new initiative will activate the Joondalup city centre, generating significant momentum for mixed-use projects such as the Boas Place precinct, creating a central business district for Perth's northern corridor, which meets the objective of decentralisation within the Perth metropolitan area.</para>
<para>The activation of Boas Place presents an ideal opportunity for the local, state and federal levels of government to collaborate with the private sector towards delivering medium-density residential and commercial development with new job opportunities by attracting investment to our city. City Deals will achieve results by aligning the planning, investment and governance structures necessary to accelerate growth and job creation, stimulate urban renewal and bring more consumers to Joondalup. Multiple economic development drivers will be activated through this city centre development, meeting the objectives of providing housing, creating employment self-sufficiency, optimising infrastructure investment and stimulating the local, regional and state-wide economy. The City Deals program will help secure the future prosperity and liveability of Joondalup city centre with vibrancy and amenity.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Library Lovers' Day</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm not sure if this is the right climate to say this, but today is a day for lovers—lovers of libraries. I had the pleasure last night of helping launch the Library Lovers' Day with my co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers, Senator Linda Reynolds. The Australian public library network is a national asset, supporting reading, literacy, digital skills and cybersafety. It provides spaces for study, safe places, and hosts more than 121,000 story times for young children each year, with over three million participants, runs English classes for new migrants and refugees, helps jobseekers and ensures equal access to information for everyone.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Moreton, we have five public libraries in Coopers Plains, Corinda, Sunnybank Hills, Annerly and, my local library, Fairfield. I will also mention two libraries just outside my electorate that are used by local constituents—Garden City and Indooroopilly libraries. I love my libraries. I'm sure everyone in this place loves their libraries. We can't forget the Parliamentary Library right here in this building that does great work for democracy. Today is your chance to let your library know how you feel. You can fill out a Valentine's Day card like the one I'm holding. Go to the Library Lovers' Day website for details. The Australian Library and Information Association will be putting the best quotes together with love letters from some of our top authors and publishing a 'Library Lovers' book in time for Library and Information Week in May. Don't forget the hashtag #libraryloversday for your social media posts.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Western Australia: Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HASTIE</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
    <electorate>Canning</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have said many times in this place that Mandurah and the Peel region are in need of more public infrastructure. Development has not kept up with population growth. That fact is nowhere better illustrated than in the suburb of Lakelands. Lakelands is in North Mandurah. At the 2006 census its population was 434. By 2016, that number had exploded by more than 10 times to 4,830. If you include the immediate surrounding suburbs, the number rises to 17,298. The only train station in Mandurah was completed 10 years ago. The station has transformed our city. It has opened up access to the Perth's jobs market and injected new life into the Mandurah economy. The train line's completion was a watershed moment in the history of Mandurah, but there's more work to be done.</para>
<para>Building a new train station in Lakelands will create jobs and give the youth of North Mandurah greater mobility and recreational opportunity. Importantly, there will be fewer cars on the road. The people of Mandurah recognise this. At the end of 2017, I conducted a poll of more than 1,600 people who live in the north of Mandurah. Of the respondents, over 90 per cent wanted a train station built in Lakelands. I call on my colleagues in the Labor state government to work with us on this essential project. I was gratified to read in <inline font-style="italic">The Sunday Times </inline>that the Labor state government is listening to me on the development of the Byford train line and the Tonkin Highway extension. But Mandurah is important too. I will not let the Labor state government take the people of Mandurah for granted.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Batman By-Election</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This weekend the Australian government is deporting a Tamil refugee who fled his country. The United Nations Committee Against Torture is asking that the deportation be stopped because there is a serious risk that he will be tortured if he's sent back, but the government is going ahead. In the face of this Liberal government outrage, Labor remains silent. Labor is silent as human beings who want nothing more than to be safe and free from persecution rot in the state sanctioned offshore hellholes that Labor itself set up, in prisons where they are tortured and stripped of their sanity, their dignity and their humanity. Imagine if, instead of using question time to pitch for grabs on the nightly news, Labor asked the Minister for Home Affairs about the brutal regime that he presides over in Manus and Nauru. Imagine if Labor pursued the rights of refugees and asylum seekers with the same ferocity it pursues the government over the year the budget is returning to surplus, the Prime Minister's personal wealth or how many Newspolls the government has lost.</para>
<para>The people of Batman have a unique opportunity on 17 March. They can elect the Greens' Alex Bhathal—a strong, independent local voice, someone who lives in the community and who lives and breathes their values. Right now the entire country is watching. Winning this seat will create a seismic shift in political atmosphere and it will send a deafening message that Australia is moving past the politics of fear. I urge the people of Batman to vote for the Greens' Alex Bhathal for courage, compassion and action, not another Labor backbencher who will focus on— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Drivers Licence</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>More than 20 per cent of accidents on the Great Ocean Road involve international drivers. When international drivers don't have the skills or knowledge of road laws to drive on Australian roads, they pose a real danger to themselves and others. Just yesterday in Torquay there was another accident involving an international tourist driving a minibus. In Victoria, any foreigner on a temporary visa, including a work or student visa, can drive on their country-of-origin drivers licence for the duration of the visa, providing it's in English or has an English translation. Even permanent residents don't have to apply for an Australian drivers licence for six months.</para>
<para>The states, which have constitutional responsibility for driver licensing, are not doing enough to ensure that international drivers have the requisite skills and knowledge of our road laws. This is a massive issue in the Corangamite electorate—a significant tourism precinct—and much more action must be taken. I've been a very prominent champion of tourism and the Great Ocean Road for many years, but the Victorian government must take strong action. They must ensure vehicle hire companies are doing more and putting 'keep left' stickers on dashboards. I'd like to see the airlines get involved and an online test to ensure that international drivers on our roads have the right skills to make sure they're safe and others are safe.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about the silent rip-off that's occurring in the energy industry around the country right now, as we speak. I've been made aware by constituents in my electorate of businesses connecting solar panel systems and it then taking four to five months to connect the meters, which allow the customer to collect the feed-in tariff. This means the customer is subsidising the energy company with free electricity until the energy company, at some stage, when it feels like it, gets around to counting the feed-in electricity. This is outrageous. It means that energy companies are stealing money from the consumer. There is absolutely no incentive to pay the customer what they are owed in good faith. Delays benefit the big energy providers.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Member for Hughes!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This is a box of tricks that the energy companies use as a delaying tactic. On top of this, the fine for an energy company misleading consumers is $60,000. What's $60,000? That's a lobbying exercise for an afternoon tea for a company like AGL or Origin. If this occurred in reverse, the consumer would go to jail for stealing electricity. There is no doubt about that. They would be hauled in front of a judge, and it would be treated as stealing. Leon Byner on FIVEaa has been referring consumers to the ombudsman and doing some great work on this. I'd encourage him to continue putting pressure on the energy companies. Leon Byner is a great advocate who often fights injustice and bad policy on behalf of people who don't have a voice.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Multitask Human Resource Foundation</title>
          <page.no>46</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOGAN</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
    <electorate>Page</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Multitask provides support and services for people with disabilities. On 2 March this year, Multitask will be celebrating three of their clients achieving the milestone of being employed for the last 50 years. Barry Nichol started in 1968. He's a hard worker and he's also someone who loves a title. He's been known as the assistant manager, the document destruction officer and the recycle officer. Lexie Connor is regarded as Multitask's unofficial historian, with an incredible memory for names, dates and anecdotes. Frances Mortimer is known for her frankness and honesty, which has led to some interesting and amusing moments in the workplace. Also celebrating milestones are Brian Bowen, Janice Campbell and Bill Gillespie. Each of them has been associated with Multitask in some capacity for the last 50 years. Janice is known for being the tireless worker on mail-out ropes and tags and for giving the daily report of 'what I had for tea last night'. Brian is the walking, talking telegraph and keeps everyone up-to-date with the news and views. I'd also like to take this opportunity to make a special mention of Ken Barnes, who sadly passed away on the fifth of this month. Ken worked at Multitask for 45 years before retiring in 2013. Congratulations to you all.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gold Coast Commonwealth Games</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Commonwealth Games are coming to Queensland, to the Gold Coast in particular. They will be held from 4 to 15 April. Baton bearers, who'll carry the flame all the way to the Gold Coast, include locals from the fabulous city of Redlands, just above the Gold Coast: Adrian Rowe, a bricklayer who saved a woman's life with CPR in a Redlands bottle shop; Susie Fuhrmann, a netball veteran of two Commonwealth Games; and local rising tennis star Lara Walker—all carrying the baton towards the Gold Coast. The Queen's Baton arrived in Australia on 8 January, and 1,500 people on Stradbroke Island saw that happen. It's quite obvious that this event in early April will be a massive boost to the 200-kilometre city, and the gem right in the centre of that geography is Redlands city. We encourage people to come and see the incredible geography that is Moreton Bay. Travel to the islands, see the koalas and see Queensland's—if not Australia's—best beach, the fabulous north-facing Cylinder Beach on North Stradbroke Island.</para>
<para>A Griffith University study has shown there could well be 15,000 jobs that spin off from these Commonwealth Games—a $320 million boost to the state economy. This is a situation where local groups are getting together to make sure that we get the best out of this incredible opportunity. If you haven't arranged where you're going to be from 4 April onwards, make sure it's the Gold Coast. Come and see a truly remarkable Commonwealth Games run by an army of volunteers. Of course, the medals that will be handed out were designed by our own Delvene Cockatoo-Collins, from North Stradbroke Island. Congratulations to her.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As mums and dads pack up the kids, send them off to school and head off to work; as pensioners struggle to put the air-conditioner on because of rising electricity costs; and as students face increases in their fees because of cuts to TAFE and cuts to funding for education—these hard-working Australians, as they head off to jobs and study today, would be pleased to know that the ABC has uncovered that one in five Australian companies pay absolutely no company tax in this country. That's right, 380 of Australia's largest companies paid absolutely zero company tax over the course of the last three years. They include airlines, energy companies, mining companies, clothing companies, banks, insurance companies and a manufacturer of condoms—which is highly appropriate, given the rogering that they've just given Australian hard-working taxpayers by paying no tax. Now, given that these companies pay no corporate tax, what is the response of the Turnbull government? The response of the Turnbull government is to give them a tax cut. These companies are struggling so much that we're going to give them a tax cut! Yes, that's right: 380 of the largest companies that pay no tax will get a tax cut, despite the fact that they're increasing taxes for Australian workers by putting up the Medicare levy. We won't cop it. Labor will oppose these tax cuts and we'll stand up for average, hard-working, battling Australians.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Wide Bay Electorate: Gallipoli to Armistice Memorial</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>A landmark of international significance is now emerging in Queen's Park, Maryborough, in the electorate of Wide Bay, a $3.2 million Gallipoli to Armistice memorial funded by the federal and Queensland governments and the Fraser Coast Regional Council. It will tell the story of Maryborough's Duncan Chapman, the first man ashore at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915, as well as other soldiers from the Maryborough district. The memorial takes visitors on a walk through the landing, with eight-metre-high vertical, weathered blades representing the cliffs of Gallipoli. The Western Front will be depicted on the way to the cenotaph and connected to a path commemorating the battle of Pozieres, where Duncan Chapman died.</para>
<para>Nancy Bates and her husband, Tony, have driven this visionary project. Nancy, who I acknowledge in the gallery today with her fellow committee members, Greig Bolderrow and Jason Scanes, a former Army captain and Afghanistan veteran. I thank the committee; their supporters and donors; my predecessor, Warren Truss; and the late Warren Persal for getting this project off the ground. We all look forward to the opening in July of this special memorial that will be a very solemn place for deep reflection to honour the service and sacrifice of Anzacs and all Defence personnel.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Cowan Electorate: Valentine's Day</title>
          <page.no>47</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today it's Valentine's Day, and we all know that it's a day that's usually reserved for romantic love. I'm not the most romantic person in the world, but I did manage to send a message to my husband this morning. Let's also remember that Saint Valentine was also the patron saint of epilepsy. Legend has it that he espoused love and equality for all people. On this day, I'd like to send some love to all the people in my electorate of Cowan, a caring, compassionate and warm-hearted community. Happy Valentine's Day to Dee Claydon; Travis Fitch; Margaret Cockman; Phillip Paddon; my neighbours Colin and Vera; Ruth Thatcher; Renee Evans and her gorgeous family; Hoosein Ismail and his family; Jack Le Cras, a legend at Wanneroo; Dean Bell; Reverend Chris George and Melissa George; Mal Wright; Colin Stuart Campbell—hang in there, mate—Darren Reilly; Nick Trandos; Ian Brotherton, Mayor Tracey Roberts; Marcia Dinni; Steve Nikovski; Ashdale Special Families; Jasmine Wallace; Michael Fragomeni and the team at Top EV Racing; Peter and Patty from Oshawa; Jan Standen and all the great grandparents who are looking after their grandkids; the staff and students at Alta-1 College; Linda Hames; Naomi Lambert; Callum Ince and his wonderful family; all the schools, students, staff, educators and parents of Cowan; and so many more people, too numerous to mention. I'm sending you love and wishing you peace today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Swan Electorate: Swan Christmas Food Drive</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In early December last year I launched the Swan Christmas Food Drive for Foodbank Western Australia to assist families to put food on the table over Christmas. Christmas is a special time for all of us, and I think many of us are not aware that many people don't have food to share with their loved ones over the Christmas period. In Western Australia alone, Foodbank helps feed 94,000 people per year. Over 31,000 of these are children. To aid in giving a little Christmas spirit to those in need, I put out a call for any contributions, great or small, of non-perishable food items, including canned food, dry pasta, rice, pasta sauces, long-life milk, and the like. From day 1, the good people of Swan called into the office to add to the food drive. I was overwhelmed by the positive response we received and I'd like to express my sincere gratitude for the generosity demonstrated by my constituents and local businesses.</para>
<para>One week before Christmas, with my wife, Cheryle, I visited the Foodbank Western Australia warehouse in my electorate to deliver 350 kilograms of donated food, which went on to provide more than 700 meals to families in need over Christmas. I'd like to thank Greg, Andrew, Janie, Jody and the team at Foodbank for showing me around the warehouse and providing further information on issues around food security right here in our own backyard. They're all doing a wonderful job, and I look forward to working with them in the future. I know they garner much support for Foodbank from other members in Western Australia. It's a great cause.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Payday Lending</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm sure you'll all agree that both the gallery and the community at large quite rightly expect bipartisanship from this place. There is a reform that is capable of bipartisanship right here, right now. It's been on the table for two years. They are reforms to protect those vulnerable consumers who are trapped in a vicious debt spiral as a result of vultures and mercenaries offering payday loans and rent-to-buy schemes in a circumstance where we see repayment obligations spiralling out in a never-ending story, as high as 800 per cent.</para>
<para>We know there are times of need and times of crisis, where the fridge blows up, the washing machine needs to be fixed or a new one needs to be bought. But these reforms strike a sensible middle ground. The government had legislation ready to go through their cabinet in October last year with a promise that it would be delivered in 2017. Guess what? The parliamentary friends of payday lending, the conservative rump of the right wing, have struck, and at the moment, under the new assistant minister and the Treasurer, they are trying to pretend this legislation never existed. That will not do. The Labor Party has introduced the legislation word for word, sentence for sentence, comma for comma. The Liberal Party has the option: do you vote for your own legislation to protect vulnerable consumers or do you walk away? If you won't stare down your backbench, Prime Minister, we will. If you are too scared, we're not.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hughes Electorate: Garie Surf Life Saving Club</title>
          <page.no>48</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This coming Sunday, 18 February, I'm proud to be sponsoring the Garie Beach's surf lifesaving club's fun day. I'd like to invite all the constituents of the electorate of Hughes to attend. The magnificent Garie Beach is one of the 11 beaches located in the Royal National Park. Its remote location guarantees crystal clear waters. However, it's a lot closer than many think, being just over 30 minutes drive from Sutherland. The day will commence at 10 am and will have a live rescue demonstration, rescue equipment display and a resuscitation demonstration.</para>
<para>The Garie Surf Life Saving Club was formed back in 1938. It's a small club with a proud tradition. No lives have been lost at Garie while surf lifesavers have been on patrol. I'd like to congratulate all the members of the club and the current president, David Cross, for their work. I was pleased that late last year, with Commonwealth government funding, we were able to support the club by providing them with a new surf rescue boat. The weather forecast for Sunday is looking good: a sunny day with a light south-easterly breeze, a maximum temperature forecast of 29 and a high tide coming in about 10.30 am. Make sure you bring your sunscreen and a hat. I look forward to seeing you at Garie Beach for what should be a great day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's got beyond a joke. The person who fills the second-most senior role in the country is still in his job because 11 National Party MPs can't decide on how, when or where to tap him on the shoulder. We have got the deputy leader of that party who has just told Australia that 100 per cent of the people are behind him. We know that's not true. We know that 100 per cent of the members of the Liberal Party are definitely not behind him. It would not be such a joke if it weren't regional communities that are suffering. They are suffering. Right now there are over $500 million worth of growth projects that are on hold because this Deputy Prime Minister and his ministers cannot make a decision. The Regional Growth Fund, $270 million worth of projects: we were promised guidelines; we were promised money. It is on hold because they can't make a decision. The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages: eight of the 10 projects haven't been announced. The decentralisation plan—there's a fraud if ever there was one. No plan, but jobs being cut in regional Australia. It's time for the Prime Minister to do what the Nationals can't do: end this battle between the Hatfields and the McCoys. Do the right thing, sack the Deputy Prime Minister and let's get the country back on track.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>49</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Constitution</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister told parliament that the 'apology to the stolen generation will never be forgotten'. Yet John Howard's government, the government the Prime Minister was a member of, spent years opposed to an apology to the stolen generations. Will the Prime Minister avoid the mistakes of the past, proudly stand on the right side of history and reconsider his opposition to the Uluru Statement from the Heart and an Indigenous voice to parliament?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The position that the government has taken and that I've expressed is that we do not support entrenching in the Constitution a national representative assembly that only Indigenous Australians can vote for or be elected to. We take the view that every one of our national elected representative institutions should be open to every Australian citizen. We believe that is a fundamental part of our democracy and the rule of law.</para>
<para>The reality is that if the policy that the opposition has now adopted were to be carried out, if that referendum proposal were to be put up and if it were to succeed—and I have no doubt that it would fail—that national representative assembly, elected by and composed only of Indigenous Australians as an advisor to this parliament on matters affecting Indigenous Australians, would constitute, in effect, a third chamber of this parliament.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The opposition can shout as much as they like, but the reality is: there is not one bill that goes through this parliament that does not impact on and affect Indigenous Australians. The scope of that third chamber would get wider and wider, and a fundamental principle of our democracy would have been abrogated. The coalition will not support it. If the Labor Party want to advocate that at the election—and it appears they do—we will let the Australian people decide.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>49</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how small and family-owned businesses are taking advantage of lower taxes to create jobs and increase investment, including in my electorate of Forrest? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question. The government is supporting and delivering lower business taxes because we know they will result in more investment and more jobs. Company tax is ultimately a tax on workers. When nearly nine in 10 Australians work for private business, surely it is obvious that it's in the national interest to support the companies that employ the overwhelming majority of Australians. But, instead of supporting policies that will create jobs and grow wages, the opposition is busy peddling the myth that business does not care about the level of tax and doesn't in fact pay tax. I'm not sure where the $68 billion of company tax receipts came from, but, according to the Labor Party, companies don't pay tax.</para>
<para>The Labor Party wants to increase taxes; the government wants to reduce them. But we do not believe that paying tax is optional. Every Australian and every business that makes a profit in Australia must pay their fair share of tax. You'd think that was common sense, but not for the opposition. Like everything the opposition leader does, he calls for action one minute and then opposes it the next. He called for action against multinational tax avoidance and then he voted against some of the toughest anti-avoidance laws in the world. If this isn't clear enough for the members opposite, we'd be happy to arrange a briefing with officials from the Australian Taxation Office.</para>
<para>We have introduced and, no thanks to the Labor Party, passed through the parliament some of the toughest multinational tax avoidance laws in the world. At that briefing from the ATO, I am sure that those distinguished officials will be able to provide a tutorial on the difference between revenue and profit because members opposite either don't understand the difference or they're now calling for businesses to be taxed on revenue—not profit—even if the business makes a loss. We saw that they were busily retweeting the article—one of the most confused and poorly researched articles I've seen on this topic on the ABC's website. Of course, the ABC is an enterprise that understands profit and loss.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It does! It understands taxes; they're recipients of them. They receive them—taxpayers' funds. They understand the difference: the hard work of investing and struggling and losing money one year and then being able to offset it against profit the next—or not. No, the ABC has the same understanding of the commercial world as does the opposition. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Charitable Organisations</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In his <inline font-style="italic">Closing the g</inline><inline font-style="italic">ap</inline> speech on Monday, the Prime Minister lauded the Atlantic Fellows for Social Equity, which is part-funded by US based Atlantic Philanthropies, which aims—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Fletcher interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Sydney will resume her seat. The minister for urban infrastructure is warned. The member for Sydney will begin her question again.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. In his <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> speech on Monday, the Prime Minister lauded the Atlantic Fellows for Social Equity, which is part-funded by US based Atlantic Philanthropies, which aims to produce community leaders who will speak up and push for social change. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, under his government's policy on donations, Atlantic Fellows would be defined as a political campaigner and would be forced to hand back the US$50 million donation that made its good work possible?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I reject the assertion in that question completely.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>50</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
    <electorate>Swan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question—</para>
<para class="italic">Dr Mike Kelly interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Dreyfus interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Swan will resume his seat. The member for Eden-Monaro is warned, and the member for Isaacs is warned again. Let me be very clear to the member for Isaacs. I don't want him to be confused: he interjects too often and he's too loud.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr IRONS</name>
    <name.id>HYM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the coalition government's economic plan is working to deliver economic growth and create the conditions necessary to drive more and better-paid jobs? Is the Treasurer aware of any impediments to this plan?</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Swan for his question. He is one of the many people on this side of the House who have successfully run small businesses and employed them. There are many on this side of the House. The government is sticking to its plan for more growth and for more and better-paid jobs, and we're getting results. Last year 1,100 jobs were created every day. On this side of the House, our plan is to make our economy bigger. Those on the other side of the House seem confused as to why this would be an objective that the government would want to pursue. But I am going to encourage them in the words of one of their own as to why it's important to focus on growing the economy and why it's important to lower company taxes in particular. This is what Prime Minister Gillard said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are also against jobs. And, if you are against economic growth and jobs, then you are also against increasing wages ...</para></quote>
<para>That's what Prime Minister Gillard said. That's what she said. By opposing our plan for lower taxes, the Labor Party is standing between workers and a wage rise in this country. You need to go no further than the words of their own former Prime Minister for the proof.</para>
<para>On top of that, Labor is for a smaller economy. We were reminded yesterday by the minister for small business that the shadow minister for small business is about making businesses smaller. He's also about making the economy smaller, because Chris Richardson reminds us today that, by opposing our enterprise tax plan, they are going to ensure that the Australian economy is $20 billion smaller every single year into the future. This is a shadow Treasurer that wants to see a smaller economy, not a larger economy, and is acting against his own stated convictions and principles of times past.</para>
<para>This morning I was staggered to read that he said that the principle of reform is: you've got to go out there and get a mandate. Well we got one at the last election on company taxes. You might have missed it. We got one to implement this plan. Then he says, 'You've got to stick to the plan and not run away at the first sign of grapeshot.'</para>
<para>This is a guy who's been for company tax, against company tax. We agreed today, again, that he's now for company tax. He says, 'Yes, all the benefits are real, just not now,' and he was hushed down by the leader's office this morning. They wouldn't let him out on the doors this morning, because he's belled the cat. He knows cutting company taxes is good for jobs; it's good for wages. This shadow Treasurer's got the wibble-wobbles. He's jelly on a plate. That's what this bloke is.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister still retain confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister and, when the Prime Minister is overseas next week, will the Deputy Prime Minister be the Acting Prime Minister of Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for asking me that question. You asked me earlier in the week, and the answer is the same as it was earlier in the week.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting —</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Shorten interjecting —</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left will cease interjecting or they'll be watching from their office. The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting too.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to inform the House we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Judy Moylan, former minister and member for Pearce—a warm welcome to you—and also Mary Easson, the former member for Lowe. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome to you as well.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>51</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>51</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. The Victor Harbor-Goolwa region is the third largest significant urban area in South Australia. Victor Harbor Road, which has one of the highest rates of vehicle crashes, is in urgent need of an upgrade to double lanes. According to the RAA, between 2012 and 2016 there was a 34 per cent increase in traffic and 43 people were killed or seriously injured—one casualty every year for every five kilometres of road. SA Best is committed to upgrading this road. Regardless of who forms government at the next SA election, will the federal government commit to contributing funding to the much-needed upgrade of the Victor Harbor Road?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for her question and note that, on the cessation of the Labor Party's Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, we took the money from that to place into further monitoring, especially, of heavy vehicles that you can see at crossroads.</para>
<para>I also remind the honourable member that the coalition government has spent more on infrastructure than any Labor government—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Champion interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wakefield is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>billions of dollars more than what the Labor government has spent. I understand, as we all do, the issues of road safety. Our road toll has been reducing. One would hope that we can reduce it more. I admit that we are not quite on target to what we set for the reduction of the toll, but it continues to come down.</para>
<para>I also acknowledge that there was a substantial truck accident in Brisbane today—we still have to get the details on that. With regard to Victor Harbor, we'll have to take that on notice and get back to you.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's investment in Inland Rail will deliver economic prosperity across urban and regional Australia? Is he aware of any threats to the delivery of this game-changing infrastructure?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question and note the hard work that he has done for the people of Calare and for the city of Orange in helping to establish the Regional Investment Corporation, a multibillion dollar bank in Orange, developing Orange as our Chicago, as our area where rural commodities can be traded to become the epicentre of rural finance on the back of Paraway Finances, the national bank's major rural lending arm, and the New South Wales department of agriculture. It's a vibrant city, and the member for Calare is doing more work every day to make that city even stronger and make the Central West of New South Wales even stronger.</para>
<para>Of course, he is very interested in the Central West of New South Wales because one centre that will absolutely boom under this is Parkes. In Parkes—in the member for Riverina's seat—we will see that intermodal point, the expansion by reason of a connection from Melbourne through to Brisbane where the crossover from Sydney through to Perth happens. We're already seeing Pacific National investing $35 million into that area so that they can start building their infrastructure for those requirements. It's an $8.4 billion commitment. It's got 16,000 direct and indirect jobs. It will mean a $16 billion increase to our nation's GDP. With 262,000 tonnes of steel, the equivalent of five Harbour Bridges, this is being built in places such as Whyalla so that blue-collar workers in Whyalla can have a job. We believe in blue-collar workers. We still believe in labourers. We still believe in people actually having a job. We still believe that it's dignified to work in the coal industry and the steel industry. We are supporting them with this infrastructure.</para>
<para>We know that we have a vision that the Labor Party lack. However, they have an enthusiasm for it. We can see that from the member for Grayndler, who's been the shadow minister for infrastructure and transport from time immemorial. It was interesting on Monday, 12 February, and Tuesday, 13 February, that the member for Grayndler put out media releases saying, 'The Inland Rail goes through the seat of New England.' It doesn't. It doesn't go through the seat of New England. Then he also said, 'The Inland Rail doesn't go to the ports of Melbourne or Brisbane.' There are standard gauge lines to both the ports of Melbourne and Brisbane. Then he said, 'The Labor Party provided $300 million for the Inland Rail in the 2013 budget.' That's what he said. There's not a single mention of the Inland Rail in the 2013 budget. It was our election commitment. The best one was when he said, 'The Inland Rail was commenced by the former Labor government.' Why stop there? Why not say you're responsible for Mount Rushmore or the Sphinx? Why don't you claim responsibility for everything since the dawn of this planet?</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister suggested to the Deputy Prime Minister that it's time he resigned?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Taxation</title>
          <page.no>52</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs WICKS</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
    <electorate>Robertson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to crack down on multinational tax avoidance, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER (</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>— ) ( ): I thank the member for her question—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Plibersek interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left won't interject, and the member for Sydney is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and I note her very strong and keen interest in this area and her strong support of the Australian Taxation Office and the creation of 600 new jobs on the Central Coast in her area of Gosford. The member knows how important it is to the community that they have confidence in the integrity of our tax system that corporates and multinationals pay the right amount of tax. That is why the Turnbull government has taken strong and decisive action to ensure that we strengthen Australia's multinational tax regime. We have enacted the diverted profits tax, the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. We have introduced country-by-country reporting regimes and we have also established the Tax Avoidance Taskforce. All are, as the ATO commissioner has said, game changers to ensure that profits that are earned here are taxed here.</para>
<para>As reported in <inline font-style="italic">The Daily Telegraph</inline> on Monday, as a direct result of our laws—and no thanks to those opposite—38 multinational entities have already had to change their tax affairs; $7 billion of income has been added to Australia's tax base, and that is each and every year; and more than $½ billion in additional GST payments has been secured. The ATO have said that the MAAL was instrumental in closing almost $½ billion worth of tax assessments across the last financial year.</para>
<para>The fact is that those opposite voted against the introduction of the MAAL. They voted against $7 billion of the additional tax base coming to the government each and every year. They voted against $½ billion of GST and at least a billion dollars worth of tax assessments that would never have been if they'd had their way. The Tax Avoidance Taskforce established by this government means that the ATO now has more staff than ever before to look at the affairs of high-net-worth individuals and multinationals. For around 18 months, large corporates and multinationals have been sent tax bills of around $10 million a day, every day.</para>
<para>On the country-by-country reporting regime that those opposite say they care so much about—which was introduced by us—the ATO commissioner has said that it is absolutely transformational. Those opposite have said that they would actually publish the details of this, and the ATO commissioner has said it would 'kill the regime'. We on this side of the chamber believe it is important to have strong tax laws. Those opposite would unpick them. They are a risk to the tax integrity of our laws. They do not support the strong measures we have brought into this parliament, and they should not be trusted. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister the only member of cabinet the Prime Minister is powerless to take action against for breaching his ministerial standards? And is he powerless to act because of the terms of the Prime Minister's secret coalition agreement with the Deputy Prime Minister?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I call the Prime Minister: the reference to the coalition agreement is not within order, but the reference to the ministerial code is. The Prime Minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TURNBULL</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The honourable member's question contains within it the assumption or assertion that the Deputy Prime Minister is in breach of the ministerial standards. If the honourable member wishes to make that case, to make that allegation—and I invited him and his leader to do so yesterday—then he should do so. He should make that allegation and demonstrate the basis for doing so. In other words, the question is based on a false premise—or at least a premise that the honourable member has not bothered to establish.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Industry</title>
          <page.no>53</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BANKS</name>
    <name.id>18661</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister advise the House of how the government's company tax cuts will assist businesses in the defence industry and encourage the creation of more and better-paid jobs for hardworking Australians? Why is it important to have a consistent approach to policy?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. The member for Chisholm knows that in fact the government's company tax cut is already working for businesses in the defence industry, because yesterday the member and I met with Daronmont Technologies, a company that is headquartered in Chisholm. It has 50 employees in Mawson Lakes in South Australia. It produces a prototype radar, which it wants to sell to the Australian defence forces and potentially around the world and which has unique and classified characteristics. Yesterday, Daronmont Technologies told us that, because of the government's company tax cut, they'd already started hiring new employees into their business. They have 50 employees in Mawson Lakes and a turnover of $25 million a year. The government's company tax cut is actually working already, with Daronmont Technologies explaining how, every year, they are taking on one more employee than they had planned to because they can afford to do so.</para>
<para>That is the benefit of having a credible economic plan in politics. This side of the House has always placed the economy very much at the centre, in pride of place, in previous governments. This government is no different to the Howard government, the Menzies government and other Liberal governments that have tried, first of all, to fix the economy, create jobs, create growth and create investment, because, if you don't have wealth in the economy, you can't do all the things that civilised societies like ours expect to be able to do.</para>
<para>It wasn't that long ago that the Leader of the Opposition agreed with this. In 2011, he gave a speech to the ACOSS national conference in which he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.</para></quote>
<para>Who could disagree with that?</para>
<quote><para class="block">… we want a level playing field regardless of the size of the company.</para></quote>
<para>Even then he was supporting company tax cuts for the entire economy, not just for small and medium-sized enterprises. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… corporate tax reform helps Australia's private sector grow and it creates jobs right up and down the income ladder.</para></quote>
<para>He was right in 2011. He's fundamentally wrong now. The problem with the Leader of the Opposition is that he's shifty and he's inconsistent. The public have worked him out, and the caucus will work him out. Our friend over here, the member for Grayndler—the DJ, the boutique beer aficionado, the log cabin story, the sports enthusiast—is there, ready for you all. When you blow the trumpet, the member for Grayndler will appear. He will save you all from the valley of death into which the Leader of the Opposition is taking you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to reports that National Party MPs, including the member for Gippsland, the member for Hinkler, the member for Cowper, the member for Mallee and the member for Riverina, have held crisis talks about the Deputy Prime Minister's position. When even his own National Party colleagues know the Deputy Prime Minister's position is untenable, why won't the Deputy Prime Minister do the right thing by the people of Australia and resign?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm just going to say to the member for Isaacs: I can't see how the bulk of that question is in order when it refers to alleged conversations.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Keogh interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If there are any interjections, the member for Burt can lead the way. He can leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Burt then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If people can't remember what I said yesterday in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, I suggest they bring it in with them. I made a ruling before on questions and there being preambles. The bulk of that question referred to alleged private conversations that are in the media. It had a tag line at the end, and I'm ruling that question out of order. We're going to the next question.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Snowdon interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lingiari can leave under 94(a). The member for Lingiari will leave immediately. If you don't leave immediately, you're going to be named.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Lingiari then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Security</title>
          <page.no>54</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a strong and consistent approach to border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
    <electorate>Dickson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. There has been a lot of hard work and the government has taken many tough decisions in relation to stopping boats. We took very seriously the responsibility bequeathed to us by Labor to clean up their mess. When John Howard left office in 2007, as my colleagues know, there were four people in detention. John Howard had stopped the boats and he had dealt with the problem. Under the Rudd and Gillard governments, of which the Leader of the Opposition was an integral part—remembering he both supported and stabbed in the back both of those Prime Ministers but was central to the decision making in those cabinets—the fact is that the Labor Party started the boats up again. They gave a green light to people smugglers and, tragically, 1,200 people—men, women and children—drowned at sea.</para>
<para>We are coming up to close to four years in which we have not had a successful people-smuggling venture. We have not had deaths at sea. We have closed 17 detention centres, and we got the 8,000 children out of detention that Labor put into detention. You would have thought, given all of that success and given the years it has taken to correct Labor's mistakes, that Labor would at least have the decency to say that they are not going to change those policies again. You would have thought the Rudd and Gillard governments demonstrated that you should not undo the coalition policies in relation to Operation Sovereign Borders. But, unfortunately for this Leader of the Opposition, he is wholly and solely owned by the Left of his party. We're seeing a by-election in Batman at the moment where, as we've warned before, the Leader of the Opposition will be saying one thing in that inner-city seat in Victoria and saying something very different when he gets up to Longman, Lilley and other seats in Queensland. This is interesting to note because, if you undo these policies and allow people to come from Manus and Nauru, people who Labor put there, you will restart the boats. That's very clear. It's very clear on the intelligence available to us that, if you close down regional processing centres and if you don't turn back boats where it's safe to do so and have the resolve we've shown, the boats will recommence.</para>
<para>Interestingly enough, at the last election and since then, the Leader of the Opposition has been trying to convince the Australian public that in fact he wouldn't change the coalition's policies. But I note a tweet that came out from the Clifton Hill Labor branch that says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Bill Shorten promises Nauru and manus detention centres will be closed under a Labor government.</para></quote>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Home Affairs knows the rules on props.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DUTTON</name>
    <name.id>00AKI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What happens when Labor starts to say one thing in one part of the country and the complete opposite in the other part of the country? I'll tell you who is listening: it is not only the Australian public who are now seeing how shifty this bloke is; so are the people smugglers— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Ministerial standards require ministers to declare their personal interests to the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has declared 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'. Is the Deputy Prime Minister satisfied his declaration is sufficiently transparent to comply with his obligations under the ministerial standard given he has not declared who gave him this gift? And can the Deputy Prime Minister explain what these words mean: 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm only too happy to provide the details of that. Those details have been published and circulated widely in the media and they would probably satisfy the answer if you read the paper. First and foremost, that tenancy, because it's from a close friend, doesn't need to be declared at all. I chose to declare it. Prior to that date, I wasn't a member of parliament, as you probably remember, so it didn't need to be declared. I've declared it, it's on the record and it's there for you to see.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Dutton interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Minister for Home Affairs is warned.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>55</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the Minister update the House on how the government's action to create an affordable and reliable energy system is benefiting families and business across the nation, including in my electorate of Bennelong? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for his question. After his straight-sets victory and a few double faults from those opposite, he is the champion of Bennelong! He is the people's champion of Bennelong. The people of Epping, Putney and Ryde know that he is fighting hard for their best interests. He is fighting hard to drive their power bills lower.</para>
<para>Mr Alexander strongly supports the Turnbull government's reforms. He knows that businesses we have visited in his electorate, like Cafe Neon and Pryde Meats, with the Turnbull government's energy reforms, will be able to invest more money in jobs in their community. That means more butchers, more baristas, more bookkeepers—more jobs for the people of Bennelong.</para>
<para>The reforms that we are driving include the National Energy Guarantee, recommended by the experts. Australian households and families will be $300 a year better off under the National Energy Guarantee than under the Labor Party. Our intervention in the gas market, according to the ACCC, has seen prices come down by up to 50 per cent. Our better deal with the retailers will save hundreds of dollars for Australian families. The passage of legislation to abolish the limited merits review, if it had been allowed by the Labor Party, would have saved Australians $6.5 billion on their power bills.</para>
<para>I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know the Labor Party is the party of higher power bills. When they were last in office, power prices doubled, and now the Labor Party and the member for Port Adelaide are afraid to ask a question on energy policy. It's been 117 days without a question on energy policy, and do you know why? Because the Leader of the Opposition doesn't stand for anything. He goes to the Latrobe Valley and tells the workers that coal has a future in Australia. Then in this parliament he supports motions that say coal has no future in Australia. He says he wants to lower people's power bills, but he has a reckless 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target which will only send prices higher and repeat the experiment of South Australia.</para>
<para>He says he wants a national solution and a bipartisan approach, but, when we present the National Energy Guarantee from the experts, he rejects it because of his ideological approach. So, when it comes to energy policy, which is now dictated by the far Left of the Labor Party, don't look at what the Leader of the Opposition says; look at what he does.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>56</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. On 1 February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement about his previous portfolio responsibility for housing in agricultural areas, saying that people who live in cities who can't afford to buy their first home should find a cheaper house in Armidale. Does he stand by that statement? And can the Deputy Prime Minister tell Australia's first-home buyers how they too can get a rent-free home in Armidale from their mates?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That question's out of order.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If members cease interjecting for a second, I will refer them to the aspect of the practice in the standing orders—I'm happy to stand corrected and hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, who's preparing to come to the dispatch box, but ministers can't be asked about their previous portfolios.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order: the question began with a reference to a statement that was made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 1 February this year where he made a further statement about a previous portfolio. That was the quotation the question was referring to. The question has been deliberately framed in the same way as the 2006 ruling that you previously adjudicated on: if someone makes a further statement about a previous portfolio, it is in order to ask whether that's accurate.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just before I hear from the Leader of the House, I'd like to hear the question again, to be fair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Certainly, Mr Speaker. My question's to the Deputy Prime Minister. On 1 February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement about his previous portfolio responsibility for housing in agricultural areas, saying that people living in cities who can't afford to buy their first home—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McMahon can resume his seat. I've heard enough; we don't need to hear the whole thing again. I think technically that's right: the question does refer to a statement, and it's been crafted in a way that makes it just in order. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for McMahon for his question and note that it is a statement of fact that houses in regional areas such as Tamworth, Armidale, Wagga and Orange are, invariably, on the whole, cheaper than they are in Sydney or Brisbane or Melbourne, and we should be doing everything in our power to encourage decentralisation.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Watts interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That is why we've moved AgriFutures to Wagga Wagga. That is why we are putting the Regional Investment Corporation in Orange. That is why we are moving the APVMA to Armidale. That's why we are having the GRCD move to Toowoomba and northern and Western Australia. That's why we are moving some of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to Wodonga in Victoria. We believe in making sure that people have the opportunity to buy and pay off a house during their working life. That is why we are the government that believes in decentralisation.</para>
<para>I cannot understand why the Labor Party do not believe in decentralisation, why they do not have a policy on decentralisation and why they are offering nothing to the people who actually want to move. I've met so many people in Armidale and in Tamworth who have moved to these regional cities because they have a better standard of living, a better way of life, a better capacity to pay off their house. We on this side have a vision for our nation which grows beyond the crescent from Melbourne through to Adelaide—as good as that crescent is. We make sure that there's a greater purpose to our nation and that other places will grow. That's why we're building the Inland Rail. That's why we are standing by agriculture. You mentioned agriculture. We've had the biggest turn around in agricultural commodity prices in the history of our nation. We are proud of that, because we are the government that delivers.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Roads Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities. Will the minister update the House on the government's approach to cutting down on congestion in our urban areas, including in my electorate or Forde and around the nation? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forde for his question. He of course has a strong track record on delivering on congestion-busting projects, such are Gateway Merge project, along with Mudgeeraba to Varsity Lakes being widened to six lanes—which the member for McPherson also advocated very strongly for. Construction will commence halfway through this year, delivering congestion relief on the M1 corridor, one of the busiest in the nation with some 148,000 vehicles a day.</para>
<para>That's just part of the suite of congestion-relieving projects that the Turnbull government is delivering around the country, including the M80 Ring Road in Melbourne, where we've committed $500 million; the Monash Freeway, where we've committed $500 million; the North-South Corridor in Adelaide, where we've committed $1.6 billion; the three sections of NorthLink, where have committed $820.9 million in Perth. In Sydney, there is NorthConnex, a $412 million project which will save motorists 15 minutes and 21 sets of traffic lights, and WestConnex, a $16.8 billion project, where 45,000 vehicles will be taken off Parramatta Road between Concord and Haberfield by 2030 The trip time from Parramatta to Sydney Airport will be reduced by 40 minutes. These are congestion-busting projects, as indeed the member for Grayndler acknowledged when he said in May 2013 when announcing Labor's commitment to WestConnex: 'This infrastructure commitment is also helping western and south-western Sydney residents to cut back on travel times.' So true.</para>
<para>But I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? There are alternative approaches to infrastructure. They might be described as the Labor-Greens appeasing backflip—because that is a standard tactic we see from Labor governments. We saw it when West Australian Labor cancelled the Perth Freight Link and Victorian Labor cancelled the East West Link. But what about the member for Grayndler? He was championing WestConnex in 2013 but, in 2016, under pressure from the Greens in his electorate of Grayndler, he couldn't walk away from WestConnex fast enough—he couldn't distance himself fast enough. He told a community meeting in his electorate that, if he became the transport minister, there would be not one dollar of federal money for WestConnex.</para>
<para>Labor cannot be trusted to deliver on these congestion-busting infrastructure projects in our big cities. Only the coalition, only the Turnbull government, can be trusted to deliver congestion relief for people in the middle ring and outer suburban areas of our big cities.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Deputy Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>57</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question's to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's answer just now and his February statement advising first home buyers to find a cheaper house in Armidale. Is he aware of a video advertising an Armidale property which says, 'There's a tipping point in your professional life where you reach a level of success, and you go from making ends meet to enjoying the spoils of all your hard work'? Given that it's a matter of public record that the Deputy Prime Minister lives at this exact property rent-free, does the Deputy Prime Minister stand by his February statement? And can he advise— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member's time has concluded. There was no question that was asked. The member for McMahon?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bowen</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A point of order, if I could, with respect—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, you're not raising a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bowen</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>because there was a question in there, Mr Speaker.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Wood interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for La Trobe is warned.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the House will cease interjecting. I've told him on numerous occasions, notwithstanding his position. I'm trying to listen to points of order and the question. He makes it very difficult, particularly when he's in charge of asking me to rule the question out of order. The member for McMahon will repeat the first part of his question.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his answer just now and his February statement advising first home buyers to find a cheaper house in Armidale. Is he aware of a video advertising an Armidale property which says, 'There's a tipping point in your professional life where you reach a level of success, and you go from making ends meet to enjoying the spoils of all your hard work'? Given that it's a matter of public record—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McMahon can resume his seat. I heard the last part of the question from there on, and there was a question at the end that he continued to ask once he'd run out of time. He's right: he's asking the Deputy Prime Minister whether he's aware of a video. It's his right to try to ask that question with respect to housing. I'm going to hear from the Leader of the House on the matter.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question of whether he's aware of a video in relation to housing really has nothing to do with his responsibilities in transport or infrastructure. Nor does it have to do with the wider issue of—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Albanese interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>the cost of housing in rural and regional areas. And, while I think your ruling on the previous question is correct, I think on this question the Labor Party is pressing a friendship, as they say, in relation to whether that question is in order. It is not only that the question of whether he's aware of a video is hardly within his responsibilities, but nor was there a question asked about his responsibilities.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The difficulty—and the member for Cunningham can resume her seat; we're not going to have a separate conference on the matter. I'm prepared to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business, and I'm prepared to hear from the Leader of the House. We're not going to go into committee on this, for heaven's sake.</para>
<para>The Leader of the House makes the point that it's not within the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities, and he's completely right. The problem, though, is that the previous question referred to a statement that had been made. And, on reflection, after having ruled that out of order, I thought I should allow it. This is a follow-up question relating to that statement, where the question's asked. It's not up to me to judge a view of the question but just whether it's in order. And I think that part of the question is in order, and of course it's completely within the standing orders in the <inline font-style="italic">Practice </inline>for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer it in whatever way he sees fit.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the honourable member for McMahon for his question. The first attempt at the question was a complete and utter failure, because he forgot to ask a question. The second part wasn't funny and sort of failed towards the end. And the premise of the question is whether I am aware of a video. Well, I think that just about shows you the substantial nature of the shadow Treasurer. That's about where he's got to. That's about where he has landed. That's about where they are with the Australian people. He comes to the despatch box to ask if we're aware of a video.</para>
<para>I'll tell you what I am aware of. I am aware of the fact that, under your government, the agricultural portfolio at that time went backwards. I'm aware of the fact that Albo—the member for Grayndler—wants to be the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware of the fact that the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, is holding on to his job by the skin of his teeth. Talking about guests, I am aware of the fact that the member for Watson stayed with the person who's now staying at Her Majesty's pleasure, Eddie Obeid, and waited three years to declare it. I'm aware of lots of facts. I'm aware of the fact that you promised—how many surpluses did they promise?</para>
<para>A government member: Four.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Four surpluses, and I'm aware of the fact they delivered none. I'm aware of so many facts when it comes to the Labor Party. The Australian people are aware of so many facts. We're aware of the fact that they have no money on the table for the inland rail. We're aware of the fact that they're going to take money away from the dams program. We're aware of the fact that they're beholden to the Australian Greens. We're aware of the fact that in the seat of Batman they're going to have a different campaign to that in the seat of Longman when it turns up. We're aware—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. When I said the Deputy Prime Minister could answer the question in the way he saw fit, I was a bit loose with my language. I meant with reference to the question on housing.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Care: South Australia</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Health. Minister, can you update the House on the action the Turnbull government is taking to invest in the health of South Australians, particularly within my electorate of Barker? Are you aware of any alternative approaches that will undermine patient outcomes across South Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Barker, who has been a passionate advocate for mental health services within his electorate of Barker and, in particular, in towns that have a real need for greater support. We're delivering $30 million over the next two years in mental health and suicide prevention support in rural and regional South Australia, in particular in his electorate as well as in the electorate of Grey. We're also delivering just over $6 million in local drug and alcohol team support within rural and regional South Australia over the coming years, and he and others have been great advocates for that.</para>
<para>Interestingly, what we've seen since this government came to power is an increase in Country Health SA's hospital allocation from the Commonwealth of 31½ per cent. What we've seen from the South Australian Labor government over that same period is an increase of approximately half—of 16 per cent. So we have delivered double the hospital funding increases over the same period as the Labor Party in South Australia. They have short-changed their own state. Even more significantly, however, we've heard over the previous days that the South Australian government could not keep the lights on in Flinders Medical Centre, with catastrophic outcomes, and they could not keep the lights on in the Royal Adelaide Hospital. In country South Australia, in towns such as Mount Gambier, Meningie and Penola, what we have seen is that they also deliberately turned out the lights on their own hospitals. They shed load on South Australian rural hospitals under a South Australian government policy. This was initially denied by Tom Koutsantonis, who said they would provide continuous supply to critical infrastructure such as hospitals, only to be contradicted by the South Australian health department, which said, 'This doesn't actually apply to country hospitals.'</para>
<para>We regard country hospitals as critical. We regard country hospitals in South Australia and Victoria and in every state as fundamental to health supply. But that's obviously not so for the government in South Australia. They deliberately shed load on their own rural hospitals. They failed to keep the lights on at the Flinders Medical Centre. They failed to keep the lights on and the surgery operating in Royal Adelaide Hospital. What sort of government are they running there? They are running a failed government with a failed experiment which has failed the people of South Australia. By comparison, we've seen double the funding in rural South Australia in terms of increases from us compared with SA Labor. In the end, this mob over here are covering up for the failure of their state counterparts. We're fixing it up and we're keeping the lights on. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Housing Affordability</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answers. The government has so far advised first-home buyers to get rich parents, get a better job or get out of town. Does he stand by his February statement telling first-home buyers to find cheaper accommodation in Armidale, and can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the government's latest advice for first-home buyers is to just get rich mates?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Whilst the question refers to a previous statement that the minister made, they have to have a connection in some way. Just because a minister makes a statement about their previous portfolio, I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that there's a presumption that that statement can be relied upon to essentially question the minister as if he were still in that portfolio. So whilst I allowed the last question, can I just say with all candour that this is getting a little too cute. Practice is something that evolves, and it's about to evolve. I don't regard that as being in order. I regard that as a question where you've taken a statement that's been made to then ask a string of questions about housing affordability based on the Deputy Prime Minister's previous portfolio. I think that's a bridge too far.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Employment</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the Minister update the House on the government's commitment to establishing the Skilling Australians Fund to train 300,000 apprentices and trainees in skill shortage areas? How does this approach get more hard-working Australians into jobs, and is the minister aware of any other alternatives?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TUDGE</name>
    <name.id>M2Y</name.id>
    <electorate>Aston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Moore for his question and his interest in this matter. Earlier this week the House passed a bill to underwrite the Skilling Australians Fund, which will be used to train up to 300,000 apprentices and trainees in skills shortages areas. This fund will be paid for via a levy attached to each skilled work visa, such as the 457s. Of course this is part of our broader suite of reforms that we are making to the 457 program. Our overall objective in making all of these reforms is to ensure that Australians get every opportunity to get a job, through either job creation or only bringing in overseas workers when absolutely necessary.</para>
<para>Our record is very, very impressive on this front. When you go through it, we had record numbers of jobs being created. We had the lowest proportion of people on welfare in 25 years—so they're going to take those jobs. And the trifecta is that we had almost half the number of people having to come from overseas in order to work in Australia. So it's a terrific trifecta for Australian workers: more jobs, more Aussies in jobs, and fewer people from overseas having to come into the country to fill skills shortages.</para>
<para>I was asked about alternatives. While this government has a trifecta in favour of Australian workers, Labor's record is exactly the opposite. When they were last in office, job numbers actually decreased. The welfare queues extended by 250,000 people under the Labor Party, and, while the welfare queues were extending by 250,000 people, the Labor Party were bringing in record numbers of people from overseas into Australia on 457 visas. It's one thing to need 457 visa holders when the labour market is tight; but the Labor Party had welfare queues going for as far as the eye could see and yet were still introducing record numbers of people from overseas to take Australian jobs.</para>
<para>Guess who was in charge of their unholy trifecta? Guess who was in charge of the trifecta of fewer jobs, longer welfare queues and more overseas workers coming into this country? Guess who was the workplace relations minister overseeing that unholy trifecta? He sits opposite the Prime Minister now, and he wants to be the Prime Minister of this country. If he does, we know where things will return to. There will be fewer jobs, longer welfare queues and more people from overseas taking those jobs. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Trade</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CLARE</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
    <electorate>Blaxland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the member for Flynn in his capacity as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. I note the strong leadership the member has provided in the committee's current inquiry into the trade system and the digital economy. Is the member able to inform the House of the progress of recent inquiries that he's been leading? Is the member still accepting submissions from interested parties? When does the member expect his efforts to reach their conclusion? And when does the member expect the report to finally be tabled?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition and others! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I'm just going to say to members on my left: if they don't cease interjecting, I'll just simply move onto the next question. The Leader of the House on a point of order.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Pyne</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, the opposition is engaging in a transparent attempt to flout the very strict rules that surround the standing orders. As you well know, there is a very limited window of opportunity for chairmen of committees to be able to answer questions in question time. Question time is designed for questions from the opposition and the crossbenches to the government to hold the government to account. This has been a tactic employed by oppositions for many decades, but there was a very strict requirement around such questions, and I would urge you to ensure that those rules are abided by as tightly and as carefully as possible.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I call the Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. Standing order 99 has been used before, including when the Leader of the House was in the job that I'm in now. The rules around it are that the member being asked has to be responsible for the committee—this obviously applies, given he is the chair of it—and relates to issues for which he is responsible.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I've got my glasses on, so it's serious. I'll be very quick with this. On this occasion, the Leader of the House is quite right. The Manager of Opposition Business can say that the member's responsible, but the question must relate to a bill, motion or other business of the House or committee for which the member is responsible.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I conclude without everyone interjecting? It needs to be read in conjunction with <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>, and these questions, and I'm referring—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Llew O'Brien interjecting—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Gee interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Wide Bay and the member for Calare aren't assisting. I believe this needs to be read in conjunction—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Clare interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Blaxland! I think the Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to listen to me. He's well aware of the standing orders. There needs to be a specific example, not a general example, and the practice has been that these questions are essentially confined to timing and procedure. I've been a committee chair myself. I've heard a lot of these questions asked in the past, and I don't believe this is in order. I prepared to hear from the—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm here to uphold the standing orders, not to please the member for McEwen, to be frank. I can tell you: it's something I spend no time on. The Manager of Opposition Business can make a further submission.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, only today the <inline font-style="italic">Guide to procedures</inline> for the House of Representatives came out. On page 103, it refers to questions to private members and gives the exact example that is in this question of a committee chair being asked when a report would be tabled, which are the exact words that are in this question. This was circulated to members today.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll make a couple of points to the Manager of Opposition Business. I was very pleased to launch the guide yesterday. In my remarks at the launch of the guide, which, unfortunately, the Manager of Opposition Business wasn't able to attend due to his other duties, he would have heard me say that the guide was developed over a number of years. It first started as a short statement that then became a guide, prior to the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>. It's designed as a quick guide, not a detailed practice, which is to be found in the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>. If he looks to page 551 of the <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline>, he'll notice that questions have been asked generally about timing and procedure. That question had a lot more in it than timing and procedure. I've made the point, and the questions that have been allowed in the past have been very specific, about timing and procedure. I remember, many years ago, questions about Sydney Airport, and I know the member for Grayndler will remember those.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Albanese</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I remember them very well.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You do. They were very concise, about timing and procedure. They are not an avenue to introduce a whole lot of things for which the private member is not responsible to seek to make a political point. I'm being very clear. I'm ruling it out of order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUCHHOLZ</name>
    <name.id>230531</name.id>
    <electorate>Wright</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on action the coalition government is taking to ensure that the right policies are in place to create and maintain a competitive investment environment? What risks are associated with alternative approaches?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CIOBO</name>
    <name.id>00AN0</name.id>
    <electorate>Moncrieff</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Wright for his question. The member for Wright was with me last Friday at the A50 Australian Economic Forum in Sydney. In fact, the member for Wright has been a guiding force in helping that event to come together. It's an opportunity to bring together international investors and to showcase why Australia is such a strong investable proposition. He, like me, understands and appreciates that investment in this country, investment that's consistent with our national interest, is pro economic growth and pro jobs. That's why the coalition has been so steadfast in making sure we can provide the commercial certainty that's required and requested by investors from around the world to capitalise on the economic opportunities that we've got.</para>
<para>One thing that was very clear to both the member for Wright and me off the back of this A50 forum is that the global economy is very competitive. Australia competes with other jurisdictions around the world for our share of global capital. In relation to that, what's very clear is that, because of their company tax cuts, the US is a more attractive investment proposition today than they were before those company tax cuts were put in place, which is precisely why this coalition government is pursuing lower company taxes. We recognise that lower company taxes make Australia a more investable proposition. We recognise that lower company taxes will help to drive not only investment into this country but further investment by the business sector. There are some 3.2 million small businesses out there and they are employing around 6.5 million Australians, and lower company taxes will mean not only that they get a greater share of profits into the future but also that they can invest more in the Australian economy which will help to create jobs as well.</para>
<para>He asks about alternatives. Unfortunately, there are some alternatives. What I saw in the<inline font-style="italic"> Daily Telegraph</inline> in this article 'Bill's war on business' were reports that spoke about the Labor Party's alternative, because we know they want higher company taxes. We know they want higher taxes across the board. What that article goes on to make clear is that, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked by the Australian business community what his plans were for the Australian economy, he just said health and education. And they said, 'But what is that going to mean in terms of actual jobs?' He was silent. He didn't have an answer to how Labor plan to deliver one single job. It was also the dinner where he was reported as saying about their candidate in Batman, 'She's hopeless.' The fact is that the Australian Labor Party does not have a plan for jobs in this country. The Australian Labor Party don't even appropriately endorse their candidate in Batman and, in fact, I think I've got a leak from the opposition leader's office—it's Labor's new campaign material for Ged Kearney, with his endorsement. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister's time has concluded, and he knows the rules on props.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the member for Flynn in his capacity as the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I refer to the inquiry he has been leading. When does the member expect the report to finally be tabled?</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question's in order.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you for the question. We have received 18 submissions. I and my deputy—the very competent deputy sitting over there—and some of my other committee members spent last Friday together and we did eight submissions. We have eight witnesses tomorrow—and anyone's welcome to a public hearing—from the Export Council of Australia. We start about half past eight in the morning—if any of you are out of bed by then!</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
<para>An honourable member: You've just been bull-dogged.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on both sides.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Once we've received all the submissions, we will finalise our report sometime before Christmas.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Turnbull</name>
    <name.id>885</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On that triumphant note, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the Prime Minister. I just say to the member for Blaxland: if he reflects on his question and the Manager of Opposition Business's, he'll see the reason for my ruling out the original question.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS</title>
        <page.no>62</page.no>
        <type>PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
    <electorate>Grayndler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Grayndler may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In question time today, the minister for infrastructure quoted me in saying that there was funding for the inland rail in the 2013 budget. The minister for infrastructure says that that wasn't true. In order to assist, I quote from the government's own Inland Rail Implementation Group's report, <inline font-style="italic">Inland rail 2015</inline>, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Deputy Prime Minister has sought advice from the Implementation Group on options for the initial $300 million in Government expenditure</para></quote>
<para>It goes on to say that that was there in the 2013-14 budget, and I seek leave to table the government's own report.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALBANESE</name>
    <name.id>R36</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Further, the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say that my statement that the inland rail doesn't go to the port of Brisbane was not correct. I quote from an article in <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline>, 14 May, by Matthew Connors, in which the Port of Brisbane chief executive Roy Cummins said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The fact that Inland Rail stops at Acacia Ridge, and double-stacked trains will have to be unloaded there, means Brisbane residents could see millions more trucks driving through Brisbane suburbs.</para></quote>
<para>I seek leave to table the article from <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Courier Mail</inline>.</para>
<para>Leave not granted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I do, most grievously.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In an answer to an earlier question, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services said that I and my Labor colleagues voted against the government's multinational tax law. This is not correct: neither I nor any of my Labor House colleagues voted against the government's multinational tax law.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
    <electorate>Menzies</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I take this opportunity briefly to congratulate a resident in my local suburb of Warrandyte, Scotty James, on winning the bronze medal in the snowboard halfpipe at the Olympics just an hour or so ago.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>63</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Australia</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government failing rural and regional Australia.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FITZGIBBON</name>
    <name.id>8K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Hunter</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've just checked SportsBet, and I can confirm that the member for Flynn has now emerged as the leading contender to be the next leader of the National Party and, after his question time performance, I think we can safely say he'll be better than the current bloke.</para>
<para>To have a strong national economy, you have to have strong regional economies. It's a statement of fact that it's been a tough four years for rural and regional Australia under the Abbott and Turnbull governments, whether we talk about hospitals policy, schools policy, higher education policy, energy policy, infrastructure investment and, of course, the biggie: the NBN.</para>
<para>It is also a statement of fact that, when you cut funding to physical infrastructure or to services, the impact falls disproportionately and adversely on rural and regional Australia. That's exactly what has been happening over the last four years. Every time the government grabs money to pay for its $65 billion worth of tax cuts to the big end of town, the big corporates in this country, there is a cost and that cost falls harder on rural and regional Australia than it does on our capital cities.</para>
<para>Let me give you just one example: the schools policy. In the first two years, the impact on schools in Wentworth will be about $10 million but the impact on schools in New England, the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister, will be more like $20 million—double the impact. Of course, it goes without saying that, when you have cost blow-outs and a hopeless and underserviced NBN, the impact is greatest on rural and regional Australia where we rely so heavily on a decent NBN to narrow the gap between city and country.</para>
<para>I want to leave it to my colleagues who will follow me to focus more on some of those issues, as I am sure they will, and I've no doubt that my colleagues from Tasmania will have something to say about the biosecurity concerns in their state as a result of the failures of this government.</para>
<para>I want to use the time remaining to focus on my own portfolio: agriculture. I want to begin by citing a contribution in the <inline font-style="italic">Australian Financial Review</inline> today. The headline warns 'Competition slashes wheat exports'. It then reads:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australian wheat exports have slowed to a trickle as traditional markets in south-east Asia turn to cheaper alternatives.</para></quote>
<para>Why would I quote that story here today? There are two reasons. One, it stands in stark contrast to what we hear on an almost daily basis from the Deputy Prime Minister, who likes to come to the dispatch box and attempt, at least, to claim credit for higher commodity prices where commodity prices are high. The funny thing about that is that everyone in this place and everyone outside this place knows that the member for New England can make no claim for impacting upon those commodity prices. He likes to talk about the beef, sheep and goat sectors. These higher prices are a direct result of drought and a small herd—simple supply and demand. What he doesn't do is talk about the commodities which have fallen—and there are very many of them. He certainly doesn't talk about the crisis in the dairy industry—not only in Murray Goulburn in Victoria, for which he did nothing, but generally across that sector, which is facing some very significant challenges.</para>
<para>But I also quote the article to remind people how dumbed down agriculture policy has become under the tutorage of the Deputy Prime Minister. Thank goodness he has gone. I always said he'd wreck the joint and move on and leave it for someone else to clean up. I wish David Littleproud well, because there is plenty to clean up. I've said it before here and I'll say it again: there is no doubt in my mind that the member for New England is the worst agriculture minister in the history of our Federation, and I think that will become even clearer over time. All we saw from the member for New England in this portfolio is boondoggle after boondoggle and pork barrel after pork barrel—most of them, of course, not benefitting farmers but benefitting the Deputy Prime Minister in his own electorate.</para>
<para>Our regional economies are very diverse—and we welcome that—but you can't have strong regions, at least in most of our regions, if you don't have a strong agricultural sector. Surging demand globally for high-quality, safe, clean green food provides us with many, many opportunities as an agriculture sector. But it also offers many challenges. The so-called dining boom won't come to us; we need to go to it. We need to be prepared for it. There is competition out there. I want to outline 10 things—it is not an exhaustive list—that government must do if we're to make the most of those opportunities. We need to establish high policy guidelines, something you do not get from this government—and the agriculture white paper was a joke. We need to restore a genuine and effective COAG process, where we have the Commonwealth and the states working together once again. We need to protect our great reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe high-quality food, our key competitive advantage—and you can't do that when you've got biosecurity failings, as we've had from this government and as we've seen most recently with white spot in prawns in Queensland and now fruit fly in Tasmania. We must adapt to a changing and harsher climate and we must tackle drought. We haven't had any progression in drought policy over the last four years. We must pursue a vigorous productivity agenda; embrace more efficient and more sustainable land use practices; further develop market mechanisms for the maximisations of the allocation of natural resources; and encourage the pursuit for higher value products. We can't be doing more and more in a commodity market where we're simply price takers. It's not the future for Australian agriculture. We must give higher priority to non-tariff trade barriers. We have free trade agreements but no access because the protocols haven't been complete by this government. And we must lift our research, innovation and extension efforts. There are many other areas of government responsibility, like infrastructure—which, as the member for Grayndler so successfully pointed out, has been so underdone by this government.</para>
<para>I want to quickly take us to the member for New England's performance. I'm going to read this as quickly as I can. There are so many to talk about. He forcibly relocated the APVMA to his own electorate—a disaster for Australian agriculture. He abolished the COAG committee, which was doing so much work to bring the states and the Commonwealth together. He sacked his departmental head, destroying the culture, trust and motivation of those who work in the department. He doctored his Hansard. He ditched drought assistance. He tried to move the Regional Investment Corporation to Orange without any governance, giving him full flight to do whatever he wanted with his pork-barrelling exercise. He's destroyed trust in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a real threat on the water front and in our food bowl. Biosecurity has been a disaster. He tried to abolish the Inspector-General of Biosecurity. It was only our resistance that prevented that from happening.</para>
<para>When the Murray-Goulburn fell over, I offered to help him—nothing! He did nothing for the farmers who suffered from the Murray-Goulburn collapse. He reregulated the sugar industry. He's giving money to leadership groups in the agriculture sector for no apparent reason. Taxpayers' money is funding these leadership groups. He failed to address leadership issues in the red meat industry, something he promised solidly before he was elected. He introduced a backpacker tax for the first time in this country, and now our growers can't get pickers. I heard the minister at question time talking about 457s. We now have people coming from other countries to work at the APVMA because the local staff won't go to Armidale. He had a multiperil crop insurance boondoggle in his white paper, which failed at the first hurdle. He abolished federal leadership at the Animal Welfare Strategy. He ignored the plight of our thoroughbred breeders when they had a disease problem in the industry. He also misled the community on the implementation on the carp eradication virus. Do you remember the carp? Have you heard anything about it since?</para>
<para>The member for New England is hopeless. He was a failed minister. As a result of many government failures across those four years, rural and regional Australia is struggling. There is no doubt it is time for a change of government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr McVEIGH</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
    <electorate>Groom</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The coalition has an unrivalled commitment to regional Australia. It fascinates me that the member for Hunter overlooks the fact that his very own electorate under the coalition got: $950,000 from NSRF towards the Cessnock Civic Precinct Revitalisation; $1.25 million from BBRF for Hunter Valley Wine Country tourism; $27.2 million from Roads to Recovery between 2014-15 and 2018-19; and over $4.4 million through Bridges Renewal. It surprises me that the member for Hunter ignores that.</para>
<para>We are focused on supporting the nearly eight million people who live outside of our capital cities. In 2016 our agricultural, forestry, fishing and mining industries made up 57 per cent of the value of Australian merchandise exports. Forty-five cents in every dollar is spent by international and local tourists in regional Australia, and that's why we're laying down the foundations that are required to capitalise on the immense opportunities that we in regional Australia have. We've been delivering jobs in record numbers—over 403,000 jobs in the last 12 months. Well over 100,000 of those are in regional Australia, the highest on record. This is the equivalent of every person in Sale, Port Lincoln, Warwick, Parkes, Grafton, Gympie, Muswellbrook and Burnie all getting a new job in just 12 months.</para>
<para>We're delivering lower taxes through the Enterprise Tax Plan and a structured decentralisation approach to Australian government jobs from Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne because regional Australians deserve those opportunities as well. We're moving jobs via the Regional Investment Corporation into Orange; the Murray-Darling Basin Authority into Toowoomba, Albury-Wodonga and Adelaide; Grains Research and Development Corporation into Toowoomba, Dubbo, Adelaide and Perth; and, of course, APVMA to Armidale. That process means that we will have significant new opportunities—job opportunities, family opportunities—throughout regional Australia as a result of the efforts of the coalition government.</para>
<para>But private enterprise should be encouraged to decentralise as well, and we are doing that through the Regional Jobs and Investment Package. An example of a transformational project that is receiving funds through this package is a company called Adaptapack, from the electorate of the member for Page, in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. Over $1.5 million is being delivered to assist this great company to do fantastic things in advanced packaging technology, with a focus on robotics. The family involved have seen the opportunity to move to the Northern Rivers. And what happens therefore is that, thanks to the support of the coalition government, we see a company expanding their business from Sydney into the Northern Rivers, into Lismore in northern New South Wales—60 highly skilled, good-paying jobs coming into that member's electorate.</para>
<para>Our focus on regional jobs is driven by our $75 billion infrastructure investment program right across the country, much of which is invested in regional Australia, as it should be: $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway, $5.6 billion for the Pacific Highway, $8.4 billion for inland rail—that iconic project that will bring opportunities right across the eastern seaboard of Australia and, via links to the west, the rest of the country as well. I'm particularly proud of the transformational $1.6 billion project that is the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing; $4 billion, including in the electorate of member for Hunter, in Roads to Recovery is I think significant indeed.</para>
<para>In terms of the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, we've also supported recently—amongst many other announcements that I've overseen in just six weeks or so as the minister—projects in the Northern Rivers, including the Tweed Valley Rail Trail project. I think this is particularly interesting because, whilst those opposite don't get regional development, the Tweed deputy mayor, the Labor-aligned Reece Byrnes, said that the project will be of significant benefit to his region. He said, in the <inline font-style="italic">Byron Shire Echo</inline>:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I welcome today's announcement by the federal government of Tweed Shire Council's success under the latest funding round for the Tweed section of the Northern Rivers Rail Trail,' Cr Byrnes said. 'The rail trail will be a great injection into our tourism and small business sector, particularly in Murwillumbah.</para></quote>
<para>Perhaps there's one Labor person in this country who gets it. It is an example of successful development in the Northern Rivers.</para>
<para>We've invested close to $1 billion in grant funding for vitally important community infrastructure projects—$5 million towards the upgrade of Bendigo Airport; $7 million for the Rockhampton riverfront redevelopment; $5.3 million for Ronald McDonald House in South Brisbane, which supports regional families, particularly those with sick children; $2.8 million for the Kingston Park community hub in the electorate of the member for Franklin; and $4.6 million for the Moss Vale Enterprise Corridor in the electorate of the member for Whitlam. And there is $620 million for the Black Spot Program, $600 million for the Northern Australia Roads Program, $500 million for regional rail in Victoria, $360 million for Bridges Renewal, as I've said, and $272 million to invest $10 million or more in major projects, individually, to unlock the future potential of regions.</para>
<para>Now, $120 million for these regional projects—the 10 pilot regions that are in the regional growth fund—will mean that we'll be seeing significant development through regional areas. We're rolling out, through these projects that have been announced in the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, 500 in construction and 500 ongoing jobs on the north coast of the New South Wales. The list goes on and on. It's similarly the case in the Geelong Regional Jobs and Investment Package: 600 ongoing construction jobs—great benefits for the member for Corio as well as the member for Corangamite—with $2 billion in Sky Muster satellite services and an estimated $58.5 billion in recurrent funding in 2018-27 for regional and remote schools. As I said, the list goes on.</para>
<para>I want to particularly focus on the 765 upgraded and new base stations through the mobile Black Spot Program. That helps regional families, regional businesses and regional opportunities that are being addressed by our government. Of course regional Australians also now have increased access to psychological services via telehealth.</para>
<para>The contrast is stark. Labor can't be trusted because they simply do not have a plan for regional Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, as I've said previously, will do anything to score a headline and try and grab Green preferences in Batman and capital cities. As the opposition leader lurches to the left, regional Australia would be junked by those opposite—just like the live cattle export trade that they nearly killed some years ago. That they wanted to risk that industry showed a total ignorance of the beef industry, our most significant agricultural industry in this country. Labor just doesn't get it.</para>
<para>If the member for Whitlam, as shadow minister, is the closest thing that Labor has to having an MP with a rural or regional background, it is no wonder they have no idea. Let's face it: the member for Whitlam's career highlights before entering parliament included being national secretary of the Community and Public Sector Union and spending time as a lawyer for the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That's it! That background, given he's the opposition spokesman, shows that he has no understanding of regional Australia. He has no understanding of the struggle in regional communities, the distress caused by a failed harvest or the long, lonely commute on country Australian roads just to access medical treatment—the sorts of challenges that our government is focused on supporting.</para>
<para>Regional Australia needs more than a weak opposition leader's weasel words—crab walking, if you like, from one position to another. They want jobs. They want opportunities. They, like the rest of us, want a standard of living that is appropriate for families. It's the coalition that has focused on regional and rural Australia. It's the coalition that is driving jobs growth and opportunity growth in regional Australia. Those opposite simply have no idea.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I enjoyed the minister's contribution. I also have to make the comment that he is the third minister for regional development in three months! So committed are they to regional development that they've had a rotating door of regional development ministers, because they can't make up their minds! While these parlour games have been going on, inequality in regional Australia is growing. Not only is inequality growing between the cities and the bush; it is growing within the bush as well. While health and life expectancy outcomes are going backward in regional Australia, while incomes are going backward in regional Australia and while education outcomes are going backward in regional Australia, we have members of the National Party and Liberal-Country Party members coming into this parliament and acting like Liberal lapdogs and voting in favour of every single Liberal Party proposal that holds a knife to the throats of the people that they are supposed to represent. Well, Labor doesn't believe that this is the right thing to do by people in regional Australia. We think that the current facade that is going on in the National Party room has to stop. It has to stop.</para>
<para>Before question time today we called on the Prime Minister to do the right thing. If the members of the National Party can't make up their minds about who is going to be the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia on Friday then the Prime Minister must step in and do something. We've got the deputy leader who says that 100 per cent of the members of the National Party caucus are behind the Deputy Prime Minister. Well, we know that is not true. We know that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs has the numbers, even though he doesn't have the ticker to do the right thing by his party and by the people of regional Australia. He's got the numbers, but he doesn't have the ticker. Perhaps the bulldog—the member for Flynn—is the guy who's going to push him off the line. Didn't he give a leadership-type performance during question time today!</para>
<para>The real tragedy of this is that the people of regional Australia cannot wait for the hapless lapdogs of the Liberal Party in the National Party room to make up their minds about the future direction of this country. Already there is $500 million—that's right: over half a billion dollars—worth of projects in regional Australia that have stalled because these jokers can't make up their minds and they're too distracted by the sorts of things that are going on—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! The member for Whitlam will withdraw that remark. It's unparliamentary.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Which remark?</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You know what it was. It was a sentence ago.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. The members opposite cannot make up their minds, so the people in regional Australia are having to suffer. The minister mentioned the Regional Growth Fund—$270 million was promised nearly 12 months ago. There are no guidelines and not a cent has flowed from this fund, because the members opposite, and particularly the National Party members opposite, cannot make up their minds. They are so distracted by their own internal intrigue and their own problems that they can't even issue guidelines to their own fund to ensure that the people of Australia can have their projects funded.</para>
<para>On the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages that the minister mentioned: $220 million worth of funds earmarked to kickstart jobs investment projects in regional Australia. Eight of the 10 projects have not yet even started, because these guys are so tied up with their own internal problems that they can't get around to the job that they're paid to do. He mentioned decentralisation—well, there is a fraud if ever Australians have seen one. They talk about decentralisation at the same time as they are axing public sector jobs from regional Australia. I present Townsville as one example, but we also know that it is happening in Tasmania, and I'm sure the Tasmanian representatives will talk about that. Jobs were cut from CSIRO, jobs were cut from the tax office and jobs were cut from the Department of Defence—40 from Townsville in the last week alone, and over 400 since this government came to power. The people of Australia know a fraud when they see one. As I said before, it is time for the Prime Minister to end the farce. The battle between the Hatfields and the McCoys has to stop. The people of regional Australia need something better than this. The Prime Minister needs to step in. The Deputy Prime Minister needs to be axed. If the National Party can't do it, the Prime Minister should. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HARTSUYKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowper</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the opportunity to speak on this debate. Don't leave, Member for Hunter! Don't walk out on your own MPI. He has a bit of hide putting in this MPI. We've got old 'No Coal' Joel, who actually works against his own constituents—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I remind the assistant minister to refer to members by their titles, and ask him to withdraw.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HARTSUYKER</name>
    <name.id>00AMM</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I withdraw. We do know that he is a member who, along with his colleagues, is working against the people of regional Australia. I hope he goes down the street in his own electorate, goes to Kurri Kurri or Cessnock, and says to the people down there: 'I'm here to put you out of a job. I'm going to Canberra every day to shut the coal industry down and to put you out of a job.' This member has the hide to come in here to feign concern for the people of regional and rural Australia. He's quite happy to sell them down the river so that they can win the Batman by-election. No wonder he has that tag that I won't refer to again—but the reality is that it is true.</para>
<para>By contrast, we are a government that supports regional Australia. We are a government that supports farmers. The white paper has had great success in improving farm gate prices and in supporting farmers. If you look at the achievements of the Labor Party in relation to the farming sector, it is a very short list indeed—in fact, I think it barely exists. Look at the work that we're doing on the Pacific Highway: $5.64 billion invested by the coalition government to restore the 80-20 funding split so that the duplication of the Pacific Highway can be completed some seven years faster than if the Labor government had remained in power. We are seeing duplications rolled out from Sydney almost to Grafton. There are two small sections to be completed and then we will have in the order of 600 kilometres of dual carriageway from Sydney almost to Grafton, a massive achievement. We've recently seen the opening of the Kempsey to Kundabung section of the highway, the new Hastings River Bridge, the Port Macquarie section of the highway, the Macksville bypass and the opening of the Phillip Hughes Bridge—a massive achievement and a massive investment in regional Australia. I'm certainly working hard as the local member in the seat of Cowper to move towards the commencement of the Coffs Harbour bypass.</para>
<para>We've introduced the jobs and investment package, a $220 million package, with $25 million being invested on the North Coast of New South Wales. Two million dollars is going to a great air-conditioning company, Faircloth & Reynolds, to build a facility to manufacture air-conditioning duct work, to construct a testing facility and for software upgrades. OzGroup received a million dollars under the regional jobs package to help them become more export-ready and to allow them to invest in research and development and advanced technology and robotics. We saw $338,000 for Stonelake to establish an advanced manufacturing facility to commercialise their patented facade system. This great local company has patents in 50 countries around the world. Those three projects will produce 60 jobs during the construction phase and 140 ongoing jobs. In Port Macquarie, Biodiversity Solutions received a grant of some $300,000 to assist that company establish a facility for the trading of biodiversity credits. There will be six jobs during the construction phase and 12 ongoing jobs.</para>
<para>We are a government that supports our farmers through free trade agreements. We've negotiated high-quality free trade agreements with China, Japan and South Korea. Only on Monday this week we saw the signing of the Peruvian agreement, or the PAFTA, which reduces beef tariffs down to zero over five years and provides access for our local universities into the Peruvian market. Education is our third-largest export industry. On mobile phone black spots, our Mobile Black Spot Program is delivering for regional Australia. Labor did not spend one cent on mobile phones in six years in office—not one cent!</para>
<para>We are a government that supports regional and rural Australia. We are providing the infrastructure that is so needed, like the Pacific Highway upgrade and the Inland Rail. We are providing programs like the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages to support greater job opportunities in regional areas. We're assisting our farm sector through drought support, through free trade agreements and through negotiating access to markets for our products. We support regional Australia, and the member for Hunter didn't even stay for the debate.</para>
<para>An opposition member: Neither did yours.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before the member for Wakefield starts, I remind members present that this is not a team sport. It's only one at a time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
    <electorate>Wakefield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's interesting following the member for Cowper's audition for a return to the National Party frontbench. There's a bit of stuff going on in this building. We all know the National Party's got their delegations out. They're roaming around the place.</para>
<para>A government member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear a bit of feedback from up there. We all know that this is a government that has been divided against itself for so many years—a divided Liberal Party and now a divided National Party. They're divided on a couple of things. They're divided on their capacity to deliver for this country. They come in here and they always reduce rural Australia down to National Party seats. They don't want to talk about regional seats in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Western Australia or anywhere else.</para>
<para>The member for Cowper talks about telephone towers and mobile phone reception. My seat is in an area which was devastated by the Pinery fires. When I wrote to the Prime Minister and the minister about a mobile phone tower, guess what response I got?</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rick Wilson interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Zero! I hear the member's interjection. He asked me about the South Australian government. Even in the second round, when the South Australian government did stump up some cash, guess what you provided? Zip, zero, in my seat; zip, zero, in the seat of Mayo. You only funded Liberal Party seats in South Australia. So don't talk to us about mobile phone coverage, because you're driven only by your own electoral prospects. That's the whole driver of the Liberal Party's or the National Party's approach to rural Australia. They just seem to get out the pork barrel—and it's a pretty limited pork barrel; it's a pork barrel that's only aimed at a seat at a time.</para>
<para>People in rural Australia need the same things that people in cities need. They need good roads, jobs, hospitals and good schools. I know because I've lived in country towns. I grew up in a country town. It's not that different to the city. People are always trying to make this difference. They need the services. They need the jobs. They need the schools. They need health. That's as simple as it gets.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Tudge interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the member at the box. He's interjecting in my speech, 'City boy!' But let's look at the record of the Abbott-Turnbull government. Investment in infrastructure has fallen by 17 per cent, and, in terms of roads, bridges, railway, ports and harbours, it has declined by 22 per cent in transport infrastructure. If we look at the underspend, on major road projects, it is 17 per cent. On major rail projects, it is 11 per cent. On northern Australian roads, it is 46 per cent. On the Bridges Renewal Program, it is 38 per cent. In terms of the Black Spot Program, which is very important in the country, there is an underspend of 33 per cent over the last four budgets. On the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, it is 51 per cent.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Tudge interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the member opposite talking about everybody's sartorial splendour. That's not really the topic at hand. He's treating this like a joke. I can't blame him, because his National Party partners are a joke. We all know how concerned you are about them. You are held hostage to them and their whims and desires in terms of rural policy. You come in here and you're laughing about it, but it's no laughing matter.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member of Wakefield will refer things through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHAMPION</name>
    <name.id>HW9</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will talk about infrastructure in South Australia. Over the next four years, federal infrastructure funding in the state will plummet by 90 per cent. It will fall from $921 million to $95 million over four years. You have to remember what will happen and where that won't get spent, and that's on South Australian country roads. That's where it's not going to get spent—that's South Australian infrastructure. Yet you have the temerity to come in here and joke about it and laugh about it; you think it's a big joke. The National Party slings insults all over the place, but anybody who has lived in regional Australia knows they need the NBN, jobs, roads, hospitals and schools—the exact same things that Australians need across the country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate is a big piece of western New South Wales. When I talk about rural and regional Australia, I often make the point—as I know you do, because you're my neighbour and friend—that 85 per cent of Australians live within 50 kilometre of the coast. That's exactly where the member for Hunter, the member for Whitlam, the member for Wakefield and, no doubt, the other members speaking in this debate live—less than 50 kilometres from the coast.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Champion interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It may be a few kilometres either way, member for Wakefield. But the point I make, Deputy Speaker—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please don't interject. The point I make is that, to represent rural and regional Australians, you have to have lived a life in rural and regional Australia. The way the Labor Party talks about agriculture and regional and rural issues, as something separate from the rest of Australia, always amuses me. I'm a rural Liberal and I believe in uniting Australia, because when we get the city to take on the country's views as their own, as they do, then we really will achieve the best for our nation. But Labor tiptoes nervously around this space because they don't really understand it. Their members have not lived their lives in rural and regional Australia.</para>
<para>The important thing I really want to get across in the MPI is: why on earth would Labor bring it on on a day like today? Today is very important for my constituents. It's vital, because today there is a disallowance motion sitting in the Senate about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. You would understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton; you represent part of the basin. If that motion lapses, then the New South Wales and Victorian governments have said that the plan will, in effect, fall over. What's Labor doing about this plan that they signed on to in a bipartisan sense, the plan that was half theirs and half ours, the plan that, between us, we negotiated with our rural communities who suffered such great pain, and still do?</para>
<para>The people listening to this broadcast will listen to the to and fro. But now they can actually be certain that Labor is prepared to trade off rural and regional Australia for its own base political advantage. That's happening right here today, because, if by six o'clock tonight this motion lapses, that effectively cruels what we call the northern basin review. That was a scientific review undertaken under the auspices of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, not government, which actually made a very commonsense recommendation. It was signed on to by Labor, but now they're walking away from it. Why are they? It's very simple: because they're appealing to just one seat—the seat of Batman in Melbourne.</para>
<para>I know that, privately, the member for Watson, the opposition spokesperson, has indicated—because he's actually a decent fellow and he's honest about this—that it is a political exercise. What else could it be for an entire party to reject its own policy on something as important to every Australian as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? That's exactly what they're doing with the one small seat of Batman, with people whom we love, but they don't really visit our areas and they don't understand what's happening in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys. I do. I live there. I represent them, and I know that right now they cannot believe what politicians in Canberra, in the Labor Party, are going to do to them. They expect it from the Greens. It's the Greens' philosophical base and they understand that, but to see the Labor Party doing this to them is particularly extraordinary. Remember this, everyone listening to this debate: if you want to trust the outcomes policy-wise for people in rural and regional Australia, there isn't an alternative to the Liberal and National parties. We meet as rural and regional Liberals, and there are about 30 of us. I know that, with the Nationals, there are another 20. That's a substantial proportion of all of our members. All of us are kicking goals for our people. All of us are conscious that roads, bridges, child care, education, access to university, access to TAFE, access to skills and everything that makes life in our part of the world so special is understood intrinsically and delivered by people who, as I say, have lived their lives in this environment.</para>
<para>I must focus on the NBN because the member for Whitlam has raised that, and he and I are both on the committee. Remember, this was a government that prioritised access to the NBN for people who weren't disadvantaged, and they are people in rural and regional Australia. So we're getting the NBN in rural and regional Australia before many people are in the cities. The entire rollout will be completed by 2020, but we're getting it first because this is a government that understands where the needs are. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEAY</name>
    <name.id>262273</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>That was quite extraordinary. I will have to try to control myself. Never before has rural and regional Australia been so badly treated by this government. As the people who purport to represent regional Australia descend into chaos before our eyes, it is the people who live in regional Australia who are paying the price. It is little wonder that around this place the blue signs are appearing once again in office windows: 'Liberals for regions'. I think those signs say more about the National Party than they do about the Liberals.</para>
<para>It is the coalition that is failing regional Australia and my state of Tasmania. I am astonished that not one member on the other side has ever, ever, in my whole time in this place, talked about Tasmania with any knowledge at all. I'm not going to offer a map of Tassie; I'm sure the member for Lyons can do that. I guess it's because there's not one member over there from Tasmania. And that is because this government has trashed health, education, skills, biosecurity, infrastructure, the NBN, access to markets, and the list goes on for my state. Under this government there has not been one infrastructure project commenced in Tasmania. They cut $100 million out of the Midland Highway. They have not stumped up one extra cent in any budget for additional Tasmanian infrastructure.</para>
<para>I do welcome the return of Senator Colbeck to this place, but let's remember what he did as tourism minister for the state of Tasmania, his own state. At the last election, all he could find was $5 million for tourism infrastructure for Tasmania. When we have a tourism boom, he gives us a tourism bust. Absolutely extraordinary. For Cradle Mountain, the single biggest infrastructure project in tourism, he could only manage $1 million for a report for a $160 million project. When it comes to water infrastructure, which the Deputy Prime Minister likes to bang on about, not one new project has commenced, and every single water infrastructure project in Tasmania was started and completed by state and federal Labor governments.</para>
<para>Then, of course, there's the mythical $272 million Regional Growth Fund that the Deputy Prime Minister has gone missing on. Announced in last year's May budget with great fanfare, it's meant to provide grants of up to $10 million for major projects to support economic growth and create jobs in regions. The fund hasn't even opened up for applications, nine months after the budget. How typical this is of the Deputy Prime Minister—all talk, no action. In the Nationals party room they lurch from one regional development minister to the other, taking turns as to who the next minister will be. Three ministers in three months—not good enough!</para>
<para>But it gets worse. This government and Tasmania's Hodgman Liberal government have abrogated their responsibilities when it comes to protecting Tasmania's all-important brand. Under the watch of the former agriculture minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Tasmania's reputation for being relatively pest and disease free has been put at risk. Our agricultural, horticultural and marine sectors have worked so hard to establish a national and international reputation for the Tasmanian brand, but we have seen Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust, Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome, and now a fruit fly emergency. Fruit is being dumped and farmers are locked out of markets. The Liberal Premier of Tasmania cut $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget in his first term. The Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Nationals, has abolished the COAG Standing Council on Primary Industries, failed to respond to the recommendations of the Plant Biosecurity CRC's fruit fly report and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Biosecurity Review, and attempted to abolish the position of Inspector-General for Biosecurity. So much for standing up for regions and our farmers.</para>
<para>I could go on, but I have run out of time. I'll probably need another 10 hours to keep going on about how this government has failed not only people in regional Australia but in my whole state of Tasmania. The people of all electorates in Tasmania voted them out last time, and there is a good reason why. Labor here will make sure that regional communities in Tasmania will have the best result possible, and we need a Labor government to do that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pleasure to take part in this MPI today as a regional member who is very privileged to stand here looking after regional Australians and as a proud member of the coalition and the National Party. We went to the last election with a clear message of jobs and growth, and do you know what we've done? We've delivered them. We have delivered jobs and growth—indeed, 400,000 jobs in the calendar year 2017. That far surpasses anything the Labor Party has come close to, but very proudly I can say that 100,000 of those jobs were created in rural and regional Australia. That is success. The Barnaby Joyce-Malcolm Turnbull government is successful when it comes to looking after regional Australia. That's why the eight million regional Australians predominantly vote for us: because they know what the fate of a Labor government is. They know full well that a Labor government looking after regional Australia will be stopping the live export trade and absolutely slaughtering the bush and those associated industries and businesses that were supported—you know what: you'll do it again when you get in. All your greenie mates, who you'll rush to support, like you will in Batman—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Order! I remind the member for Wide Bay that he should be addressing the debate through the chair.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Like the Labor Party will in Batman, as they are already sucking up to the Greens. Regional Australia understands that voting in a Labor government also means a 50 per cent renewable energy target. That will destroy rural Australia. Energy costs for our rural producers will destroy—and we won't do that. We'll guarantee energy for our rural producers—our sugar farmers, our beef producers, our business people. Labor, sucking up to their Green mates, will not do that.</para>
<para>So what are we doing to have this great success in the regions? I'll tell you what we're doing. We are creating policies in relation to tax, infrastructure, trade and communications that support people in the regions. We're not crucifying them. When it comes to taxation and economic policy, we've introduced the Enterprise Tax Plan, where we are making it easier for regional small businesses. We're bringing the tax rate down to 27.5 per cent for those little cafes, little shops and corner stores in regional Australia. We're helping them, and we're giving them more money. Do you know what they'll do with that extra money? They'll grow their businesses. I know this is hard for the Labor Party to understand, but, when businesses grow, they employ more people—they employ more regional Australians. And that's how you grow the economy. And we are doing other things. We are introducing sensible policies like the $20,000 immediate depreciation on assets—what an eminently sensible idea—so that farmers can buy that piece of agricultural equipment and immediately depreciate it so that they have that money to invest back into their business, grow their business and employ people. Members opposite just don't know what I am talking about!</para>
<para>I will tell you what else we're doing to support regional Australians and regional business. Decentralisation is a wonderful concept—one I and the National Party fully support—but it's more than moving jobs out there; it's also building the infrastructure that encourages people to go to regional Australia. That's why we have a $75 billion infrastructure program that will deliver for regional Australia—like the $6.7 billion we're spending on the Bruce Highway to save lives. That's what we do. Recently I stood on the side of the highway with my leader, Barnaby Joyce, and spoke to him about saving lives. That's what he's interested in. He is interested in regional Australia. He is not interested in issues like the waste-of-time issues that the Labor Party are carrying on with at the moment—issues that Australians are not interested in. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You know the place is in trouble when the National Party, that party of agricultural socialists, has been captured by Trump trickle-down economics—the failed economics of the far right, of the HR Nicholls Society. This confirms the fact that the National Party of Australia is now just a bunch of Liberals in big hats. That's all you are—Liberals in big hats. You've lost your country roots completely. To think that these characters over there think that a $65 billion corporate tax cut is going to do anything for people on the ground in country Australia is absolute madness.</para>
<para>There is no better example of this government failing rural and regional Australians than in my own electorate of Lyons, with just 55.3 per cent of 16-year-old kids in the suburb of Brighton in full-time education; youth unemployment at 23.5 per cent; wages averaging $45,000—far lower than the national average; digital inclusion at 45.7 compared to 54.5 for Australia; and a median life expectancy of 70 years of age for men in the Central Highlands in my electorate—14½ years less than those in the Prime Minister's electorate of Wentworth can expect to live. These are big gaps. What is this government doing to address them? It is going to cut $68 million from schools in Tasmania over the next two years; cut $58 million from the University of Tasmania; and keep the Medicare freeze rebate, which makes going to the doctor more expensive and more unaffordable in an electorate of low-income people which has some of the lowest rates of bulk-billing in the country.</para>
<para>In 2014-15, this government spent $910 on Medicare services per individual nationwide, compared to $536 for people in the regions. That is failing regional Australia. Patients presenting to emergency departments requiring urgent medical attention are being left in emergency departments longer. Only 66 per cent of urgent emergency department patients in Tasmania are seen within the recommended 30 minutes. More than half of all public hospital doctors are working unsafe hours, putting them at significant risk of fatigue, including 75 per cent of intensive care specialists. That's failing the people of Tasmania. The Australian Medical Association says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… the strain and the pressure on our public hospitals is having a detrimental impact on the health of our doctors.</para></quote>
<para>So what's this government's answer to health? To get in the back pockets of the private health insurance lobby.</para>
<para>Pre-tax profits of private health insurers increased 7.3 per cent in the 12 months to 2017. They're raking in $1.86 billion before tax. At the same time, out-of-pocket costs for ordinary Australians and Tasmanians continue to soar. Also, the premiums are going up, but what you can claim is going down. More than 12,000 Australians dropped their cover for hospital treatment in the last three months of 2017. They've been paying for private health insurance, but they know that when they come to claim it they're not going to get what they thought they were paying for. That's failing regional Australia. Out-of-pocket costs on private health insurance claims jumped by 31.7 per cent in just 12 months.</para>
<para>The list just goes on, as the member for Braddon said. We could spend hours here talking about how this government fails regional Australia. The NBN roll-out—where do I start? It's an absolute farce. Under Labor, the fibre-to-the-premises rollout would have covered 93 per cent of premises. It would have been a rollout that would not have left regional Australia behind and that would have seen medical and educational services available to people in regional Australia. What we are seeing under this government is a rollout where people in the town of Lachlan in my electorate—a town of 800 people—can't even get onto the internet in the afternoon when the kids get home from school. It's so slow, at one megabit per second, that they can't even do a speed test to see how slow it is. That's how bad it is under this government.</para>
<para>They are failing on industrial relations—kids not being paid properly for work, the PaTH rip-off for young people. It just goes on. What about biosecurity and the fruit fly incursion in Tasmania? What a massive failure of government it is to allow fruit flies to emerge in our state for the first time ever.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RICK WILSON</name>
    <name.id>198084</name.id>
    <electorate>O'Connor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Seeing we have a Tasmanian contingent here this afternoon, I'm sure the member for Tangney would join me in wondering why we didn't get an acknowledgement that WA's GST is helping the Tasmanian economy considerably. When we get 34c in the dollar, Tasmania gets $1.83. It would have been nice to have an acknowledgement for Western Australians that we contribute massively to the Tasmanian economy.</para>
<para>This my second term in this House, and I've seen two firsts here today. I saw the opposition direct one of their questions to a chairman of a committee, and they were bulldogged by the member for Flynn. That was something I never thought I'd see, but I'm looking forward to seeing it again. The second 'first' was that the opposition used the MPI to ask a Dorothy Dixer. The member for Hunter didn't really seem to have his heart in it, and I can understand that. You're drawing the short straw when you are sent out to put up an MPI about regional Australia and the performance of the government in regional Australia.</para>
<para>I just want to run through a few of the great things that we've done in regional Australia. I'll start with agriculture, which is very close to my heart. We've seen agriculture's gross domestic product grow to $67 billion since we came to government. I give great credit to the government and particularly the member for New England, who was the agriculture minister through that first term in government, for this result. The agricultural competitiveness white paper made some very important investments in agriculture, and we're now seeing that come to fruition.</para>
<para>Alongside the free trade agreements that we signed in the first term of the Turnbull government, we have seen massive increases in our agriculture export products, which is being reflected in higher prices returning to growers. We're seeing wool prices at record highs, as I'm sure you'd be aware, Deputy Speaker Coulton, as a representative of a great wool-growing electorate. Today the eastern market indicator sits at 1,880c, which reflects about 1,200c per kilogram greasy, and that's a very strong return to the woolgrowers across your electorate and my electorate and the rest of Australia.</para>
<para>We also are seeing record red meat prices. We've seen record beef prices in the last 12 months, and we're currently seeing record sheepmeat prices. I believe that is to a very large extent a result of our free trade agreements, particularly the China, Japan and South Korea free trade agreements.</para>
<para>On the tax side: for the 18,000 small businesses in my electorate of O'Connor and the millions of small businesses across Australia, we've reduced the tax rate to 27.5 cents, on a trajectory down to 25 cents. We've also included instant asset write-offs. For assets up to $20,000—and farmers buy many of those assets—they can write them off immediately. We've also increased the upper limit for farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000 to better allow farmers, now that we are seeing some profits being made in the industry, to prepare for the tougher times.</para>
<para>There's a 6.7 per cent increase in school funding across the board in my electorate under Gonski 2.0—a great result for regional schools. I will get to what the WA Labor government have done to regional schools in a moment. In aged care, we've provided capital funding for many of the community-run organisations across the electorate. I would run out of time if I were to name them all, but that's another area where we have performed very strongly. I am going to run out of time, but I want to talk about what WA Labor, elected in March 2017, have done in regional WA. The first thing they were going to do was increase the gold royalty tax by 50 per cent to rip $392 million out of the industry, which was estimated to cost 3,000 jobs. We've had $64 million of cuts to education, which included, if you can believe it, an attempt to close the School of the Air. That is the iconic Australian outback organisation which educates kids across the outback of Western Australia. They attempted to close that down. They have now backflipped due to community pressure. But they are still going to cut school camps—two of them in my electorate, in Kalgoorlie and Pemberton. When I go around to the end-of-year school awards, I hear that the highlight of the year for the year 6 students was going to the Pemberton Camp School. The Labor government in WA will cut that school camp. Member for Hunter, please don't come in here to lecture us about regional Australia. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>This debate has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r5989" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That consideration of order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>73</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6001" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>73</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017. I speak on behalf of the opposition today, and I can tell the chamber that Labor will be supporting the amendments in this bill. In my role as the shadow justice minister I have the great privilege of spending a lot of time with people who work in law enforcement. When I ask them what is the one thing that the federal parliament can do to assist them in keeping the Australian community safer, they always tell me that the best thing we can do is try to take more of the profit out of crime. That's why we're so supportive of the amendments that are before the chamber today, which make some technical, although quite important, adjustments to the regime that exists in Australian law.</para>
<para>The notion of attempting to take the profit out of crime is one that has existed in law for a very long time. In fact, if we look right back to feudal times, there were laws in place that attempted to do this. Then, in more recent times, the English had in rem forfeiture laws. The Proceeds of Crime Act is derived from that long history. The object of our proceeds of crime regime is to deny the perpetrators of crime the profits and the instruments of their crimes. In doing so, it suppresses criminal activity and returns the proceeds of crime back to society. We're the great beneficiaries of that in representing communities around Australia. Each year we see the federal government retain somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars from the proceeds of crime. Some of us have been lucky enough to see that money redistributed in our communities to keep those communities safer.</para>
<para>Labor always takes the opportunity to speak when the Proceeds of Crime Act comes before this chamber, because this was actually a Labor government invention. The Proceeds of Crime Act was first introduced by the Hawke Labor government. At the time, the then Attorney-General, Lionel Bowen, aptly noted that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… major crime, particularly drug trafficking and serious fraud on the revenue, is growing and is becoming increasingly international in scope. Traditional methods of punishment by imprisonment and fine are not enough.</para></quote>
<para>Mr Bowen was quite right. Since the Proceeds of Crime Act was first introduced by Labor just over 30 years ago, serious and organised crime has become truly transnational in scope, perhaps more so than Mr Bowen could ever really have imagined. Today, criminals use technology to coordinate and commit crimes across the globe and to evade law enforcement. They exploit the massive increase in the international movement of people and goods to transfer assets, and they wash money through accounts across the world. This is making the job of law enforcement harder than ever.</para>
<para>In my meetings with police they often talk about the increasing complexity they see in the financial and legal arrangements that are made to hide the proceeds of crime. If there is any hint of a loophole or a vulnerability in the laws that relate to seizing the proceeds of crime, there are people committing crimes in this country who know about it and are exploiting it. That's why it's so important that we continue to make updates to the Proceeds of Crime Act. In fact, this is the second since I took on the role of shadow justice minister.</para>
<para>The bill before us would make a number of technical amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to close loopholes in our regime that have been identified in recent case law. There are two specific cases that adjustments in the bill before us seek to take account of. The first is the Commissioner of Australian Federal Police v Huang in the Western Australian Supreme Court. The second is the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hart in the Queensland Court of Appeal.</para>
<para>The bill before us would, firstly, ensure that the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime covers situations in which wealth is derived or realised directly or indirectly from certain offences. Secondly, the bill would clarify that property becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence under the act when proceeds or an instrument are used to improve the property or discharge an encumbrance or security or liability incurred in relation to that property. That's probably a pretty complicated way of getting to the legislative issues at hand, but what it really means is that, if someone uses legal means to provide, for example, a down payment on a house but then uses the proceeds of crime to pay off the mortgage on that house, the amendments before us clarify that that house would indeed be considered the proceeds of crime. Before these amendments were made, it was a bit unclear about whether the house itself could be considered proceeds of crime, even if, for example, 70 or 80 per cent of the house was paid off in mortgage repayments that were clearly the proceeds of crime.</para>
<para>There were some issues raised through the committee process that considered the detail of this bill. One of the points that I think was made quite well in the report that came from that committee process was that there are quite a lot of protections under the Proceeds of Crime Act that will assist in making sure that the adjustments being made in this bill don't adversely affect members of the community. For example, courts will still have the powers that they had previously to refuse to issue a restraining order on property if that would not be in the public interest. It is, in a sense, a catch-all for the interests of justice. The court still retains the power to revoke a restraining order where the restraining order was made without the respondent being present, and allowances can be made for expenses to be made out of property covered by a restraining order. Most importantly, the Proceeds of Crime Act covers a general protection under subsection 34(3), which means that people who are using the proceeds of crime but don't know they are using the proceeds of crime are protected under the act. The common example that's used in this situation is perhaps a partner who is in a relationship with someone who is committing crimes that they are not aware of. If they have somehow benefited from property, then that property generally isn't considered to be the proceeds of crime. That's important, because the intention of this act is to target criminals and not other people who are in their world.</para>
<para>The main concerns about the amendments that are before the House were raised by the Law Council of Australia, and I want to make a few comments about the submission that they made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. Labor has the greatest respect for the Law Council of Australia. We work with them very closely on lots of aspects of the work that we do. That's why I want to talk about the concerns that they raised. The Law Council queried the adequacy of the existing protections in the Proceeds of Crime Act, and I mentioned some of those previously in my statement. Specifically, their concern is the prohibition on compensation orders in circumstances in which property is an instrument of an offence. They also expressed concerns about the absence of the proportionality test between the benefits said to be derived from an offence and the point at which something is therefore regarded as proceeds or an instrument of an offence.</para>
<para>It's getting pretty technical, and the reason for that is that it's a very technical area of law. But what it really means is that the Law Council is concerned that, if someone uses 80 per cent legitimate means to fund a house but 20 per cent illegitimate means, then that whole house will then be considered proceeds of crime. We had a very constructive meeting with the department, with the government and with law enforcement about these issues, and I believe that the government has adequately dealt with some of the concerns that were raised by the Law Council. For this reason, we are going to support the bill unamended. Labor believes that, just as it is important to ensure that there are no loopholes in our proceeds of crime and unexplained wealth orders, it's also important that we ensure that there are no loopholes in the protections that we afford to individuals who are affected by the operation of this scheme. So, we're very open to continued improvements for the proceeds of crime regime and will be happy to work with the government on any further improvements that come through their processes.</para>
<para>I want to make some brief comments about the general issue of how crime's being prosecuted in Australia. We do support the objects and measures contained in this bill because the profit of crime comes at the expense of all Australians. We know that serious and organised crime in Australia is estimated to cost somewhere around $36 billion each year. The Australian Crime and Intelligence Commission has estimated that it is somewhere around $1,500 out of every Australian's pocket every year, due to people who are in many instances committing fraud on a grand scale. Preventing serious and organised crime is not just a question of community safety but also one of basic fairness. We are all paying taxes into the tax system. We just cannot allow that tax system and the expenditure that comes from it to be so corrupted.</para>
<para>If we want to close this gap and if we want to take the profit out of crime, we need more than just strong laws. And, if there's one crucial thing that I've learned in the justice portfolio, it is that having strong laws is simply not enough to take the benefits out of crime and to make our community safe. We also need sufficient resourcing to law enforcement to make sure that these laws work. I have constant discussions with stakeholders in which the tone of the conversation is, 'We don't want law reform; we don't want the parliament to put more things down on paper; we actually need more police so we can make sure that the provisions which are there to protect Australians are being properly utilised.'</para>
<para>That's why Labor has been so deeply disappointed to see the government's cuts to the Australian Federal Police. We saw in the last budget $184 million cut from the Australian Federal Police, and in that last year alone we lost 151 AFP personnel. When I talk to law enforcement across the country I hear a really clear message, and that is that their job is getting more difficult, not less difficult, over time. One of the biggest challenges they face is responding to this increasingly sophisticated use of technology that crime syndicates are undertaking. And I think it's extraordinary that the government has decided to cut funding and staff to the AFP at this very challenging time for law enforcement. Unlike the government, we believe it's more important than ever to ensure that we support the expertise and incredible dedication that we see from AFP officers. I think there'll be more of this to come in the year ahead.</para>
<para>But, returning to the Proceeds of Crime Act amendment, Labor's very proud to support this bill and the measures it contains to close loopholes in our proceeds of crime regime. We believe that no person should be entitled to profit from any unlawful or criminal conduct. When the Proceeds of Crime Bill was first introduced, in 1987, Lionel Bowen described it as 'the most effective weaponry against major crime ever introduced into this parliament', and Labor is committed to making sure it remains so.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r5854" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>75</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms ROWLAND</name>
    <name.id>159771</name.id>
    <electorate>Greenway</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 contains a collection of proposals to reduce the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunication sectors. Labor supported an earlier version of the bill, which subsequently lapsed when the 2016 election was called. This bill has been one of the last embers from the deregulation bonfire initiated by the member for Warringah many years ago. Some may be wondering why this bill has taken so long to reach a second reading debate in the House. That is a very good question. Much of what approaches the desk of the Minister for Communications does seem to disappear for long stretches of time. Where it disappears to remains unclear, and why it emerges also remains unclear.</para>
<para>The most recent example of the delay and inaction in this area, which has come to characterise the communications portfolio under this government, is in relation to the video game development industry. It took the minister over 600 days to respond to <inline font-style="italic">Game o</inline><inline font-style="italic">n</inline>, the report of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee into the future of Australia's video game development industry. But, in good news, this bill has finally re-emerged.</para>
<para>Labor is supportive of measures that amend unnecessary administrative requirements and repeal redundant legislation and spent acts. However, we had some concerns about one set of measures in this bill, in particular. I will take a brief moment to explain why. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to repeal part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act. Labor does not support the repeal of part 11. We consider it to be a case of over-zealous and ill-judged deregulation by seeking to repeal. This proposed repeal would undermine and confuse the current system of broadcast co-regulation under the Broadcasting Services Act. The Broadcasting Services Act reflects parliament's intention that industry be the front line for complaints handling and that the taxpayer-funded ACMA be the backstop regulator for a range of specified issues. Under the Broadcasting Services Act, the express will of parliament is that complaints under codes of practice must first be made to the relevant broadcaster, subject always to the ACMA's power to conduct an investigation under section 170. If amended by schedule 2, the express will of parliament would shift, leaving the handling of complaints to be a matter of discretion for ACMA, who may issue guidelines about complaints handling. This is a subtle but meaningful shift away from the statutory system of co-regulation. Further, by repealing part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act, and having the ACMA create and publish guidelines on its website on the investigation of complaints, an additional and confusing layer of red tape is added, utterly contrary to the purpose of deregulation and red tape reduction.</para>
<para>Under the current Act, there is no need for guidelines for complaints on top of the Act, program standards and industry codes of practice. It is simplistic to regard part 11, which deals with complaints to the ACMA, and part 13, which deals with investigations and information-gathering power by the ACMA, as duplication. These parts perform distinct roles in the framework I have just described. Labor would not have supported the removal of part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act. I understand the government has prepared additional amendments to this bill to address these concerns and reverse that proposed repeal of part 11.</para>
<para>This bill also proposes changes that would allow the transition of telephone numbering to an industry-managed scheme. Self-regulation is an important feature of the telecommunications sector. Where appropriate, it allows industry to take responsibility for managing its own affairs, thereby reducing the regulatory burden and administrative costs. Numbers are an important, scarce resource. Like spectrum, numbers are used but not consumed. The management of telephone numbering has matured over the years, and this presents an opportunity for industry to play a greater role in managing the telecommunications numbering scheme. Moves towards self-regulation naturally raise the question of whether there is a risk of misalignment between the regulatory policy objectives and the commercial incentives of industry. Labor has closely considered this question, and we are satisfied the legislation before the House sets out sufficiently clear principles and contains adequate reserve powers, should the Commonwealth need to re-intervene.</para>
<para>This bill also contains provisions that deal with the disposal of surplus assets by NBN Co. Due to some technicalities of existing legislation, NBN Co finds itself unable to sell surplus non-communications assets such as office equipment and vehicles. Addressing these unintended restrictions would assist NBN Co to manage its assets in a more efficient manner, and we are supportive of this proposal. It's unclear why this took so long, but it's worth noting there may be other surplus assets the company might seek to sell, such as 16,600 kilometres of new copper, which, under this government, has been purchased as a cost of more than $170 million—a shambolic waste of taxpayers' money. But the existing copper network also looks to be in the company's crosshairs. Just this week, the NBN CEO was reported to be considering the construction of a 5G wireless network to overbuild the copper NBN network that has already been built. To put this in perspective, the Prime Minister is building a $49 billion network, and the company that is building it now wants to overbuild it, apparently, with a technology the private sector is already deploying. What a vote of confidence in the multi-technology mix! It's a reflection of just how confused this government's policy has become. Nevertheless, Labor is comfortable with the elements of the bill before us that amend unnecessary administrative requirements imposed on industry and repeal redundant regulation and spent acts. Labor does not oppose the passage of this bill.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Reference to Federation Chamber</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <p>
              <a href="r6037" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6038" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>76</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The payday lending processes that are currently being used have very little responsiveness to people who are finding themselves in a debt spiral due to having acted in a space that needs further regulation. In 2016 the member for Higgins called for a review, and in 2017, following the recommendations of that review, the member for Riverina drafted legislation around payday lending. These need to be acted on. The Consumer Action Law Centre has revealed that the number of borrowers taking out more than one payday loan in 12 months grew from 17.2 per cent in 2005 to 38 per cent in 2015—that is, on average, the number of loans per borrower is almost four. It is time the government acted on this. I note that the member for Deakin, who's with us in the chamber today, as the assistant minister, and the member for Cook, the Treasurer, now have responsibility for this. I call on them to take action—in fact, to work with Labor to ensure that the legislation they drafted that is being brought into this House gets through.</para>
<para>Finally, in terms of the appropriation bills, I would say that the most important part—the most outrageous part, in fact—of the government's plans for this country is its plan for $65 billion worth of tax cuts for big business. We're in a period of record profits. We have the flattest wage growth on record. Few companies pay the 30 per cent tax rate. Those opposite keep saying that we have a 30 per cent tax rate, but that is almost a fiction if you look at which companies actually pay that. That comes to us from exclusive ABC analysis. One in five Australian companies have paid zero tax in the last three years. Business investment is at historically high levels, despite the 30 per cent headline tax rate that obviously isn't being paid. This is trickle-down ideology and it is a fail for this government. Tax rates don't matter if you don't pay tax.</para>
<para>At the moment, many people in my electorate are doing it tough. In fact, there are families in my electorate who have four payday loans going because the cost of living keeps going up and up and their wages are flatlining. If you think about my electorate and the number of people caught in casual work, that's where we really start to see families in trouble. They cannot plan and they cannot manage their finances if they can't project their salary from one week to the next. In that climate, we are talking about a $65 billion tax cut for big business under the fiction that it will somehow magically drive the economy. The economy in my electorate needs people to get paid their penalty rates. That would be a boost to our local economy. Our local economy needs people not to be paying a wider gap in their health costs. People in my electorate need to know when they are going to go to work and how much they are going to earn this week. They need to be in full-time, permanent jobs. At 17 per cent youth unemployment in my electorate, this government offers very little in terms of hope for the people of Lalor.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today I want to talk about my home state of South Australia and the impacts the federal government's decisions are having on its future. South Australia is at a point of economic transformation. The federal government's decision in 2013 to withdraw support for the car manufacturing industry has meant that South Australia has had to confront the reality that it needs to develop new industries and very quickly in order for it to prosper.</para>
<para>In the last three decades the advancement of our state has slowed to a crawl, and not a single person in South Australia will forget how former Treasurer Joe Hockey goaded Holden to leave. Now, as a nation, we no longer build cars. That is a great travesty, I believe. Until the end of the Second World War, Adelaide was the third-largest city in Australia. Now it is a distant fifth, with its population growth lagging behind the growing metropolises of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.</para>
<para>While slow population growth is a serious concern for my state, a bigger concern is the fact that our young people, our educated graduates and our skilled workers are leaving for the east coast or—worse—overseas. South Australia's population has a median age of 40 years, second only to Tasmania. In my electorate, the median age is 46. There aren't enough jobs for young people, and so our best and brightest move away. They don't want to. Once they move, it is rare that they return. As a result, there are 25,000 fewer young people living in South Australia today than there were in 1981. That's not sustainable for our state.</para>
<para>The challenges facing my state are significant. With these challenges I believe come opportunities. For six years in a row, Adelaide has been ranked as the world's fifth most liveable city. It has the lowest cost of living of any of the mainland state capitals, which means owning your own home is not a pipedream. In Adelaide, there is a chance that you will be able to buy, unlike in the eastern states. From an economic perspective, the South Australian wine industry is booming and its agriculture industry is growing steadily. The closure of the Mitsubishi and Holden plants appeared to be deadly to the state, but from the ashes of those longstanding economic pillars rises an opportunity for South Australia to truly cement its future. We must build on what we have whilst looking for new opportunities. I believe that the future of South Australia rests with its ability to innovate. In the book <inline font-style="italic">The Smartest Places on Earth</inline> the authors discus how, around the world, rust belts are the emerging hotspots of global innovation. Rust belts are turning into 'brain belts'. I encouraged the Minister for Education and Training to read this book, but obviously it didn't make the summer reading list.</para>
<para>I cannot overstate my disappointment that the federal government decided to cut $2.2 billion from the university sector in MYEFO. These far-reaching cuts have placed an effective cap on student places. While I acknowledge that the demand-driven system has led to perverse outcomes for vocational education and training, a cap on student places without a thorough review of how best to position our education sector shows that the federal government is focused solely on protecting its bottom line at the expense of Australia's, and particularly South Australia's, future.</para>
<para>Many times I have stood in this place and reminded the Prime Minister of his first statement as the leader of this country: 'We want to be innovative and agile,' he said. Well, for a government that prides itself on its innovation agenda, cuts to university funding are not acceptable. And Labor is not blameless on this issue, either. Together, Labor and coalition governments have cut a total of $3.4 billion from the university sector over recent years. This sector, which is the third-biggest export sector in the country and attracts thousands of international students each year, is the sector we want to invest in, not to cut. The way forward is to invest in education, and there is no doubt about that. South Australia is beginning to establish itself as an innovative state. Backed by three world-class public universities, innovation will be the key to South Australia's renaissance. Cuts to university funding put the future prosperity of South Australia at risk, and it is galling that the Minister of Education, who is responsible for these cuts, is also a senator for South Australia. The minister well knows how much this will disproportionately hurt regional Australia and South Australia in particular.</para>
<para>But while the federal government continues to reject its own innovation agenda at South Australia's expense, our universities are doing whatever possible to advance our state. Last month I visited the New Venture Institute at Flinders University, which operates as an incubator particularly for start-up businesses. This facility allows start-ups to access the knowledge and resources of the university and in many cases to take on university students as interns while they put the framework in place to ensure the future of a brand-new business. Since its inception in 2013, a total of 232 start-ups have gone through the program, and these businesses have created more than 60 jobs. Not all these start-ups will succeed, but it takes only one or two brilliant ideas for that money to be repaid tenfold.</para>
<para>This year Flinders is expanding this model to the Limestone Coast in a move that will provide tremendous opportunity to regional South Australia, and cuts to university funding threaten this potential. The Medical Device Partnering Program, which supports early-stage innovation and technological developments for medical devices, is housed at Flinders' Tonsley campus. This program receives no federal government funding, despite crying out for it, and only limited amounts of state government funding. Flinders University invests in this program, yet without increased funding the program has had to turn away medical professionals and members of the community who are coming forward with great ideas. It just doesn't make sense. We are reducing the cost of healthcare delivery, yet neither the state nor the federal government is providing any support. And it's not only the federal government that's threatening the future of South Australia. The federal opposition and the South Australian government are continuing to advocate against Gonski 2.0, an incredibly important reform package that will have far-reaching impacts for South Australian schoolchildren. I was proud to be part of the Nick Xenophon Team in discussions on this bill, because I saw how important it was for the country to get school funding right. I am aware of misinformation being spread by both state and federal Labor regarding our involvement and the package of the reform, and I'm happy to address this misinformation today.</para>
<para>The member for Wakefield stood in this place yesterday and stated that the Nick Xenophon Team did a deal to cut funding in South Australian schools by $210 million. What a fairytale! The truth is that, thanks to the Nick Xenophon Team, Australian schools will see a $23.5 billion increase in funding over the next 10 years. It was the work of NXT that saw funding increase by $4.9 billion over the government's original proposal, and South Australian schools will receive $424 million on top of current funding—not imaginary money, not monopoly money—over the next 10 years. Thanks to NXT, every underfunded school in Australia will reach 95 per cent of its SRS funding by 2023—four years sooner than the government's original proposal—and this was opposed by Labor. Thanks to NXT, each state government will be required to increase its contributions to schools to ensure that no child in Australia is left behind just because they live in a certain state—and Labor opposed this measure. Thanks to NXT, the National School Resourcing Board has been established. This board undertakes reviews of different parts of the Gonski funding model to ensure that states, territories and other approved authorities comply with their funding obligations—and Labor opposed this measure.</para>
<para>The facts are that Labor is basing its claims of cuts that the NXT supposedly made on the basis of funding that they never committed to. It was so far beyond the forward estimates that it was imaginary money. At the time, I said it was like comparing apples with imaginary pears. They are claiming that they are standing up for the real Gonski, when the architects of the original plan—David Gonski, Ken Boston and Kathryn Greiner—all support the proposal that passed last year. Ken Boston has said that Labor corrupted the original Gonski review, and I agree with his assessment. I note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Sydney, still hasn't committed to meeting the mythical shortfall if the ALP wins government. So, what do we have here?</para>
<para>I would ask the member for Wakefield what possible reason I and the NXT would have for cutting funding to South Australian schools. We are consistently the only party that stands up for South Australia. We don't put party politics first; we put our state first. That's why we will be called SA-BEST. And, while I want to talk about what South Australians deserve, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the government's continual refusal to fund infrastructure projects in our state. The 2017 federal budget allocates $70 billion to infrastructure spends across this country. Not one new dollar was allocated to South Australia. Victoria receives $1 billion for new infrastructure commitments, and there's a new airport for Sydney, at over $5 billion. For South Australia? None. Every time South Australian infrastructure is mentioned we are told to be grateful for the submarines. South Australia's role in defence building is incredibly important; there is no doubt. We're not the only state that's receiving defence building, yet we are the only state to be told to be satisfied with no future for rail infrastructure projects as part of the 2017 budget. It's as though we don't need infrastructure funding.</para>
<para>In my electorate alone, there are several key infrastructure projects that demand federal government support. I would argue that if they were in any other state they would receive that funding commitment. Victor Harbor Road, which travels from the regional centre of Victor Harbor all the way into Adelaide, has long been in need of an upgrade. It needs double lanes. It's an incredibly dangerous road. The RAA in South Australia indicated that between 2012 and 2016 there was a 34 per cent increase in traffic on the road, and 43 people were killed or seriously injured on that road in that same period. The estimated cost to fully upgrade the road is around $600 million. I believe that if this road, with this usage and these accident statistics, existed in any other state it would have been upgraded years ago. Yet, when South Australians look to their federal government, the government turns its back on such infrastructure.</para>
<para>The freight rail line that connects Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth passes directly through my electorate. For years there's been a proposal to build a freight bypass from Monarto so that we can double-stack all the way down to the port—yet, nothing. The efficiencies in transport freight across this country would be significant, especially as the current line is approaching capacity. Regional Development Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island list this project as their No. 1 infrastructure priority for the region. Several local councils and the RDA are putting in money out of their own pockets for a scoping study to assess the full benefits of the proposal. Yet, despite the federal government's massive investments in rail on the East Coast, nothing has been forthcoming about this proposal.</para>
<para>The interchange on the South Eastern Freeway of Verdun currently accepts traffic only halfway. So, it's a halfway interchange: you can't get off the freeway and come through Hahndorf and Verdun if you're coming from interstate or if you're coming from Murray Bridge. It's really ridiculous. We are missing out on so many visitors, and it's clogging traffic through Hahndorf. This ramp was built almost 40 years ago. It's probably as old as most people in this place. It's the kind of infrastructure that our nation needs and that South Australia needs. So, for the last 30 years successive state and federal governments have, I believe, failed South Australia. The message that I'm receiving from my community is that we have had enough. We count too.</para>
<para>The major parties, I believe, use empty rhetoric when talking about South Australia. Several federal ministers and shadow ministers can barely hide their disdain when referring to issues that face our state. In question time we're often the butt of federal government jokes. I have yet to hear a single South Australian member of parliament on the other side refute such callous indifference. Like in the book <inline font-style="italic">The Smartest Places on Earth</inline>, I believe South Australia has the potential to turn from a rust belt to a brain belt. Our best days do lie ahead. I call on the government to back us in. It's about time NXT was not the only party standing up for South Australia.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to talk about early education in this debate because early education is a critical part of what government should be getting right and what government should be doing. We know that, if you give children the best start to life, then they will go on to reap those benefits for many years to come. Early education has always been a big passion of mine and continues to be in my role as shadow minister for early education and childhood development. We're hearing a lot from the government about their childcare package and, unfortunately, while there is some good news for some parents, missing from this debate is the benefit for children.</para>
<para>When we talk about early education and child care we have to talk about the children. It can't be just about workforce participation. While that is part of the benefits of access to child care and access to early education, it cannot be the whole picture. It has to be about putting children in the centre. It has been disappointing, as time has gone on, that we've heard the minister—and, indeed, the Prime Minister—constantly only talk about early education in the framework of workforce participation. As a result of this discussion that is only about workforce participation, we've seen the government's new childcare package actually making it harder for vulnerable children to access early education. That is incredibly disappointing because it's the vulnerable children, those who need that extra investment and support, who will be falling through the cracks of this government's proposal. That is because they've made it all about how much both parents work. It's all about the parent who has the fewer number of hours. The more they work, the more child care they get access to. As I said, that's a principle that completely negates the importance of early education.</para>
<para>The government has been trying to argue that it is only well-off Australians who are going to have cuts as a result of their childcare package. But as a result of FOI, from the details of government's own modelling, we know that the majority of the 279,000 families that will either have reduced assistance or have it cut entirely are families in the two lowest income brackets. That is because they don't meet this government's cookie-cutter activity test. This is deeply concerning and something that the government does not want us to talk about.</para>
<para>You'll have heard in question time recently that the Prime Minister said, 'Why didn't Labor get on board?' The reason why Labor didn't get on board with this deeply unfair package is that many vulnerable kids are going to miss out. Indeed, if you look at the top 10 electorates that are going to be worse off, they include Lalor, Rankin and Blaxland. These are not communities that are rolling in money. These are communities that need support for early education. For those families who have a single income and earn less than $65,000, 88,000 are going to be worse off. That is a significant number of families.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister's rhetoric is: 'We want to reward families who work hard.' Of course, child care is part of the package of ensuring that families do get to work. However, the Prime Minister and the minister have failed to recognise that life can be complex, that there is casual and insecure work, and it is unclear how families in those situations are going to meet the new fortnightly activity tests that gives you an entitlement to child care.</para>
<para>The government has said that you'll be able to predict, to forecast, how much work you're going to get. But what will happen if those families don't get that work? What will happen if those families aren't able to meet this strict fortnightly test? Will they experience, as many people have said, a debt to Centrelink? Will there be a robo-debt notice that comes through the post saying, 'Well, you didn't actually meet your casual hours'? 'You can't change your child care; you can't change the hours that you're booked in.' But will the government then be slapping you with extra payments?</para>
<para>This is not what Australians signed up for and this is not helping those who have insecure and casual work. The government's ignoring the fact that there can be complex arrangements in families. There may be one parent caring for a number of children. There might be a child with a disability. There might be an older parent. Once again, they may not be able to meet this government's strict work test, and, as a result, their child will miss out on government support for early education. It's just not good enough.</para>
<para>The government has often been caught bragging about how much they're spending on this new system. I have to say that I wouldn't be bragging if so many families were going to be worse off as a result, but the government has often been bragging about this. Indeed, what was snuck into MYEFO was $1 billion of savings in early education. It is still not clear where these savings are coming from. Are these savings going to come from the many families that are going to see their subsidy cut or abolished altogether? It is incredibly unclear where these savings are coming from. But what is very clear is they are not being reinvested into early education. The government, while it gives with one hand, takes away with the other, and families are going to miss out as a result.</para>
<para>We also heard—and I'm very pleased that there are some regional members in the House at the moment—that the budget-based funding program that has served many regional communities, in early education, playgroups, child care, is in absolute disarray. As a result of the government's changes, the longstanding process and commitment to rural and regional services, when it came to child care, was ripped up. Instead, what the government has said is, 'You have got to compete for this money.'</para>
<para>What the government hasn't understood is that the new program comes in on 1 July this year. These budget-based services, which used to rely on money for a calendar year, have no idea what their fate is, and we are less than 4½ months away from this new program coming in. They have no idea what is in store for them—no idea whatsoever. What we're talking about is 43 rural and remote and Indigenous mobile services that no longer have a clear future. So it's a bit rich to hear those on the other side talking about how much they care about rural and regional Australia, when very isolated children, children who may only access a service once a month or once every six weeks, have no guarantee that that service will even be available.</para>
<para>The government keeps saying, 'It'll all sort itself out. Well, I'll just give one example, Paroo Contact Children's Mobile, based in New South Wales and servicing 36,000 square kilometres, have confirmed that they are facing a bleak future under the new system. Whilst Paroo have explored options to ensure they can provide services to rural and regional communities under the government's new childcare package, they've been advised by the Department of Education and Training that it is unlikely that Paroo would successfully transition to the new childcare system. Families in the communities that this service helps and supports face a range of social, emotional, cultural and geographical isolation and barriers to accessing services that the government's new system fails to recognise.</para>
<para>These services are small—they are not, I guess, the big fish in the system—but they deserve support. They have had support from governments of both persuasions for a long time, and now this government has come and ripped the carpet from under them. I have been speaking a lot to these services, and they are very, very worried. It is time that the National Party stood up for them. Most of these services are in National Party seats, and it's time the National Party stood up to their big brothers in the coalition and actually said, 'Protect these services.' These services are supporting farming families and regional areas. The National Party has gone missing when it comes to the budget based rural and regional remote services—and it is a disgrace. We will continue to give those services a voice and say, 'Please reconsider cutting their funding,' or, 'Just get your act together and let them know what they're going to get and, if they're not going to get anything at all, find a way to fund them. Find a way to keep these services going.'</para>
<para>As I said, this new childcare funding will come in on 1 July. There are still many, many questions about how it's going to work. The government has not provided parents and families and centres with answers. How does the government intend on implementing the activity test? They are yet to come clear on this. It is already February and the question remains as to how families and centres are expected to report their activity to get their subsidy. When they can't navigate their MyGov account will families be forced to wait in longer queues at Centrelink to report fortnightly? There are many questions. How will the centres report activity? Is the government's IT system ready to go? I suspect it's not. Come 1 July I think we'll see the government's system in absolute disarray.</para>
<para>There have been two or three government ministers—I think there might have been three ministers—looking after this area and talking about this amazing package. But they haven't done the hard work of actually working out how to implement these changes. So I think we're going to find families and centres in disarray come 1 July, not knowing how much the subsidy is and not having any certainty around how they report, how they access their subsidy and how the centre is able to support the most vulnerable families. We know that there's a change to those children at risk and how you get the extra subsidy. No longer can the centres go through that process on behalf of families. There is a lot of confusion within the sector and a lot of confusion for parents and families, and it's time the government started to get on with the job. Stop talking about this and actually look at implementation in a way that will meet families' needs.</para>
<para>The government has also missed a huge opportunity when it comes to preschools. The government has recently announced stop-gap funding for just one year for four-year-olds to access preschool. The government had an opportunity to show that they were committed to four-year-old preschool and to support states and territories to deliver that. To do that, it would have been right to put funding in over the forward estimates. However, they didn't. Once again, this has been a hallmark of the government—just drip-feeding a bit of money year in and year out. Preschools need to plan. They need to know what their future holds. Indeed, the minister has made some concerning remarks suggesting that this funding will not be guaranteed into the long-term. This creates uncertainty for families. I'm disappointed that the minister hasn't taken the opportunity to stand up to his Treasurer and to the Minister for Finance and say, 'Preschool for four-year-olds is a priority and the federal government should play a collaborative role with the states and territories to deliver that.' He failed to take that opportunity and, as a result, we now have the drip-feeding of money to preschool with this veiled threat: 'We need to review this.' This program is getting results. Despite the minister trying, under a South Australian election campaign, to argue that we don't have enough four-year-olds in preschool, it is getting results. Progress is being made. We need to continue that and give certainty, so we can make more progress to ensure that children are getting the best start to life.</para>
<para>Of course, the minister continues to brag about how childcare fees are not going up as much as he thought they would. Indeed, four per cent, six per cent—a range of these is seen by the government as a good thing. But families are hurting. This government has been in power for five years. We have seen not one step to provide relief to families when it comes to child care costs; no discussion around access; no discussion around early education. I urge them to think seriously about early education and children. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a contribution to debate on the appropriation bill. I am very pleased to have been here for the contribution of the member for Kingston, the shadow minister for early years education. I'd really like to echo some of her remarks before moving on to some other issues of importance to constituents in my electorate.</para>
<para>The government's failure to support early learning is something for which it stands condemned. The remark she made about the hollow boasting of the minister in terms of fee increases and affordability of child care are one element of a much wider and very, very serious problem. I am also concerned, as she is, that we have only seen a bandaid applied in terms of four-year-old kindergarten, or preschool—it's called different things in different states; kindergarten in Victoria. We know how absolutely vital this early learning is for life opportunities. It is simply unacceptable that the government applies a bandaid and, indeed, offers no sense of certainty for ongoing funding. It's just one example of many of what this government's attitude seems to be to federalism: uncooperative federalism, particularly in the area of education. I'll touch on some issues that go to schools as well. I am deeply concerned, as is the member for Kingston, about the failure to offer long-term or even medium-term certainty for the provision of 15 hours of four-year-old kindergarten.</para>
<para>The issue of the activity test is also of deep concern to me. It is particularly concerning to many Scullin constituents. I think about the way in which this government fails to consider the developmental advantages of early learning. Child care is important for many reasons, one of which is, of course, workforce participation. On this side of the House we recognise that and see that as a very important public policy objective. But workforce participation, boosting employment participation, is only part of the puzzle when it comes to child care and early education. I am deeply concerned that a large number of kids, who start life, by reason of the lottery of life, without the advantages that others do, will not have the opportunity for quality early education and all that brings. They will start school behind. I'm very pleased to see the minister has made it over to hopefully enlighten us on the progress of this debate. I'm sure he was paying very close attention to the contribution of the shadow minister earlier. I hope that he was.</para>
<para>Moving on from early years, I hope he will stick around to hear my contribution on schools and higher education and the failings of the government in those regards as well. What is abundantly clear, as we participate in this debate, is that the agenda of the Turnbull government is a million miles away from the needs of people in Melbourne's northern suburbs. We see this at every level. There are some particular local issues. At the macro level this government persists, despite all the evidence and all the practical reasons, with its so-called Enterprise Tax Plan. This is a government with only one idea for Australian prosperity, and it's a bad idea. It's a bad idea on its own terms—that has been recognised by a wide variety of parties in this parliament as well as pretty much all the experts. The Prime Minister's contribution on this in question time really said it all. He resorted to low rhetoric and completely failed to engage in what is a really important debate. You'd think, given that he has no other ideas to boost growth to secure our living standards, he'd be up for a proper conversation around this, that he'd be up for joining in the debate about the evidence. What did he do instead in response to the revelations on the ABC? I call them 'revelations', but the reports produced by Emma Alberici, while important and significant, aren't really revelations because they continue to tell us what we knew already—that a very large number of Australia's largest companies are in fact paying no tax at all and also, despite the rhetorical position of too many government members, that the evidence about the link between inbound investment in the Australian economy and our headline company tax rate is very, very weak. There are big debates to be had about how we can boost investment. That is a debate we on this side of the House welcome. Again, it is telling and disappointing that the government is just banging on with its simple, reductive and, frankly, pointless messaging. The Prime Minister compounds this because not only does he fail to engage with this debate; he shoots the messenger. His attack on the ABC, our national broadcaster, in question time today was unwarranted and shameful.</para>
<para>To simply attack the messenger here is consistent with a much wider and deeply problematic attitude of the government to criticism or, indeed, unhelpful commentary at large. We see that in the victim-blaming attitude it extends day in, day out to people who are recipients of welfare payments. We see it in the extraordinary attitude of the government to the question of our charities, where the government will, on the one hand, laud the activities of not-for-profit organisations and, on the other, seek to deny them the financial capacity to carry on their activities. This is a government that won't engage in big debates. Whenever there is a dissenting view, it feels it needs to be shut down. That is the view of the Prime Minister. That is one thing that he has proved to be consistent on.</para>
<para>He's also been consistent in his attitude, to be fair, to these big questions of economic management. He is a neoliberal, pure and simple. He has wavered on just about every other attitude he's expressed—from the republic to marriage equality to pretty much anything you can pick—as he's been pushed around by reactionary elements in his party room and in his coalition partners. But the one thing he's been consistent on in his devotion to neoliberalism. One thing he said in question time today really struck me: he made the extraordinary assertion that company taxes are a tax on workers. You'd think, if he was prepared to make that statement at the dispatch box, he'd be willing to point to some facts to back it up. The truth is—and he should be well aware of this—that the relationship simply isn't there. What we are seeing in the Australian economy is a massive and troubling decoupling of company profits from the returns going to workers. The labour share of the economy is almost at a record low, and what does the government want to do about that? What does the government say to those Australians who work for a living? It says that they should get less reward for that work. The government accepts at a rhetorical level that there is an issue with wage growth but then does nothing about it as an employer, a regulator or, indeed, in its wider attitude to the management of the Australian economy. It simply repeats the same old canards and refuses to debate the evidence.</para>
<para>I want to talk now, briefly, about the government's record in the area of infrastructure, because these are questions that are critical to Melbourne's northern suburbs and vitally important to the people I'm so proud to represent in this place. Of all the failures of this government, its utter neglect of Melbourne, the fastest growing city in Australia and one of the fastest growing cities in the OECD, is absolutely shameful. Victoria has more than a quarter of Australia's population and yet is in receipt of well less than 10 per cent of Commonwealth infrastructure funding. This is particularly concerning in the suburbs that make up the Scullin electorate, with the suburbs of South Morang—which I share with my friend the member for McEwen the honour of representing in this place—by some reckoning the fastest growing postcodes in Australia and also with the extraordinary growth in the corridor from Epping North through to Wollert.</para>
<para>We need very significant Commonwealth infrastructure investment. It's absolutely critical to the wellbeing of the people I represent in this place. It's absolutely critical to the sustainability of our communities. The failure to invest in quality public transport and roads is a huge handbrake on our productivity. About 50 per cent of full-time jobs created in Australia in the last five years have been created in and around the CBDs of Melbourne and Sydney. Getting in and out of those CBDs from the suburbs is an absolute priority, as is finding ways to secure quality jobs outside of the CBDs. That's why the ideologically driven attitude of the member for Warringah when he was Prime Minister, delaying vital public transport investment, has played such a role in holding back productivity growth and in damaging lives in Melbourne suburbs.</para>
<para>There are some projects underway. The Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities talks about the M80, which has been delayed for the better part of three years by the intransigence of this government. Similarly, the O'Herns Road interchange project, which is finally underway, would have been completed, but for the attitude of this government, if Labor had stayed in government. This government is unconcerned about the issues that affect people in the suburbs of our major cities. This Prime Minister, in particular, is unconcerned about anything that matters to Victorians and anything that matters in Australia's second city, which is soon to be, as I said before, our largest and fastest-growing city.</para>
<para>The sins, in terms of infrastructure investment, have been compounded by other decisions, such as when former Minister Nash effectively abolished the Northern Melbourne RDA. This was a body that was doing really important work. It was working with local governments across the northern suburbs of Melbourne—communities that represent more than a million people and an enormous amount of economic activity—to build a regional understanding of infrastructure needs and develop a blueprint to secure the future of our regional economy and to secure the wellbeing of people who live in Melbourne's north. Defunding the RDA and amalgamating it into one organisation that will service the entirety of Melbourne is a retrograde step that is already having an adverse impact on the communities that I represent. A government that is serious about its obligation to the people in Melbourne's northern suburbs would reconsider and, indeed, reverse this decision.</para>
<para>Beyond infrastructure, I want to touch very briefly on issues in education that impact on people in the Scullin electorate. I've talked about early learning and the cavalier attitude to funding four-year-old kinder and the impact of the activity test. On the activity test, I should focus particularly on our first nation Aboriginal kids in the Scullin electorate, who are being disproportionately affected and risk being shut out of participation in early learning through the attitude of this government. The cuts to schools will impact very significantly on those schools most in need. Although the minister is no longer with us, it is worth highlighting again the uncooperative federalism that has characterised the attitude of this government to the education portfolio. The blanket rule around only funding 20 per cent of the cost of educating kids in state schools is presenting huge stresses and strains. It will impact more significantly on the schooling system and outcomes in states like South Australia and Tasmania than on Victoria, but in Victoria we are seeing the huge impact of the cuts and the consequences that go beyond them. Some really vital programs will be affected, and the uncertainty that has characterised the government's attitude to this vital area of policy-making from the time they walked away from the bipartisan consensus around real needs based funding has put schools, parents and kids in an invidious position.</para>
<para>It is a particularly invidious position when it comes to the circumstances of students with disability in my electorate and more generally. A significant change, a change that was well intentioned and proper, to move away from a purely medical diagnosis of disability to an approach that recognises judgements about adjustments that are required to support learning has shown an enormous and increasing gap between the Commonwealth funding allocation and the needs of students. I'm deeply concerned that the government is not taking its responsibility to those students seriously. Other speakers on this side have spoken about the uncertainty—compounded, of course, by the swingeing cuts to higher education and the fee increases, which will shut too many of my constituents and my colleagues' constituents out of the tertiary education that they are entitled to pursue.</para>
<para>I will finish on this note: across all of this, as I go around the communities I represent, there is a deep sense of frustration and alienation. We have a government that not only is without a plan beyond a company tax cut for big business, the $65 billion giveaway, but also is simply not engaging with the needs of Australian people. That's a sentiment that is very strong in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The Prime Minister fails to listen to it at his peril.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Canberrans brace themselves for coalition government budgets. They brace themselves because they're used to the cuts. They brace themselves because they're used to the attacks. They brace themselves because they're used to the derision. They brace themselves because they're used to the scorn. They brace themselves because they're used to the contempt. Derision, contempt and scorn for this nation's capital. Derision, contempt and scorn for the Public Service. Derision, contempt and scorn for our national institutions. That's what coalition governments mean for Canberra, our nation's capital.</para>
<para>Ever since this coalition government was elected, it has gone after Canberra, it has gone after our national institutions and it has gone after our servants of democracy. We saw it in 1996. The last two coalition governments have had form when it comes to Canberra—our national institutions, our nation's capital and our servants of democracy. In 1996 we saw 30,000 public servants lose their jobs right across the country; 15,000 of them here in Canberra, the nation's capital. What did that mean for Canberra in the mid-nineties? I was one of those 15,000 who lost their jobs under the Howard government, when I was working in the Department of Foreign Affair and Trade. What did it mean for Canberra? It meant that we went into an economic slump for five years. It meant that people left town. We had three federal seats here. We went down to two as a result of the Howard government's stellar efforts. It's only this year that we've managed to get back to a third seat. My electorate is now the largest in the country in terms of population, with 143,000. My colleague in Fenner has the second-largest in terms of population. The people of Canberra, the people of our nation's capital, are the most underrepresented people in the country—currently with two members in the House of Representatives and two senators in the Senate; that's it.</para>
<para>What did we see in 1996? We saw an economic slump. We saw 15,000 Public Service jobs axed. We saw people leave this city. We saw us go from three to two electorates. We saw the local shops close down. We saw businesses go under. It took us five years to crawl out of the mess that was created by the Howard government. The scorn, contempt and derision that was held by the coalition government in the nineties is held now by the coalition government. We are seeing the same form.</para>
<para>What is so extraordinary and perplexing about this is the fact that the founder of the modern Liberal Party, Sir Robert Menzies, wasn't a big fan of Canberra, but when he realised its potential and fully understood its significance to our nation as the national capital he made the investment. To quote him, he 'became an apostle'. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I cannot honestly say that I liked Canberra very much; it was to me a place of exile; but I soon began to realize that the decision had been taken, that Canberra was and would continue to be the capital of the nation, and that it was therefore imperative to make it a worthy capital; something that the Australian people would come to admire and respect; something that would be a focal point for national pride and sentiment. Once I had converted myself to this faith, I became an apostle …</para></quote>
<para>Those are the words of Sir Robert Menzies, a self-confessed apostle of Canberra. What do we have opposite here? We have people who are hell-bent on tearing down the legacy of Sir Robert Menzies and tearing down those great Westminster traditions of service and duty to the nation—and they do it in so many different ways. In the mid-nineties, they did it through the sacking of 30,000 public servants and, since this government has been in, we've seen 16,000-plus public service positions axed—between 3,000 and 4,500 here in Canberra, so at least a quarter here in Canberra, in the nation's capital. The scorn that this government has for the public service, our servants of democracy, is palpable and it speaks in volumes when it comes to budget times. Everyone across Canberra braces themselves for what a coalition government—the now Turnbull government—is going to deliver for our nation's capital, for them.</para>
<para>I remind people listening that Canberrans are the same as everyone else across this nation. Canberrans have mortgages, rent to pay and car loans. Canberrans have dreams like everyone else in the country. They have dreams of going on holidays and spending time with their families and children. They want to see their children and family members thrive and prosper. Like everywhere, they have the same dreams as all Australians. These 16,000-plus jobs are human beings. The 3,000 to 4,000 here in Canberra are human beings with mortgages, rent, car loans and commitments like everywhere else in Australia. I remind those sitting opposite to remember that and to have a bit more respect for their nation's capital, for the vision of Sir Robert Menzies, for the servants of democracy—the public servants who service you as government—and for our great national institutions.</para>
<para>I want to go over the sorts of cuts that we were dealt with in the budget last year under this government. The Department of Human Services lost almost 1,200 positions—a four per cent reduction in its total numbers. The Australian Bureau of Statistics lost over 400 positions—14 per cent of that agency. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection lost 245 positions, which was a two per cent decrease in staff. The Department of Health lost over 240 people. The Australian Federal Police, despite what the Minister for Justice was saying at the time about investing in that agency, lost over 150 people. The Attorney-General's Department lost 100 people. The Department of Finance lost over 60 people. The Department of Education and Training lost almost 50 people. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources lost over 40 people. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies lost over 30 people—that meant a 20 per cent loss of that agency's staff. The Australian Electoral Commission lost 24 people. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions lost 20 people. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet lost 14 people. TRA lost 15 people. The Australian Skills Quality Authority lost 13 people. IP Australia lost nine people. The Fair Work Commission lost six people. They are public servants—our servants of democracy.</para>
<para>But what did this government do in terms of our national institutions? The Australian War Memorial, the soul of the nation; the National Gallery; the National Library; Questacon; the National Museum; the Museum of Australian Democracy—the repositories of our national story and history, the keepers of our history, memories and story—what did this government do last year to those national institutions? It cut 20 positions from the National Gallery. As we all know, our national institutions are pretty mean and lean outfits. Twenty positions were cut from the National Gallery, the collector and curator of our national story, by this government. The National Library had significant cuts in terms of Trove. It's a campaign I mounted for a very long time. We had 15 jobs lost at the National Archives and another three at the Australian War Memorial. Again, it is contempt, derision and scorn for our public servants of democracy; contempt, derision and scorn for our national institutions, the keepers of our history and our national story, our national memory, the soul of the nation at the Australian War Memorial. It is nothing but scorn, contempt and derision from the coalition government.</para>
<para>I remind those opposite what that actually means for those national institutions. As a result of this government's cuts to budgets and staff over successive years, in my view you are potentially damaging how we collect and curate our national story, because some functions just have to go. Some collections can't be looked after. So what we have here, as a result of your cuts to our national institutions, is that we're not cutting into fat anymore; we're not cutting into bone anymore; we are cutting into vital organs. Your cuts are affecting our future. They are affecting our memories, our story, our history and the soul of the nation.</para>
<para>National institutions cut; Public Service jobs cut; and then, as if the nation's capital hadn't been insulted or derided enough by those opposite, we get the insulting investment in infrastructure. We had an investment in infrastructure in last year's budget of a paltry $3 million out of a $75 billion national spend. That is less than one per cent for the people of Canberra, for our nation's capital. Then we started to take a closer look at where this $3 million was going. With $3 million you can build a lot of bridges or roads or a lot of fabulous infrastructure that will leave a legacy for the nation's future. So I thought: let's have a closer look at where this $3 million is going. It was quite telling in terms of the respect that this coalition government, this Turnbull government, has for the nation's capital. Because the $3 million in infrastructure investment went to lighting and plumbing at Old Parliament House, a temperature control system at the National Film and Sound Archive, shared corporate services at the National Museum, and a business case for an exhibition at the Australian War Memorial. That is the coalition's interpretation of infrastructure. That is the coalition's interpretation of a significant infrastructure investment in the nation's capital: lighting and plumbing in Old Parliament House, a temperature control system at the National Film and Sound Archive, shared corporate services at the National Museum and a business case for an exhibition at the Australian War Memorial.</para>
<para>Don't get me wrong: these are worthwhile investments, particularly in terms of the preservation and curating and collecting of our nation's story and our history. They are important investments, but, when people think about infrastructure investment, they usually think a bit bigger: a bit bigger than a business case, or lighting and plumbing or a temperature control system. They think bridges or roads. They think that a convention centre would be really nice here in the nation's capital. They also think the sum would be a bit bigger too. Three million dollars in the nation's capital out of a $75 billion spend: less than one per cent.</para>
<para>So, again, scorn and derision from this government in terms of our public service, as we saw in 1996; we have seen scorn and derision from coalition governments over decades. In 1996, 15,000 public service jobs were axed here in Canberra, and 30,000 nationally, sending the nation's capital into an economic slump. We see it again with this coalition government, the Turnbull government—16,000-plus jobs right across the nation, 3,000 to 4,500 here in ACT, and we saw all those jobs lost last year not just in the public service but also in our national institutions.</para>
<para>This speech I make is a constant. I make this frequently throughout the year. I make this, because I cannot believe that those opposite do not listen to the legacy of Sir Robert Menzies— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>And hear, hear—three big cheers for the member for Canberra for that contribution in defence of the nation's capital, but particularly of the public servants who serve not just the government of the day but the Australian people. It's a topic I wholeheartedly back you on and will have more to say on throughout the year.</para>
<para>I rise to talk about a number of matters. Firstly, international education: this is an incredibly important sector to Australia in many senses, with, economically, $28 billion of export value to the country in 2016-17—and that is just the value of international students studying in Australia. It is now our third-largest export industry after coal and iron ore. It is our largest services export industry, far outstripping tourism now and indeed contributing significantly to tourism numbers through the visiting friends and relatives category—families of students studying here come and spend time here. The statistics show they spend more time per average than other students and are far more likely to leave our major capital cities and support rural and regional Australia, often because their son or daughter studying here has language and cultural familiarity, and the confidence to take them around.</para>
<para>We have seen, in the last 12 months, 16.1 per cent growth from the 2015-16 figures and around 10 per cent growth in recent years. In terms of raw numbers, 792,422 international students were enrolled in Australian education institutions—that includes universities, higher education, vocational providers, private providers and English language courses in 2017. Higher education provides the largest economic share of that, with $19.1 billion of that $28 billion in value, though of course VET, English language and other sectors are important. That's the economic picture summarised.</para>
<para>It is also of long-term strategic importance to Australia. Hundreds of thousands of leaders across Asia—in particular, Asia; our part of the world—have been educated over the last few decades in Australian education institutions. This has proven to be of enormous value for economic development, trade relationships and strategic importance. Australia has also benefited from many highly skilled migrants who have chosen to stay for some years or to build a life in our country. Economically, international students make some of the highest economic contributions to our nation of any migrant. To be blunt, their home country has paid for their primary school years, their health care and their teenage years. They pay for their tertiary education in this country, and then our nation reaps the economic benefit through their working years by their paying taxes and so on. Of course life-long connections form between Australian students and international students that foster research partnerships, and the hundreds of thousands of alumni scattered throughout the world create goodwill and links to Australia.</para>
<para>The third benefit, of course, is the internationalisation of Australian education for our domestic students, the diversity in campus and classrooms, and the opportunities to make cross-cultural connections and friendships. I'll just have a <inline font-style="italic">Mythbusters</inline> moment—and I hear this; I think others would've heard it. There are some in the community who have this view—misplaced; it's wrong—that somehow international students are a problem because they're taking the places of Australian students. I've heard this. It's not said wilfully, in hatred. It's not said to be mean or to discourage. It's said in ignorance and misunderstanding. The fact is: the economic value of international students and the fees they pay are of enormous, critical and, indeed, growing importance to the ability of our higher education institutions, our universities, in this country to be able to provide facilities for domestic students. Many of the shining new facilities that we see, particularly at the top universities in Australia, are funded through the revenue that universities get from international education.</para>
<para>Shame on this government—and shame on this minister, Senator Birmingham—for using the revenue that international students are contributing to universities as an excuse to cut higher education funding. This is going to particularly impact our top universities, the Go8, over time. We're incredibly blessed in this country to have so many universities in the top 100. That's not just good for the research output and our international standing and reputation and the economic value we get from commercialising that research—and we need to do more. It's also a virtuous cycle, because the reality is that this is a competitive market, and the parents of many students, particularly those from China and other Asian nations, are influential in their choice of university, and they choose Australia because we have these universities in the top 100.</para>
<para>We're seeing competition, globally, increase exponentially. What we considered source countries over recent decades—Singapore, China and other places, from which students were coming here—are now becoming competitor countries and destination countries. So we cannot rest on our laurels. If we want to maintain our position, not just economically but to fuel this critical industry for our economy, we have to maintain our place in the world's top 100, and that means at least maintaining, if not boosting, our contribution of public funding to higher education and allowing universities to value-add and increase their research spend through other sources such as international students.</para>
<para>I'm concerned, though, despite this rosy picture, about some of the worrying signs and problems, and I'll just touch on a few; first, the sustainability of growth. There are some signs of a bubble. In any sector, you do have to worry when you see, year upon year, growth of 10 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent and now 16 per cent in the last 12 months. We've seen this movie before, back in 2007, 2008, 2009, when we saw a completely unsustainable growth in the sector, and a bubble that burst, and we lost some billions of dollars of value. To their credit, the Rudd government recognised this and took hard decisions, through changing some of the migration settings and removing that link between migration and vocational education in particular, to reset the industry on a sustainable path. But transparency and interrogation of this data is critical, and we must not become dependent on international education revenue for our institutions, or, indeed, dependent on any particular source country—China being the obvious one, where China is now contributing in the order of 29 per cent of students overall and around 38 per cent of students to our universities.</para>
<para>The second area is the distribution of growth between states. The latest data, unfortunately, shows an accelerating trend where we're seeing a concentration of growth in New South Wales and Victoria, in particular Melbourne and Sydney. Melbourne's my home town, so in one sense we benefit enormously from this economically, but I do worry that the benefits of this sector are not being properly shared between other capital cities and rural and regional Australia. Indeed, from some of my former work, a few extra international students can make an enormous economic, cultural and social difference to smaller towns and regional towns—places like Mildura, Warrnambool and even larger regional centres like Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo. I call on the government and the parliament to take this issue seriously. It is a bipartisan sector. It's got great support, I think, from both sides of politics, broadly. Refer it to a parliamentary committee to have a proper, thoughtful inquiry about what initiatives the federal government and, indeed, state governments could do to help share the benefits of this sector more equitably across the country.</para>
<para>The third area that is of concern to me and that I want to remark upon is that of the Chinese student experience. My view, at the outset, is that Chinese students are not just important contributors to our country economically; they are welcome. They are welcome in our country. They are welcome in our community. There's been a lot of media hyperbole about Chinese students—some nonsense run, fuelled by some opposite, that they're all spies for the Chinese government or the Communist Party. Those stereotypes are harmful, they're insulting and they're damaging.</para>
<para>We should be able to have a sensible debate in this country, in this parliament, about, for example, foreign interference laws. I think just about every member of this parliament agrees that there is a case and a need to strengthen our laws about foreign interference from all sorts of governments—not just China, as a lot of the media reporting has put forward—and we should be able to make that case and have that debate without making young people living in our country feel unwelcome. I'm also concerned about ongoing reports of the lack of integration of many international students but particularly Chinese students in our campuses and in communities. We need to focus on that as a critical issue. The government must take this seriously—not just because of the economic impact if we get it wrong but also morally. These are other people's children. These are young people, growing up and making their way in the world and they have chosen to come and live in our country and our communities in their formative years. We as a society and as communities have a moral responsibility, as well as the economic imperative, to make them feel welcome.</para>
<para>I will draw the parliament's attention to a few examples of the kinds of things that we could do, which I would back. Two particular policy prescriptions come from the excellent China Matters' publication, released late last year, which explored some of the issues with international students in China. Firstly, I back the call that federal and state governments should jointly declare a national/international students' weekend across the country to encourage Australian families to welcome international students into their home and communities. It's not an unreasonable thing. It's not a silly thing by any means to think about using the power of government to suggest that idea and have families across Australia welcoming international students for a barbecue and into their family and take them around and so on. When I was growing up, my family hosted an exchange student, with whom we have lifelong connection in Sri Lanka, a Muslim family from Kandy. My daughter went there when she was in grade 3 and my mum went there many times. It's been a wonderful relationship for our family. So I think that's a great practical idea from China Matters.</para>
<para>Another idea is that the government needs to work, and may need to provide financial incentives to universities, to lessen the isolation of international students—for example, to build student housing and to look at whether we need tax incentives or other initiatives to encourage the construction of more student housing where international students would be able to live in close proximity to Australian students. I'm appalled about many of the statistics, media reporting and research that say explicitly that the English-language proficiency of many international students actually declines when they have been studying in Australia for a few years. We're finding that students are living in houses with people who speak their native language at home—they are studying maths or engineering—and they speak less English living in this country than they learnt at home when they were studying. That's a shame on us as a community. We should be able to do better than that as a welcoming people, and we take our national image seriously. It is also of critical importance for the sustainability and the future of this critical sector. We cannot rest on our laurels.</para>
<para>Chinese universities are improving enormously. Many of them are leading globally and beat us in research in so many areas. So the incentive, the reason, increasingly in the coming decades, to be really frank, for many international students to come and study here will be the cultural experience, the sense of community, the importance of living in an English-speaking setting, getting internships or work experience, and being able to take that experience home for their future lives, be it in business or other settings.</para>
<para>Finally, I would raise some concerns around the government's handling of the Australian International Education: Enabling Growth and Innovation grants program and the allocation of what is, overall, in the scheme of support for an incredibly important sector, paltry sums of money. There was $3 million handed out last year. Magically, that was handed out on 29 June. Who knew? My understanding—but I'm very happy to have the minister correct this—is that there were no guidelines or open process with these grants and much of the money actually just went to the bodies or the people who happened to be represented on his handpicked international education council.</para>
<para>Given the enormous need for support and the wonderful things that we could do with some creative policy to share the benefits to rural and regional Australia, to make students feel more welcome and so on, there needs to be much greater transparency about how these funds—scarce as they are; minimal as they are—are used. How could stakeholders or providers propose projects for consideration? What kinds of potential projects were actually identified? What was the process for handing out this $3 million? I don't know. I haven't been able to find anything on the website. No-one in the sector that I've spoken to has a clue. The grants magically popped up before the end of the financial year. What were the probity arrangements? What were the evaluation criteria?</para>
<para>In summary, this is a sector which I think has enormous potential for Australia. We can and should seek to maintain and grow our position in a sustainable way. But, increasingly in the coming years, that will rest not just on our rankings and the quality of our reputation and so on but on the ability of Australia and our communities to provide a genuine, welcoming student experience for these young people from all over the world who have done us the great privilege of paying significant sums of money to get their education in Australia and call Australia home for these important years of their lives.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Just as individuals and families make decisions based on their values, morals and ethics in terms of how they spend their money, governments do the same in terms of their priorities in their budget, so I'm pleased to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. This is a government which is engaged in what Stephen Koukoulas, a respected economist, calls 'economic and budgetary vandalism'. This is a government which, in opposition, ran a debt and deficit campaign which they ran up hill and down dale with trucks everywhere. But under their watch we've seen $252 billion added to government debt since they came to power in September 2013. What they're effectively trying to do is deliver $65 billion of handouts to multinationals and banks at the same time as they're increasing the tax burden on middle- and low-income earners. This is a government which has its priorities all out of whack.</para>
<para>Interestingly enough, today we've seen some research that the Australia Institute has released in relation to this particular issue. They are not only out of touch with the Australian public—because the polling done by the Australia Institute showed that 65 per cent of Australians believe that funding health, education and other public services is best when it comes to promoting jobs and growth, and only 15 per cent think cutting company tax is the way to go—but also out of touch with their own base, because, according to the research, only 28 per cent of Liberal and National party voters thought that cutting company tax was the way to go. Indeed, a whole 52 per cent of them thought that funding health, education and other public services was the way to promote jobs and growth. If anyone thinks that they're going to get this through the crossbench, the polling done in relation to Greens, One Nation voters and other crossbencher voters shows that they also support the same position that Labor's come to—that you should invest in education, health, public service and infrastructure, because that's the way to promote jobs and growth.</para>
<para>The government has forgone—and I noticed it even in these appropriation bills—any form of income they could have received in terms of revenue from negative gearing, capital gains tax reform or reforms to trusts. They've forgone all of that sort of revenue. At the same time, they're giving a $65 billion handout to multinationals and banks. I commend the work done by Ben Oquist, the executive director of the Australia Institute, in relation to this matter. The benefits they're seeking to persuade the crossbench and the public on are based on farcical assumptions. They're basing it on the idea that multinational corporations are suddenly going to ignore dividends to shareholders and stop avoiding tax. It's an absolutely stupid idea. All of a sudden they're going to be very benign, invite union representatives into the offices of the directors, sit around the boardroom table and say, 'Listen, fellows and women, let's actually give you big wage increases.' As if they're going to do that! I wonder what the shareholders will say at the annual general meeting. That's not the way the economy runs.</para>
<para>It's quite clear, according to The Australia Institute, that only 15 companies will share a third of the benefits of the company tax cut. As the Australia Institute says, companies make decisions on how they invest in the country based on a whole range of issues. And I'm indebted to the ABC in relation to this because I think Emma Alberici has done some great work in this area in releasing the analysis today on the corporate tax cut, where one in five of Australia's top companies aren't paying tax. It's quite extraordinary, when you consider that, as she says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's also disingenuous to talk about a 30 per cent rate when so few companies pay anything like that—</para></quote>
<para>It's quite amazing when you consider that some companies such as Qantas is about to clock up its 10th year of being tax-free.</para>
<para>As economist Saul Eslake has said about an analysis that's been undertaken with Canada and Australia:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… it's worth noting that business investment as a share of GDP was 2.4 per cent higher in Australia in 2016 than in 2000, as against only 1.5 per cent higher in Canada, despite Canada's massive cut in company tax.</para></quote>
<para>What is also interesting to note is that none of these companies or the government, in the arguments that they make, take into consideration dividend imputation. Experts, including Saul Eslake, estimate Australia's 30 per cent corporate rate with a dividend imputation raises about as much tax for the government as a 20 per cent rate without dividend imputation, and as the US Congressional Budget Office noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Australia's effective tax rate, at 10.4 per cent, is amongst the lowest in the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The average rate paid by American companies in Australia is just 17 per cent.</para></quote>
<para>I could go on and on because what the economists and respected writers actually say about this government is that they've got their priorities wrong. They shouldn't be undertaking massive cuts to big corporate Australia, they should be investing in infrastructure and they should be investing in health and education—that's the way to do it. A race to the bottom is not going to achieve economic growth and greater productivity.</para>
<para>The budget is also interesting in terms of my shadow portfolio of immigration, because as part of the 2017 budget handed down in May last year, some nine months ago, the Turnbull government announced their Community Support Program and the temporary sponsored parent visa. Despite being announced in that budget, neither program is underway or functioning. The immigration-turned-home-affairs minister seems intent on gaining a new title but not doing the work involved in his portfolio which is necessary to get these two programs and visas underway.</para>
<para>I have met with people and multicultural groups across the country, and they have expressed their frustration and utter disappointment in the Turnbull government's delays and failure to deliver these programs. At the last federal election, the Liberals followed Labor's lead and promised to introduce a new temporary sponsored parent visa. Given the fact that 49 per cent of all Australians are either born overseas or have at least one or both parents born overseas, large numbers of Australians wish to be temporarily reunited with their parents, especially for the benefit of the grandchildren. It's clear that grandparents and grandchildren are important in the bonding process. Kids need to know and be loved by people who are important to their care, welfare and development, and having these grandparents there is very, very important. But, as is the case with the Turnbull government, they said one thing before the election and they have done another thing afterwards. They announced that children would have to pay, not a bond as they announced before the election, but a fee. The bond became a fee. And in the budget, they announced visas would cost up to $20,000 if families want to avail themselves of the full 10-year—five years by two—option.</para>
<para>They also went ahead and announced that the number of visas would be capped at 15,000 per year, despite the fact that before the election they mentioned nothing about a cap. That came on top of what really is the cherry on the top of the cake: the new temporary sponsored parent visa is limited to one set of parents per household. What a very uncomfortable conversation that will be between a husband and a wife: 'your parents or mine should be reunited with us and our children.' What an awkward and confronting conversation that will be when this visa is established.</para>
<para>As for the Community Support Program, the government has been dragging its heels on its own proposal. Despite being announced in the budget last year, and 'introduced' on 1 July 2017, the government still hasn't announced approved proposing organisations. These APOs are needed to propose humanitarian applicants to resettle in Australia. The government department's own website previously claimed they would be announced late last year, and now the new home affairs website reads, 'The APO selection process has not yet been finalised. This page will be updated as soon as the APOs are announced.' That's another broken promise. 'Individual visa applications cannot be lodged until APOs have been appointed.'</para>
<para>By the government's own admission, community organisations and businesses, churches and not-for-profit organisations, who are ready, willing and able to support refugees to resettle in Australia, have had their hands tied because the government can't get their act together and appoint these organisations. Labor believes any community sponsored program should result in a net increase in Australia's current intake of refugees. By comparison, the Turnbull government will allocate up to 1,000 places from the humanitarian program to their new Community Support Program. If the Turnbull government were serious, if they were serious about humanitarian resettlement, they would match Labor's commitment, which we took to the last election, to increase the annual humanitarian intake to 27,000 by 2025.</para>
<para>It's clear the Turnbull government has failed Australia's migrant communities on these two programs. If this out-of-touch government can't manage to keep their promises in the last nine months, why should we believe anything they say in the next three months? Before you know it, the 2018 budget will be handed down. I doubt that the tick-and-flick Minister for Immigration and Border Protection will get these programs up and ready before the next budget.</para>
<para>In my time remaining I want to talk about one particular road infrastructure project in my electorate, which I'm calling on the government to undertake. We had to shame the government into changing their decades-long opposition to upgrading the Ipswich Motorway. Labor in government upgraded it from Dinmore to Darra, and I thank the members for Grayndler and Lilley for their great support in this project. It was designed, built and completed under a Labor government. We had shamed them into doing the extra $200 million for the Darra to Rocklea section in stage 1. We got ahead of them and they followed us on this. We thank them and the Queensland government. But they had to insist on the Queensland government putting in 50-50, in terms of the money, instead of 100 per cent like we did in the Dinmore to Darra section. So it's under construction. There are 470 jobs being created.</para>
<para>But there's another bottleneck. The government—and I commend them for it—has agreed to a bipartisan approach on the upgrade of the RAAF base at Amberley. There is a billion dollars being spent, 5½ thousand people working at the base and a growing aerospace industry. But, if you want a big aerospace industry, juxtapose the base—as we've seen spokespersons for the government come to my electorate of Blair and talk about—and then you have to upgrade the road; that is, the Cunningham Highway, between Yamanto and Ebenezer Creek at Willowbank. That's a $345 million project that's in the priority list for Infrastructure Australia.</para>
<para>If you want an aerospace industry to bloom, if you want thousands of jobs and if you want to spend $1 billion on the RAAF base at Amberley, which we warmly welcome and give our bipartisan support to, you have to get the road right that leads there. Every time I go to the base and speak to people on the base—commanding officers and senior personnel—or when I speak to military personnel down here, I will mention this, or they will mention it to me. The government has to fix it. It's a real bottleneck. Go there at 7 am to about 9 am, or from about 4.30 in the afternoon to 7 pm. It goes into one lane each way. It's a bane for the people who live in Willowbank and for all Ipswich. There are 200,000 people living in Ipswich, and it also helps those country areas outside, in the Scenic Rim, the Lockyer Valley and the Somerset region. It's really important to get this done. I call on the government to give bipartisan support across this space. We need an 80-20 split. That's the way it's been talked about in the past. I need the Palaszczuk Labor government to come up with its $69 million. This is crucial.</para>
<para>This will be the Ipswich Motorway project on the west side, but it's crucial for the military in the area. It's crucial in terms of the safety. We're talking about 2½ thousand heavy vehicles a day and 17,000 vehicles a day experiencing this heavy congestion. It will be the start of a proper western bypass, bypassing the RAAF base at Amberley and eventually connecting the Cunningham Highway to the Warrego Highway—crucial for South-East Queensland. This is the biggest RAAF base in the country, and it's about to become the biggest military base in the country. I call on the coalition government to end this roadblock and give commitment to the project. I know I have the support of the local state members—Jim Madden, the member for Ipswich West, and Jen Howard, the member for Ipswich—and I know that I've got the support of the Ipswich City Council in this project. This is particularly important for our region. If you want to show your commitment to the military, which you boast about all the time, how about you show it by backing up and supporting the men and women in the military on the RAAF base at Amberley and the Army units and aerospace precinct there? Get behind this project. Support it and fund it in the budget that's coming up.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the appropriation bills, which of course we support, but I don't want anyone to confuse support for the bills with support for the policy and the funding decisions that this government has made. I say this on a day when we've learnt that one in five Australian companies don't pay company tax, yet a key part of this government's budget, which it hasn't been able to progress, is to give companies a tax cut—a tax cut that they clearly don't need if they're not paying tax in the first place. It really underpins the decision-making process that went into the things that we see in this bill. There are many areas that I could speak on, but I'm going to stick to just a few.</para>
<para>One of the big gaps in the budget is any vision for the manufacturing sector. Australians want Australia to make stuff, not just to bring it in from other countries. One area where we know there's nearly $50 million of investment planned in the next decade is in rail investment—rolling stock—with state governments around Australia doing a variety of projects. In Sydney, we have an existing rail network that needs serious investment, and in the longer term we should be building high-speed rail between Brisbane and Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra. Australian steel should be given absolute priority in these projects, but we should also be looking to produce the rolling stock itself, not buying it overseas. It is an absolute disgrace that in New South Wales you've got a government that is buying new trains for the Blue Mountains, in my electorate of Macquarie, which are coming from overseas. That's $2.3 billion of investment not going to Australian businesses. There's the complication that the carriages are too wide and too long for our platforms, and there are serious questions about the suitability of the trains for our early morning commuters.</para>
<para>A commitment by the federal government to develop a national $50 billion rail industry plan wouldn't be a big burden on the budget. It would make a huge difference, though, to have collaboration between industry, governments, training providers and unions. The federal government would not be stumping up that money, but it would facilitate the expenditure of those billions of dollars in Australia. It would lead to more apprentices and a more highly-skilled workforce with specialist skills, which we lost with the demise of the car manufacturing industry, thanks to this government's unwillingness to have any vision.</para>
<para>It's impossible to predict what a workforce skilled in train production might be able to turn its hand to in decades to come, but you could imagine a range of sectors where there would be future transferability. The AMWU, which has seen its members suffer most under the loss of manufacturing jobs, can see the sense of this coordinated approach. In my own electorate, we've got about 500 manufacturing businesses of varying sizes. We have the capacity for growth and, outside of the tourism sector, the manufacturing sector has the most businesses employing 20 people or more, largely in the Hawkesbury. Workers can see the benefit of working closely with industry. Business can see it. It's government that can't seem to see how all this fits together. Investing time and money into building the capacity of local manufacturing would not only produce trains; it's the sort of investment in our people and our future that this government should be making.</para>
<para>Of course, the federal government has a central funding role for education. I want to start with TAFE. That system is fundamental. The latest data shows that Commonwealth funding to the vocational education and training sector has had a $1.6 billion cut. That's a 27.3 per cent reduction, according to the National Centre for Vocational Education Research, and this is on top of state governments cutting around 13 per cent of funding. No wonder the Australian Education Union describes the VET system as being in crisis. The New South Wales TAFE Teachers Association president, Annette Bennett, says urgent action is needed to reverse the decline. So do we see that from this government? Of course not. The TAFE sector continues to compete in a flawed competition and contestability environment. It means we're destroying the place where young and older people go to advance their careers, advance their skills, advance their future and get training. As the New South Wales Teachers Federation points out, it isn't just unions who are arguing for a stop to the funding attack on TAFE. Last year Jennifer Westacott, the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, told the Press Club that an effective vocational education sector is essential to the future of our economy and that not one more cent could be taken out of TAFE. The fact that the government's response is to totally fund their training system through a charge on 457 visas shows how little they care about building a skilled and employable workforce in this country.</para>
<para>It isn't just tradies who are being belted by the government's education policies. The government's cut to universities, with a freeze on places, is actually their fourth attempt to reduce spending on university funding. They clearly would like to keep university for the elite, as it was when Labor came to government in 2007. It was a university system that was increasingly out of reach for many Australians. The numbers of undergraduate places were determined by bureaucrats here in Canberra. It failed to keep up with the changes in population or with the changing needs of our economy. I know it's hard to remember back more than a decade, but, because supply was tightly constrained as demand was increasing, entrance scores were extraordinarily competitive. The brutal reality was that, if you had parents who could afford it, you could pay your way into a course with full fees but a lower entry score. That meant a lack of participation in universities from students in outer metropolitan areas like mine. Labor's commitment to a demand-driven system has meant that, over the last decade, 190,000 more Australian students have gone to university, and that has particularly benefited outer metropolitan areas.</para>
<para>The latest attack by this government occurred just before Christmas, just as students were seriously thinking about their options at university. There was the announcement of a freeze in the growth of university places, which will mean that, this year alone, up to 10,000 students could miss out on a university place. Western Sydney will be one of the places hardest hit. The government still wants students to reduce the income threshold at which people will need to start paying back their loans, and it still wants to increase the fees universities can charge. I fear this is not the last hurdle to be thrown into the path of university students.</para>
<para>Schools have not been spared cuts. New data from the Parliamentary Budget Office and the National Catholic Education Commission shows just how bad the funding this year and next year will be for public schools and low-fee Catholic schools. Public schools will suffer a massive 86 per cent of the cuts that will occur. Low-fee Catholic schools will bear 12 per cent of the burden of the cuts, while independent schools, including some of the elite high-fee schools, will get a cut of just two per cent. These are cuts the Prime Minister calls fair. Well, he and I clearly have a very different definition of 'fair'.</para>
<para>One of the key responsibilities of a federal government is to provide funding to the states for hospitals and to ensure that people who are sick can see a GP or specialist. It shouldn't be that hard to do such a fundamental thing, should it? But the government seems incapable of finding in its budget the ability to adequately fund hospitals. My constituents rely on the Katoomba, Hawkesbury and Nepean hospitals, all of which would benefit from additional resources and capital expenditure. I want to talk about Nepean for a moment, which is really the hub of specialist hospital care for our region, even though it can be a bit of a distance from some of my constituents. We are on the fringe of a high-growth area, and there's no equity in the New South Wales government's promise of a half a billion dollars for Nepean Hospital when hospitals in areas with less population growth and less disadvantage are being given $1 billion. This is an area of higher rates of chronic heart disease and diabetes. This hospital is carrying a bigger and heavier load as the population of the west increases.</para>
<para>My neighbouring colleague the member for Lindsay, in whose electorate Nepean Hospital lies, tells me not a day goes by without her office receiving a call from a distressed patient about waiting lists, overcrowding and long emergency times. Certainly the state members find that. The office of the member for Blue Mountains is often in contact with me about these issues. This is in spite of the work of the doctors, nurses and other health professionals—HSU members—many of whom live in my electorate, who are doing an incredible job in an incredibly under-resourced environment. So, is the government doing anything to alleviate any of this pressure? It is doing nothing—absolutely nothing. In fact, in spite of the growing demand for hospitals, the latest offer from the recent COAG meeting is best described as an insult.</para>
<para>The government is also happy for people to keep paying more and more for health insurance. At my mobile office in Lawson on Saturday, an older couple came to speak with me about this very issue. Like many people, they've paid for health insurance for more than 50 years, since they were in their 20s, and they've not used it a lot. Now that they are older, the wife has had breast cancer and the husband has had a prostate operation. That's a not-uncommon combination of illnesses. They are grateful that they have been treated promptly and professionally, but the out-of-pocket costs have been a killer. The gap for the anaesthetist meant thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. They are wondering why. They don't think they can keep their private health insurance going for another year. It's all because this government wants to keep seeing private for-profit insurance companies keep making record profits. The stats show the pre-tax profits of private health insurers increased by 7.3 per cent in the 12 months to 2017. They earned $1.86 billion before tax. At the same time, out-of-pocket costs continued to soar, and Australians are literally being forced to dump their cover.</para>
<para>This is just more evidence of the need to act to make private health insurance fairer for Australians. Instead of standing up for the budgets of families, the Prime Minister just stands by his private health insurance mates. Australians are paying more and more. We really can't have this continue and the pendulum has to swing back to consumers. Labor will cap private health premiums at two per cent for two years and task the Productivity Commission with the biggest review of private health insurance that's taken place in 20 years. To quote a much-loved phrase, 'It's time.'</para>
<para>It isn't just private hospitals that the government is forcing more and more people to dig deeper and deeper into their pockets for. The government is also continuing to save money by keeping the freeze on the GP Medicare rebates. The consequence for my constituents, particularly in the Upper Blue Mountains, is that it is next to impossible to find a bulk-billed visit to a GP unless you are a pensioner, a child or have a health card. The years of freeze which the GPs have been absorbing are not being lifted with any speed by this government and people are now facing financial pain along with their physical pain. Doctors at Katoomba hospital tell me that they are seeing as a consequence an increase in patients to emergency. People are turning up who are desperate and sick and will go wherever they can afford to go. Now we have come full circle, back to where I started, talking about hospital funding. When we talk about the cuts this government makes, they are such big numbers in the health sector that it is easy to glaze over, but these cuts affect people. People have come to me defeated and dispirited. In their time of need, they feel they are being let down by this government.</para>
<para>Finally, I want to turn to foreign aid. This government has cut $11 billion from foreign aid, and this is having gone to the 2013 election promising to match Labor's investment in aid. There has generally been in the past bipartisanship around foreign aid. In 2013, they were saying, 'Not a dollar difference—we'll support the Millennium Goals'—yeah, right! What has actually happened since then is an $11 billion cut. At the last election they said, 'We won't have any further cuts,' but they put a freeze on foreign aid. That's an effective cut. Costs go up, wages go up and electricity to run your office goes up, but funding doesn't. It's time again to say, 'Enough is enough.' Aid spending now equates to about 22c in every $100 of national gross income—a historic low. We can't continue to see the foreign aid budget carved up by cuts and freezes. I recently met with a delegation from Kiribati and they see Australia as a big sister, but we've been a pretty mean big sister. It is time to reinstate our aid budget. That's something Labor will be committed to, but clearly this government has no commitment to looking after our neighbours.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I must apologise in advance for sounding a bit like a cracked record. I thoroughly commend the comments from the member for Macquarie—my twin electorate, if I can call it that, teamed with Macarthur and with, perhaps, Lindsay between. We have similar issues. I rise today to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-18 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-18. Many may see them just as money-shifting bills, but I see them as another example of where this government's priorities are, and that is with big business in the form of unnecessary tax cuts. This government has no interest in investing the money where it will truly make a difference and change the lives of everyday Australians.</para>
<para>We heard earlier the member for Bradfield boasting about his government's commitment to infrastructure. All I can say is: that is a joke. Despite constant rhetoric from the minister that they're investing significantly in south-west Sydney, when questioned in question time today he couldn't list one public transport investment in south-west Sydney, reaffirming that this government's commitment to infrastructure does not extend to my electorate of Macarthur, in south-west Sydney—where infrastructure is lagging well behind the rest of Sydney—or to other electorates that surround the electorate of Macarthur. Werriwa, Macquarie and Lindsay are all sadly deficient in infrastructure that could be provided by this government and by the New South Wales state Liberal government.</para>
<para>In fact, south-west Sydney has been completely neglected, whether it's by the federal or the state government. It's clear there is a complete disregard for the people of my electorate, and that disregard extends to all the surrounding Labor-held electorates in western and south-western Sydney. It's clearly inequitable and discriminatory. I've spoken extensively about infrastructure in south-west Sydney. I again must sound like a cracked record, but I'll continue to speak about it until we get some equality and equity in infrastructure development and we finally see some action.</para>
<para>There's really been nothing fair about the distribution of infrastructure around New South Wales. My electorate of Macarthur is expected to more than double its population over the next 20 years to over 600,000 people. When I first moved to Macarthur with my family in 1984, there were many farms in surrounding areas. Those farms are now suburbs with names like Gregory Hills, Oran Park, St Andrews and St Helens Park. They're all names of the original farms in what was a farming area. They are now suburbs filled with thousands of people. The developments happened, but the infrastructure hasn't.</para>
<para>My electorate is emerging as one of Australia's fastest-growing cities. We're seeing new suburbs emerge constantly. Everywhere I go there are new suburbs with hundreds of new constituents every month. Late last year, a development proposal was submitted to build more than 30,000 new homes in my electorate along the Northern Road, south of Bringelly Road. That's another 80,000 new residents, approximately. Yet there is no public transport. Our region is bursting at the seams. It's expected to continue growing in population, but we cannot get a commitment to build proper infrastructure that will take into account the projected growth of the area. Despite all these new developments and new residents, we see no action from state and federal Liberal-National Party governments. They've got no foresight. They've got no will.</para>
<para>In addition to the exponential growth of population, we have Western Sydney Airport, which I think will be great for our region, especially for job growth. But this airport will fail unless we have a rail line opening with the airport from day one and road and public transport upgrades that will cater for the airport and the burgeoning population. Yet we have no comment from the minister.</para>
<para>This is a government that clearly spends no time in Western Sydney, because they just don't get it. We get told that they're spending millions in upgrading the roads in the area, but these upgrades are too late even by the time they're built. What we get are roads all feeding into Narellan Road, which is already at gridlock, and a lot of talk about how smart the Turnbull and Berejiklian governments are and what fantastic infrastructure they're providing. We know they're not providing what is required.</para>
<para>There was a recent upgrade, adding extra lanes to Narellan Road. The population growth has already exceeded the capacity of the new lanes. Even worse, the state government's planning to build a truck station along Narellan Road, which is already at gridlock in peak hours. We're not getting what we require. We're not even getting an understanding of what's required.</para>
<para>There has been federal money committed to the upgrade of the Northern Road to build an additional lane each way, making it a four-lane road. But this road's already congested in the morning and in the evening. The roadworks for the Northern Road are completely inadequate and cannot cope with traffic volumes even now. The Northern Road is the one road that connects Camden, Campbelltown, Narellan and the surrounding roads to the new airport and north to the Penrith-Nepean area. This is a road along which 36,000 homes are set to be built, in addition to the new suburb of Oran Park.</para>
<para>The upgrade to four lanes is not sufficient for the additional population, the number of cars that will be using the road and the trucks that will be carrying freight along that road. There has been no commitment to put aside a corridor for public transport, something that I would have thought would be essential with the hundreds of thousands of people who are going to be moving to the area. Yet there has been no commitment from state or federal Liberal governments. It's just too little too late, with a few million dollars spent on roads that are already inadequate.</para>
<para>Our roads are outdated and heavily congested. We really only have public transport to Campbelltown, and our train line is already completely overfilled, morning and afternoon. Trains that are used to service the area are second-class trains, some without air conditioning, something that wouldn't be acceptable on the North Shore or inner city lines.</para>
<para>I can assure the House that there has been no adequate intervention by the state or federal transport ministers to look at how poor the public transport is in the Macarthur area. With the new airport at Badgerys Creek, there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do the correct thing—to put in the infrastructure that's required for public transport. Yet we have nothing from the minister. Everyone's concerned with the new airport. Everyone I talked to, from the Greater Sydney Commission to the local councils that surround the area, state members and the general population agree that we need to have a rail connection to the airport when it starts and that we need to have a connection that connects the south, in the Campbelltown-Macarthur area, to the north, in the Penrith-Nepean area. Yet, despite much goading and prodding, there have been no announcements.</para>
<para>The government continues to say they haven't made a decision. But silence is decision enough for them. What the government doesn't understand—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Zimmerman</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's called a process.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, the process has been going on for decades, and there's still no answer and no commitment. That's what you say, Trent, but look at your own electorate which is overburdened with public transport options. Look at the hospitals in your electorate that are given billions of dollars to expand, yet Campbelltown is given a few hundred million dollars and Nepean is given a few hundred million dollars. There is inequality in the decision-making by your government and the Berejiklian state government. No matter what you say about it, we need action now. You're moving hundreds of thousands of people into the west and the south-west; you're not providing infrastructure. It's time to be honest with people.</para>
<para>Experts and bodies such as Infrastructure Australia see the rail link as a no-brainer, and yet we're going to be left in the position where we'll be retrofitting public transport at a much higher cost and a much lower quality. If the government thinks that the new airport can rely solely on roads, they're sadly mistaken. They're kidding themselves, and I've already spoken about what a disaster our roads are.</para>
<para>There's no real effort in making sure that the rail links are properly planned. There's talk of an underground railway, which we know is 10 times more expensive than an above-ground railway, yet we've been given no real reasoning for why there is a delay in developing the rail corridor.</para>
<para>For people in my electorate, the top priority is public transport. To travel by road from my electorate to where many people work—the inner city, the North Shore, the Eastern Suburbs—can take over two hours each way, so people are spending three to four hours of family time travelling because of the lack of public transport. It's time to stop all the talk. The studies have been done and the experts have given their opinion, yet we still have delay. There's money for services to the North Shore, the Eastern Suburbs and the inner city where billions of dollars are being spent on light rail and the northern rail, but there isn't money for south-west Sydney. This is another example of this government's inequity in distribution of resources.</para>
<para>I've seen so many presentations by planners, councils, the Greater Sydney Commission, UrbanGrowth, MACROC, state planning, private consultants, mayors, ministers et cetera who emphasise the importance of public transport, yet we have no decisions. It really is time to make a decision. The language is marginally different, but all the exports agree: we need proper public transport planning for south-western Sydney; and it's time to start doing things now, not later.</para>
<para>We need to stop the unequal treatment of the people in south-west Sydney. It's very rich for the New South Wales Liberal government to continue to say: 'We have to wait.' 'We have to wait.' 'We have to wait.' Yet the people of my electorate and the surrounding electorates are made to pay the all-too-high price for this lack of proper planning for infrastructure. There is no doubt there is a housing boom in south-west Sydney and many people and many companies are making lots of money; however, very little of that money is flowing back into the electorate for proper infrastructure.</para>
<para>The overbudget light rail that the Liberal government is building down the middle of George Street is a perfect example of how the government is prepared to spend money on very wasteful projects but not spend money on vital projects in south-west Sydney. The WestConnex is another issue.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Zimmerman</name>
    <name.id>203092</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>So Labor opposes light rail?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor doesn't oppose light rail, but you need to get your priorities right and you are just not getting them right.</para>
<para>I'd like to talk a little about hospital and health planning. We have the Northern Beaches Hospital and the Berejiklian state government spending billions and billions of dollars on it. They spent close to $2 billion on the North Shore Hospital, yet all they're prepared to allocate to Campbelltown Hospital, a hospital already behind the eight ball, is $600 million, despite the fact that the population is booming—a young population, a disadvantaged population and a population that lacks other resources. Again, we're behind the eight ball. Why is that the case? Why are they only allocating that amount of money to Campbelltown, and similar amounts to Nepean, when they should be spending more money to provide state-of-the-art services in these rapidly growing electorates? It's inequitable by anyone's standards, yet this is happening time and time again in western and south-western Sydney.</para>
<para>It is time the state and the federal governments stood up for the people of west and south-west Sydney and said, 'Enough is enough.' It is time to provide adequate resources to the electorates of Macarthur, Macquarie, Lindsay and Werriwa. Our school infrastructure is very, very poor, very old and in need of revision. It is time to spend some money on the schools in south-west Sydney. I know the buildings themselves would be unacceptable in the northern and eastern suburbs of Sydney. Yet no money is being spent. I have been approached by several principals about the absolutely degrading circumstances in which they have to teach and that their students have to put up with, and yet nothing is being done. We have had complaints regularly about the lack of funding for our TAFE and the way that it has been decimated by the state and federal governments, yet we still lack any commitment to provide upgrades to Campbelltown Macarthur TAFE. This is something that adds further to the difficulties of young people in the Macarthur region.</para>
<para>So there is inequity and inequality in all of this infrastructure development. It's time for this government to do the right thing. We're sick and tired of the questions and reviews and the so-called processes. To quote Mr Zimmerman's words on the infrastructure plan, the time to do it is now, especially with a new airport coming where we have time and a greenfields site to do the right thing. There's no need for any more studies. We know what needs to happen, and it's time for it to happen.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to make it perfectly clear and to put the Turnbull government on notice that I'm here to fight for jobs for Townsville. Let's look at the history of unemployment in Townsville. When Labor left government in 2013, the unemployment rate was five per cent. Townsville's unemployment rate was below the state and national average. What is the situation now under the federal coalition government? Under the Abbott-Turnbull governments, unemployment in Townsville has almost doubled. This is the impact that the Abbott-Turnbull governments have had on jobs in Townsville. To be quite frank, this is simply what the coalition government appears to do in regional Queensland: they just cut jobs. Where was the Turnbull government when more than 800 workers lost their jobs at Queensland Nickel? Where was the Turnbull government when 580 meat workers were told that the JBS plant would be on an extensive shutdown? Where was the Turnbull government when 300 jobs were lost from Aurizon? Where was the Turnbull government when the LNP Newman state government cut 398 frontline health workers' jobs? Where was the Turnbull government when 197 local jobs were cut from TAFE? Where was the Turnbull government when our local manufacturing jobs halved and our local manufacturing firms also halved?</para>
<para>The big question is: where is our missing-in-action Prime Minister Turnbull? It appears that Townsville is being forced to play a game of Where's Wally to find our own Prime Minister. Not only am I asking where you were, missing-in-action Prime Minister Turnbull, on these job losses in Townsville; I am also asking why you continue to cut jobs in Townsville. Why have coalition governments cut more than 110 Australian tax office jobs from Townsville? Why have the coalition governments cut 50 Defence staff jobs in the last five years? Why have the coalition governments cut 19 CSIRO jobs from Townsville? Why have the coalition governments cut 30 jobs from regional Queensland customs? Why has this coalition government relocated the 38 Squadron King Air fleet from Townsville to Victoria, which translates to 40 jobs lost, with not a word about replacing these jobs? Why has this coalition government closed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which has cut five jobs from Townsville? I might add: these were perfect jobs for veterans transitioning from the defence service into civilian life.</para>
<para>Why has the coalition government cut the national partnership on remote housing, which will effectively remove seven apprenticeship jobs from Palm Island—taking seven jobs from young people where, on Palm Island, the unemployment rate is 27 per cent? Why has the Turnbull government cut $14.8 million from Herbert schools, the equivalent of cutting three teachers from every school? Why has the Turnbull government cut $36 million from James Cook University and $38 million from Central Queensland University, which will only deliver further job losses for our community? It is job cut after job cut after job cut under coalition governments. Then there are the job creation projects that would create hundreds of jobs, except the Prime Minister is also missing in action on delivery.</para>
<para>Where is the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in matching Labor's $100 million commitment on long-term water security for Townsville? And where is the Prime Minister in matching Labor's $200 million commitment towards the construction of hydropower at Burdekin Falls Dam? Where is the Prime Minister on commitments towards funding outdated tourism infrastructure in Northern Australia? Where is Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on commitments towards delivering ongoing blue-collar worker jobs? The question clearly is: where is the missing-in-action Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull?</para>
<para>The missing-in-action Prime Minister's lack of support for Labor's commitments has cost Townsville jobs and business confidence. By not matching Labor's $100 million commitment on water security and infrastructure, the local turf industry has almost halved, creating further job losses, including apprenticeships. By not matching Labor's $200 million commitment to construct the hydropower plant at the Burdekin Falls Dam, he is also putting at risk 150 jobs that this project would create. Shame on you, Prime Minister Turnbull, because when times get tough for Townsville, you are nowhere to be seen. And the data speaks for itself. Townsville's unemployment has almost doubled under the Abbott-Turnbull governments. Townsville's unemployment rate when Labor left federal government in 2013, as I said earlier, was lower than both the state and national averages. Now Townsville's unemployment rate is higher than both the state and national average and almost double that of the national average. It is clear that the Turnbull government is setting out to destroy jobs in Townsville. The Turnbull government doesn't care that, two years on, there are still former Queensland Nickel employees who are without a good, secure full-time job. The Turnbull government doesn't care that Townsville is drought-declared on level 3 water restrictions.</para>
<para>The facts that I have presented clearly demonstrate that the Turnbull government simply does not care about jobs for Townsville. And whilst the Turnbull government is cutting jobs to Townsville, it is giving big business a $65 billion tax cut. I will fight for jobs for Townsville. I will fight for blue-collar manufacturing, tourism and public sector jobs for Townsville. Townsville deserves better and we certainly deserve better than the missing-in-action Prime Minister that we now have. Townsville is ready, willing and able to work. We want the jobs and we are hungry for them. But, instead, all we are seeing from the Turnbull government is job cuts and losses. It will only be Labor that will deliver jobs for Townsville because it has only ever been Labor that gives a damn about Townsville and North Queensland. Fourteen times and counting, the Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten has visited Townsville since late 2015—fourteen times and counting! The Leader of the Opposition has demonstrated his commitment to Townsville. He's on the ground and he's talking with the people of Herbert, but once again I ask the question: where is Prime Minister Turnbull?</para>
<para>The people of Townsville have very long and very good memories and they will remember that the Turnbull government delivered job losses and, what's more, you were nowhere to be seen when the Newman state government took a sledgehammer to our city and jobs. The people of Townsville will hold this Prime Minister to account for their job cuts and the people of Townsville will remember that the Turnbull government failed to deliver on jobs, water and energy infrastructure. The people of Townsville will remember who was there for them on jobs, and it was, and is, Labor. My message to the missing-in-action Prime Minister is clear and simple: instead of cutting jobs, how about the Turnbull government cuts the nonsense and gets on with delivering the jobs for Townsville because we want to address our high unemployment rate and we most certainly need to reduce our youth unemployment rate, which is sitting at around 20 per cent.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ZAPPIA</name>
    <name.id>HWB</name.id>
    <electorate>Makin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor's going to support Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-18, but we do so because we are a party that will not stand in the way of financing the government's ability to keep governing. However, it's legislation that highlights the incompetence of this government. Confidence in parliamentarians is probably lower than it has been for a long time and certainly lower than it has been in my time. It doesn't matter whether you look at this parliament—the national parliament—or state parliaments, or indeed parliaments across the seas, in other countries: there is generally a perception amongst people out there that our politicians are failing the people they represent. I pick it up in public conversations, I pick it up in political surveys, and it's noticeable in the rise and fall of minor parties.</para>
<para>The reality is that, even here in Australia, major parties have a declining number of committed voters. But it's also true that we see emerging new parties capitalise on that voter dissatisfaction. And it would be fair to say that some of the dissatisfaction and the public judgement made about politicians arises from the conduct of the politicians themselves. However, it's more the case that the dissatisfaction arises from the failure of governments to live up to and deliver on their election promises and the expectations that they establish in the minds of voters when they campaign to get elected. That is abundantly clear with respect to this government, particularly the current Prime Minister.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister came into office with considerable public goodwill. He promised the Australian people good government, and he created a perception that he was a man of principle, in touch with Australians—a man who was going to lead this country into the future. He has proven to be completely out of touch with Australians and he is a Prime Minister with no principles. The reality is that, when you set up great expectations for people and then don't live up to those expectations, the greater is the disappointment. This is a Prime Minister who has failed public expectations with respect to economic, social and environmental policy.</para>
<para>I want to begin with the claim that coalition members make in this place that they are better economic managers than Labor governments. It is a fallacy, and the statistics will show that time and time again. Labor kept Australia from recession during the last global economic downturn, which affected almost every other western country that we do business with. Indeed, most of the other western countries that we generally try to compare ourselves with did much worse than Australia when they were in fact probably in a better position to safeguard themselves from the downturn. That occurred because we had a Labor government in office in this country that established the right policies for the time, and those policies did exactly what they were intended to do and kept us out of recession.</para>
<para>We got out of recession, the coalition won government, and they simply haven't been able to manage their budget since. This year the deficit's going to be $23.6 billion. Gross debt has surpassed half a trillion dollars; I understand that it's probably closer to $600 billion. And it continues to rise. And what is the government's response to try to contain the budget deficit and the budget gross debt? It wants to provide $65 billion in business tax cuts while simultaneously cutting penalty rates, driving down wages, cutting welfare payments to some of the most needy people in Australia, and deserting environmental commitments. During a time when corporate profits are at record highs and wages growth has flatlined to perhaps the slowest since the 1960s, this government still wants to provide tax cuts to business.</para>
<para>This is a time when inequality is also at a 75-year high and getting worse. I want to quote from Oxfam in respect to that because Oxfam have put out a press release which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Over the decade since the Global Financial Crisis, the wealth of Australian billionaires has increased by almost 140 per cent to a total of $115.4 billion last year. Yet over the same time, the average wages of ordinary Australians have increased by just 36 per cent and average household wealth grew by 12 per cent.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The richest one per cent of Australians continue to own more wealth than the bottom 70 per cent of Australians combined. While everyday Australians are struggling more and more to get by, the wealthiest groups have grown richer and richer.</para></quote>
<para>The argument about a trickle-down effect that coalition members continuously want to run simply doesn't work. The government claims that corporate tax cuts will result in more jobs and that more jobs will, in turn, mean a stronger economy and the like, but that simply won't arise from the policies of the trickle-down-effect tax cuts that this government wants to impose.</para>
<para>The second argument that the government uses is that the Australian corporate tax rates are too high. A US Congressional Budget Office report from last year that compared the corporate tax rates of the G20 countries disputes that because it shows that Australia's about in the middle of the tax rates chart. Indeed, the average tax rate paid by the American companies who invest here was about 17 per cent. The reality, however, is that the government cannot compare corporate tax rates alone if it doesn't compare all of the combined taxes of federal, state and local jurisdictions in the analysis. That's when you can get a meaningful comparison of tax payments by companies.</para>
<para>It's also been revealed that one in five of Australia's biggest companies have not paid any corporate tax at all in the last three years. Qantas has not paid corporate tax for nearly a decade. Its CEO, however, nearly doubled his income from $12.9 million in 2016 to $24.6 million in 2017. I want to quote what someone said about that. Linda White from the Australian Services Union said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">While Qantas workers have seen pay rises of less than 3 per cent on average over the past decade, we've seen the CEO's salary balloon to almost $100,000 a day—much more than most workers earn in a year. It doesn't trickle down—it trickles up, and the rules need to change to give workers a better deal in this country.</para></quote>
<para>Qantas is not alone. Some of Australia's most prominent businesses pay no tax and have not done so for years. So how can a tax reduction increase investment, job creation or higher wages if no tax is being paid at all? There are no savings to these companies if they're not paying any tax. Therefore, there is no likelihood of additional investment, jobs being created or wages being increased.</para>
<para>We also know from previous disclosures that Australian companies use tax havens and low-tax jurisdictions and transfer pricing schemes to avoid their fair share of taxes. The ability of companies to minimise taxes are indeed endless in this country and, in fact, in most countries. Companies utilise whatever tax measures are available to them to reduce their tax obligations. No tax rate is low enough for tax-avoiding companies. It wouldn't even matter if it were down to 10 per cent; if they could avoid it, they would. Lowering tax rates did not produce the trickle-down effect in the UK or Canada when their tax rates dropped.</para>
<para>The government's largest and most reliable income source is from individuals who pay as they go taxes on their wages or pay withholding tax. The government's own documents show that, in 2016-17, $194 billion was raised from pay-as-you-go tax and withholding tax. That represented almost half of the $406 billion the government collected in taxes. Company tax amounted to $68 billion for the same period—in other words, almost a third of what pay-as-you-go tax was paid by working Australians. If you have stagnant wages, then clearly the government gets less tax. If wages increase, the government gets more tax. If you take away penalty rates, that means less wages, and that means lower taxes for the government. It is not complicated logic to understand that a wages increase represents the government's best chance of ever increasing its tax income, because wage earners pay their tax before they even see it in their pockets.</para>
<para>The other matter that the government would have us believe is that increased or higher tax rates paid by companies minimises the level of foreign investment in this country. Again, that is simply not true. Most of Australia's foreign investment came from countries that already have a lower tax rate than Australia's. It is not the tax rate that influences them to invest their money in Australia, it is other considerations. The statistics will show that, because, by value, 71 per cent of the money that came into this country came in from countries that have a lower tax rate than Australia's, and, by the number of countries, it was 97 per cent.</para>
<para>The other matter is that one-third of the government's proposed taxes, according to one report, would go to just 15 companies. The reality is that the government is mainly proposing to reduce the tax burden for 15 very large companies—in most cases, international companies—who are already doing very, very well, turning over billions of dollars, possibly making billions of dollars of profit and paying minimal tax. What the government is proposing to do is give these companies even more money in their pockets, when their years of activity in this country have shown that they are not likely to pass those profits on to employees.</para>
<para>I want to finish off on the matter that was debated in this House this week at length, which again highlights how this government is captive to big business. I refer to the private health insurance increases that were announced recently. We know that private health insurance has increased by 27 per cent over the last five years under this government. We also know that the CPI has been less than 10 per cent. We know that private health insurance is becoming increasingly unaffordable to most Australians. For many Australians, private health insurance costs, of around $4,500 a year, now represent about 10 per cent of their incomes. We also know that in the last three months of last year alone 12,000 people dropped out of health cover, with most of them doing so because they believed that it does not represent value for money anymore—and I suspect in some cases they simply couldn't afford it. Yet when the Labor Party announced a policy of a two per cent cap for two years, the government criticised that policy, clearly supporting, again, big business in this country—businesses that have made considerable profits, $1.8 billion in total last year, on the backs of struggling Australian families who are struggling simply to pay their private health insurance.</para>
<para>On every measure, whether it's climate change initiatives, university funding, school funding, TAFE funding, aged-care services, health and hospital care, science funding, environmental programs, infrastructure funding, the NBN rollout or foreign aid—and I could go on—on every single measure that one assesses this government's performance against, this is a government that has failed to meet the expectations of Australian people. It has not only failed to deliver and failed to meet those expectations; it is a government that has betrayed the trust and the confidence that the Australian people had placed in it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise proudly to make a contribution on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018. I want to talk about a number of issues today, but I'll start with a couple of local issues that are very close to the hearts of my constituents in Shortland. These issues are road safety, after what has been a terrible summer, and the fundamentally important role of surf lifesaving clubs in Shortland and in all communities around Australia.</para>
<para>All of us would be aware of the appalling road statistics over the summer and last year. They make for grim reading. In the region I represent, 74 people died on the road last year, an increase of 22 per cent compared to the previous two years. This is a truly alarming statistic. Hundreds if not thousands of the victims' families and friends in local communities will be devastated by these senseless deaths. A central role the Commonwealth can play is to support local governments to enhance road safety. It is therefore unconscionable that one of the first acts of the coalition government was to cut $1 billion in Commonwealth assistance to local governments. That, in turn, forced councils to cut spending on roads, which are often their largest budget item.</para>
<para>Huge cuts to funding such as these have had an impact in the real world. In our local communities, some Liberal and National MPs who purport to represent regional Australia should hang their heads in shame after voting for these cuts. One of the most successful programs in reducing fatalities is the Black Spot Program. The coalition has totally neglected this program. In the first three budgets, they committed $220 million to this program. However, budget documents show they have only spent $105 million, less than half what they promised. Not properly funding an initiative which works after committing to do so is so typical of this government. Labor's approach to road safety is in stark contrast to the coalition's. Our approach to combatting the shocking road toll involves building better roads, thoroughly training learner drivers and manufacturing safer vehicles. We have a proud legacy regarding road safety. We more than doubled the Commonwealth's road budget, we launched the keys2drive program for learner drivers, and we introducing tougher penalties for importers and Australian companies who make unsafe trailers and caravans.</para>
<para>They are just a few examples of what a government committed to enhancing road safety can achieve, and, quite frankly, it appals me when those on the other side brag about cutting and attacking the Safe Rates program. This program was designed to stop the race to the bottom amongst truck drivers that compelled them to cut corners and drive for too long, therefore leading to greater fatigue, which leads to a greater number of accidents. In order to save money and compete, they cut corners by not making the necessary maintenance on their vehicles. This was a race to the bottom that Safe Rates was designed to counter. When those opposite brag about abolishing Safe Rates, they are bragging about making truck drivers drive longer and harder and making our roads less safe. I don't say that lightly, because that's a big claim. But, if you look at the foundations of Safe Rates, that is exactly what they are doing.</para>
<para>This is also a time to reflect on the summer just gone. The electorate of Shortland is home to some of the finest beaches in Australia or, indeed, around the world. All of us in this place who represent coastal communities are rightly proud of our beaches. They are a feature of who we are and the way we live our lives. Crucial to our love of the beach is the role of surf lifesaving clubs and the role that surf lifesavers play in contributing to our communities and keeping us safe at the beach. My local surf clubs have had a very hectic start to the year. Indeed, in just two days in early January, surf lifesavers rescued 70 people from the surf at Redhead Beach alone. There were actually 103 rescues in the first two weeks of January at Redhead Beach, compared to just four in the first fortnight last year. This demonstrates just how vital our lifesavers are and how important it is for all of us to be conscious of water safety. I will take this opportunity to recognise the five surf lifesaving clubs in my electorate: Redhead, Swansea Belmont, Caves Beach, Catherine Hill Bay and The Lakes. I pay tribute to the thousands of community minded volunteers who make up these clubs. Thank you for keeping us safe over summer and in the months ahead.</para>
<para>This bill gives me an opportunity to reflect on some of the great priorities that the people of Shortland have. There can be no greater priority than the economic advancement of our people. I have the honour of representing the community of Windale. It is a fine community that, too often, has been accused and maligned just because it happens to be the poorest community in all of New South Wales. It faces grave challenges, like the rest of my electorate. It faces challenges of economic isolation, a failure to invest in education and a failure to provide the necessary support for families and seniors. And all this is driven by the failure of successive governments to invest in the community.</para>
<para>There can be no greater example of this than the government's cut to needs-based funding of schools in their mislabelled 'Gonski 2.0', a policy that was an attack on the needs-based funding model—a policy that cut funding to my schools. Schools in Shortland have suffered an $18 million cut in this year alone because of this government's breach of its promise to implement the full Gonski funding model. This is having a concrete impact, because the early years of needs-based funding were having a great impact in my community. St Pius X Primary School in Windale is the poorest school in all of New South Wales. Their early-years Gonski funding allowed them to put on two more teachers for a school of only 50 students. Imagine that—two more teachers in a school of 50! This was having great results. Warners Bay High School was allocating its early-years funding to additional literacy and numeracy teachers, aiming to lift the literacy and numeracy of the lowest-performing 25 per cent of students so that they didn't fall behind in years 7 and 8 and then have to catch up in years 9, 10, 11 and 12, which is very hard to do. Another school—Lake Munmorah Public School—had invested its money in improving teacher quality through adopting cutting-edge teacher training programs, which were having a direct impact on outcomes in that school. I could go on. This has all been placed in jeopardy because of this government's failure to honour its promise of the 2013 election to implement the full needs-based funding, a failure that has meant an $18 million cut to schools in my electorate in one year alone.</para>
<para>Another attack on education is the higher education funding model announced by the government. This is a funding model that places more and more pressure on my local university, the University of Newcastle—a fine institution. It's probably the best engineering university in Australia, based on global rankings, and it's a university that trains more Indigenous doctors than the rest of the nation combined. It trained the first Indigenous surgeon. This is a uni where 50 per cent of students do not come through the traditional HSC path. Some are later in life retrainees from our manufacturing and mining industries. Often they're people who've had to leave school for a variety of reasons and have completed the HSC through TAFE. These are students that are under attack by this government's policy of increasing debt, increasing the interest rate applying to those debts and requiring those debts to be repaid at a lower threshold. International studies have shown that increasing debt has a greater impact on part-time students and mature age students because they have fewer years to repay those debts. As a university where 50 per cent of students have come from non-traditional paths, my university is under direct attack from this government's higher education changes—more so than most.</para>
<para>I will turn now to the government's ridiculous obsession with lowering the corporate tax rate for big business. This $65 billion tax cut imperils the government's budget. It is a policy looking for a justification, because we've seen record profits around the nation this half-yearly reporting season. In the last few years, profits have increased by 20 per cent, but wages have only gone up by two per cent. So I have zero confidence that a corporate tax cut that increases the profits of large corporations will suddenly lead to higher wage growth. The evidence is just not there. Conventional neoclassical economic theory might posit that. Economic pointy-heads might argue for that. But if you look at the empirical evidence, profits have been increasing at a great rate since 2011 but wages have not kept up, so why would increasing profits automatically lead to higher wages?</para>
<para>This demonstrates the government's obsession with rewarding their mates. They perpetuate a form of class war. They accuse the Labor Party of being class warriors, but there are no greater class warriors than the Liberal-National coalition. They're performing a class war on behalf of their allies at the top end of town. That $65 billion could be spent on so many more deserving projects, whether it's the full implementation of the needs-based schools model; restoring money to higher education; restoring the money that has been cut out of TAFE, which has seen $1.5 billion of cuts by this government; or increasing Newstart to make it genuinely liveable. These are all projects that are much more worthy than corporate tax cuts that will not lead to higher wages for workers in my community.</para>
<para>The other myth peddled by the spruikers of this tax cut is that we need this to compete for footloose foreign capital—that if we don't lower our tax rate we will not attract foreign capital; we'll be uncompetitive. Any economist worth their salt will say that there are a multitude of factors that drive investment decisions, and profit is one of many factors. Other factors include whether the market is large enough to make money, whether it's an innovative place where they can have the real advantages of locating their manufacturing or service facility, whether there's a skilled workforce and whether it's close to other markets. For many years, the United States has had a higher headline corporate tax rate than Australia, but that hasn't stopped Australian companies investing in the United States, because that's where the markets are.</para>
<para>I have proudly voted against these corporate tax cuts—corporate tax cuts that are unaffordable and that have blown a hole in the budget, all to reward the Prime Minister's mates. Governing is about choice, and this is a false choice. It is a poor choice to cut the corporate tax rate while cutting funding to education and hospitals.</para>
<para>There is a much greater challenge that this government should be dealing with: the rise of insecure work. More and more Australians don't know whether they will have the same job in a year's time, or even in a month's time. They are working insecure jobs with very little rights. Often they hold multiple jobs. They could be working in casual jobs, where they could be laid off at the stroke of a pen, where they don't get annual leave, where they don't get long service leave or where they don't get the basic security to be able to purchase a home or take a holiday. They could be part-time workers looking for more work. The level of underemployment in this country is at a very high level. These are workers who either can't find work or want more work and are unable to find it. It all points to an insecure workforce that is leading to stagnating wages, which is reducing buying power in our economy—buying power that we desperately need if we are to stimulate the economy. While the headline unemployment figures might be relatively rosy, the truth underlying them is very worrying and it's something that this government should be focused on. Job insecurity means that families can't plan and can't live their lives with any modicum of security; they live from pay cheque to pay cheque. They live in a world where they are constantly insecure, with all of the accompanying material and psychological impacts of that.</para>
<para>We have a big year ahead. Politics seems to be moving faster and faster, and 2018 is clearly following that trend. Governing is about priorities. Labor's priorities are investing in education, health, secure jobs and giving a dignified retirement to the seniors in our community, whereas the interests on the other side, the choices that this government demonstrates, are in corporate tax cuts that are unjustified and unaffordable; and silly culture wars, whether it's the culture war of coal versus renewables or the culture war around weakening protections in the Racial Discrimination Act. This all points to a government with poor priorities that is rotting from the top and will soon need to be replaced.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:19</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am appreciative of the opportunity to reflect on, and to pass on some information about, how we're going in the northern capital of Australia. It has been quite some time since a member of the government, a minister, has been to Darwin, so here's a bit of a heads-up on what's happening in the capital of the north. We've got a huge project that many members would have heard of called the Ichthys INPEX project. It's a big gas project that will literally keep the lights on in Japan. It's been in the construction phase for many years now, and this year it's winding down out of that construction phase. About 9,000 people are working on that project at the moment, but that number will decrease to an operational level of just 300—such is the level of automation these days.</para>
<para>For our relatively small capital city, this will be a big hit to our population. Of course, that becomes problematic for us because, whenever we drop in population, the estimated resident population also drops, which leads to a drop in our GST revenue that we depend on so much to provide services to a population that is spread over a massive land mass—one-sixth of the Australian continent. So, out of those 9,000 people, we are going to lose 3,000 to 3,500 locals. Those people will be new entries progressively throughout the year onto the job market in the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>I do not intend for this to be a political or partisan rant, but I'll just stick to the facts. The $5 billion NAIF has not spent a dollar in the Northern Territory. No job-producing projects have been funded under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. That's why we've launched a Senate inquiry into the NAIF to see what's going wrong, what can be fixed et cetera. We were hoping that that $5 billion facility that the government have been talking about for almost three years now would have had some projects come online so that we don't lose those INPEX workers interstate or to the unemployment lines. Unfortunately, not a dollar has been spent.</para>
<para>The other thing we were hoping is that, like other jurisdictions, like Townsville or Launceston, our City Deal would be signed—confirmed—but it's been nine months. We were hoping that it would be signed so that, again, job-producing projects could start and we could then have those jobs for Territorians and keep our GST funding, which is so essential to providing services. As we heard this week, we're not closing the gap in the Northern Territory in so many ways and, like everyone else in Australia, we want jobs, apprenticeships and work for our kids when they leave school. However, so far, on those two counts, we're still waiting.</para>
<para>To give you an understanding of the size of the hit to our economy, the INPEX project is one of the biggest construction projects in the world and it's been pumping about $10 billion a year through the economy. That hasn't spread across the economy. Some people have done very well; some people have been adversely affected. But that is a large amount of money going into the economy year after year during this project and, for the relatively small revenue base that we do have, it's been very important.</para>
<para>To put that in context, the NT government's infrastructure cash this financial year, which is the biggest infrastructure spend in the Northern Territory's history, is $1.75 billion. As I said, it's a small revenue base for the Northern Territory government to work with; however, that is the biggest infrastructure spend in the Territory's history, so the loss of that INPEX project, moving out of construction and into operation, is going to be a big hit. That's why we're hoping for some, or any, commitment by the Commonwealth to our northern capital and the Northern Territory.</para>
<para>Tourism is also increasingly important as a sustainable source of economy-building development. The Northern Territory government yesterday announced $103 million as a stimulus package for the tourism industry. That is very important. We're trying to grow the Chinese market, so it's great that that commitment has been made by the Northern Territory government, which has put up $100 million of investment, primarily into the Darwin CBD. We are hoping through that city deal process that that will be met by the Commonwealth. The new minister, Minister Fletcher, has said he will come up in early March but has already ruled out signing the deal, which is a shame to say the least. What would be preferable is, should the Northern Territory government have all their ducks in a line and be ready—which I'm sure they will be by the time he comes up in early March—if he meets with the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Kon Vatskalis, and the Northern Territory government and simply lets us get started, signs the deal and makes sure that his boss, the Prime Minister, is good to his word. He promised the people of Darwin, Palmerston and the Top End that this city deal would bring prosperity and jobs, so it's about time that we signed and sealed that deal so that we can get those projects started.</para>
<para>Earlier today, I talked about the tourism campaign. As I said, tourism a very important part of our economy, employing 17,000 Territorians, either directly or indirectly. One of the current initiatives—and I give credit to Tourism Australia for this—is they are really going after the US tourism market. In the way that Crocodile Dundee captured the imaginations of thousands and thousands of Americans in the past, we're hoping that there can be some goodwill and also smarts provided by some investors out there to invest in another Dundee film. Bring back Dundee! I'll just wrap up by encouraging everyone to jump onto the <inline font-style="italic">NT News</inline> website, where they have started the Bring Back Dundee campaign, and sign that petition. I think another Dundee film would be good for the country.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Byrne interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I could play the lead. Chris Hemsworth has been part of the ads. I think, on behalf of most Territory blokes, we're happy that he is a good representative of us. He is Thor. He did well in the ads. We have so much talent. We have so many amazing scenic places in the Top End that that film would be a cracker. Jump onto the <inline font-style="italic">NT News</inline> website and sign the petition to bring back Dundee. We would appreciate that. Warren Snowdon may be having a cameo in there somewhere! It's unsure. Maybe he could be a crocodile-attack victim! But that is yet to be confirmed. I don't want to mislead the House.</para>
<para>I will make a final plea to the government: there are a number of ways that you can assist us and a number of ways that have already been committed to by the government to assist us with job-producing projects that will assist us as we transition out of the construction phase on the INPEX project into operation.</para>
<para>Debate interrupted.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>102</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>102</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>102</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present the amended report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private members' business on Monday 26 February 2018. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 14 February 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee determined to amend the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation business and private Members' business on Monday, 26 February 2018, as follows, with amended entries marked with a *:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Presentation and statements</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 38</inline> <inline font-style="italic">th</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> AIPA General Assembly, September 2017.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Christensen — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Fair Work Amendment (Making Australia More Equal) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 6 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Act 2010</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misleading Representations About Broadband Speeds) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR HAMMOND: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009</inline>, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Small Amount Credit Contract and Consumer Lease Reforms) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MS SHARKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Banking Act 1959</inline> in relation to loans to primary production businesses, and for related purposes. (<inline font-style="italic">Banking Amendment (Rural Finance Reform) Bill 2018</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 13 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">*5 MR GEORGANAS: To move</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that the latest:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>30<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Georganas — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue at a later hour.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 MR CREWTHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that commemorations are underway for the eighty-fifth anniversary of Holodomor, to mark an enforced famine in Ukraine caused by the deliberate actions of Joseph Stalin's Communist Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recalls that it is estimated that up to seven million Ukrainians starved to death as a result of Stalin's policies in 1932 and 1933 alone;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns these acts aimed at destroying the national, cultural, religious and democratic aspirations of the Ukrainian people;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) condemns all similar acts during the twentieth century as the ultimate manifestations of racial, ethnic or religious hatred and violence;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) honours the memory of those who lost their lives during Holodomor;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) joins the Australian Ukrainian community and the international community in commemorating this tragic milestone under the motto Ukraine Remembers—The World Acknowledges;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) recognises the importance of remembering and learning from such dark chapters in human history to ensure that such crimes against humanity are not allowed to be repeated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) pays its respects to the Australian Ukrainians that lived through this tragedy and have told their horrific stories.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Crewther — </inline>10<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 MS O'TOOLE: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that ongoing cuts to public sector jobs in regional cities like Townsville have had a detrimental impact on the local economy and include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the relocation of Royal Australian Air Force's 38 Squadron King Air fleet from Townsville to East Sale in Victoria resulting in the loss of more than 40 aviation jobs in Townsville;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Government's change of process in second division resulting in the loss of up to 10 Townsville Australian Public Service defence support staff;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) Townsville having 50 fewer defence staff in June 2017 than it had in December 2012;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) 19 jobs having been cut from CSIRO in Townsville over the last few years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) regional Queensland Customs staffing being cut by 50 per cent with 30 job losses from Gladstone to Thursday Island with Townsville being one of the hardest hit; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (f) the consolidation of the Australian Taxation Office in 2014 resulting in the loss of 110 jobs in Townsville;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges that maintaining public sector jobs is important in regional Australia and notes that job cuts are harmful to regional cities like Townsville; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) calls on the Government to ensure the coming federal budget puts a moratorium on these regional jobs cuts in public sector agencies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Ms O</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic">Toole — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 MR CHRISTENSEN: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) supports the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project because:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) its proponents, Adani Australia, already employ 800 workers in Queensland;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) it will open up the Galilee Basin and lead the way in creating as many as 15,000 jobs across five potential mines for the workers of Central and North Queensland; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) it will improve the lives of millions of Indians by providing their country with affordable and safe electricity; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes that the Opposition is now opposed to the project, endangering both existing and future jobs in regional Queensland as evidenced by:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Leader of the Opposition stating that 'Labor is increasingly sceptical and today's revelation, if true, is incredibly disturbing, and if Adani's relying on false information, that mine does not deserve to go ahead';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Senator Singh stating that 'I believe the Adani coal mine is a big mistake for this country';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Shadow Minister for Environment and Water stating that the Carmichael coal mine 'will simply displace existing coal operations elsewhere in Australia. There will be jobs lost elsewhere in Queensland or there will be jobs lost in the Hunter Valley...The demand for thermal coal exports around the world is in rapid decline and I think instead we should be talking about other economic developments and job opportunities for North Queensland'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Member for:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) Charlton tweeting that 'Hunter coal mining jobs are endangered by the Adani project'; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) Gellibrand stating that 'the reality is, the Adani coal mine has always been something that regional Queenslanders know well: snake oil'.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 6 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Christensen — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">HOME CARE PACKAGES: Debate to be resumed on the motion of Mr Georganas:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) notes that the latest:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) waiting list for Home Care Packages (HCP) indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (b) figures showed that the HCP waiting list grew by more than 12,000 between 1 July and 30 September 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) recognises that the majority of older Australians on the waiting list are those seeking level three and level four packages, who have high care needs including many with dementia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) condemns the Government for failing to stop the waiting list from growing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the HCP waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>40<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 TRADE: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Mr van Manen:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 MR CREWTHER: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) genocide is a crime under international law, which has been enacted into Australian law through Division 268 of the Australian Criminal Code;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic found that ISIL committed, and is continuing to commit, genocide against the Yazidis; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Iraqi Council of Ministers, United Nations institutions, and many parliaments have recognised that ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis constitute genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) welcomes the Australian Government's decisive action in resettling Yazidi refugees;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the continuing genocide perpetrated against Yazidis by ISIL;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls for an investigation by Iraqi and international organisations into the disappearance of Yazidi women and children taken as captives by ISIL, and for continued support for the international coalition to defeat ISIL and liberate Yazidis in ISIL captivity;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) recognises the importance of justice for Yazidi victims and survivors of ISIL and calls on the Australian Government to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of ISIL's crimes against the Yazidis where possible in Australian courts, including by providing mutual legal assistance, and supporting other national, international and/or hybrid investigations and prosecutions of crimes committed by ISIL against Yazidis;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) calls on the Australian Government to continue supporting the formation of an Investigative Team pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 (2017) and, once established, to support it in the collection, preservation and storage of evidence of acts that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) supports the:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) continued efforts to defeat ISIL militarily and ideologically via de-radicalisation and countering violent extremism programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) continued consideration of the plight of the Yazidis in the development of Australian humanitarian policies and programs;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) continued provision of psychological and other social support services for Yazidi refugees living in Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) right of the Yazidis and all minorities to live in peace, safety and freedom in Syria and Iraq and to participate in relevant political processes; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) protection of Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in Iraq, under United Nations supervision and in cooperation with relevant authorities and minorities.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 5 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>30<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Crewther — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">*2 UNIVERSITIES FUNDING: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Ms T. M. Butler:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's short-sighted $2.2 billion in cuts to universities are equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018, and again in 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) across the country this month, students will be attending university, with orientation periods beginning, and that these students are faced with more uncertainty about how the cuts will affect their student experience; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Government's short-sighted cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities and their students the most; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>70<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 14 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 ORDER OF AUSTRALIA HONOURS: Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">12</inline><inline font-style="italic">February</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>) on the motion of Mr Leeser:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges the Order of Australia is the highest national honour award and the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that since being established by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, there have been more than 500 recipients of Companion of the Order of Australia, almost 3,000 awarded Officers of the Order of Australia, more than 10,000 inducted as Members of the Order of Australia and more than 23,000 honoured as recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes the almost 900 recipients in the General Division of the Order of Australia on Australia Day in 2018, from an array of fields including education, arts, sport, science and social work; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) encourages all Members to congratulate recipients from their electorates on this immense achievement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — </inline>35<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">All Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices – continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 MR PERRETT: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) both the <inline font-style="italic">Building Code 2013</inline> (2013 Code) and the <inline font-style="italic">Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016</inline> (2016 Code) require code covered entities to protect freedom of association on building and construction worksites;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the 2016 Code includes requirements in respect of building association logos, mottos or indicia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (c) the Australian Building and Construction Commission's fact sheet <inline font-style="italic">Freedom of Association—Logos, Mottos and Indicia</inline> specifies that 'logos, mottos and indicia' that would breach the 2016 Code include 'the iconic symbol of the five white stars and white cross on the Eureka Stockade flag';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Eureka Stockade flag was:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) first used in 1854 at Ballarat; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a symbol of resistance of the gold miners during the rebellion;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) beneath the Eureka Stockade flag, the leader of the Ballarat Reform League, Peter Lalor, said 'We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the people at the Eureka Stockade defending the original flag came from nearly forty nations from around the world; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Eureka Stockade flag design has gained wider acceptance in Australian culture as a symbol of democracy, protest and the notion of the Australian 'fair go';</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) freedom of speech and freedom of association are valued by all fair-minded Australians;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the Eureka Stockade flag has been a symbol associated with building and construction unions for over 40 years;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) restricting an individual's right to wear union logos or preventing a construction site from displaying a union flag implies that workers cannot join a union; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) it is an attack on:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) an individual's freedom of association to prevent them from wearing the Eureka Stockade flag on their clothing; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">      (ii) freedom of association to prevent a construction site from displaying the Eureka Stockade flag; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to immediately act to protect the rights of workers in the construction industry by making clear that displaying the iconic symbol of democracy, the Eureka Stockade flag, is not a breach of the 2016 Code.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 12 February 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Time allotted — remaining private Members</inline> <inline font-style="italic">'</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits —</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Mr Perrett — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Other Members — </inline>5<inline font-style="italic"> minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">of this matter should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>107</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 10th Anniversary</title>
          <page.no>107</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This week the parliament and the nation marked the 10-year anniversary of Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivering the apology to the stolen generations—a historic and unifying moment for our country, because it acknowledged the horror, pain, humiliation and injustice of the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families and communities. The meaningfulness of the apology was that, for the first time, pain, hurt and the consequences of the stolen generation transcended generations and can still be felt today—that they were believed, and their reality was legitimised and recognised. It was an exercise in truth-telling. The apology was meaningful in that it marked the beginning of the great national effort to close the gap in quality-of-life outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. For the apology to be fully realised, we as a nation must work to ensure that we don't repeat past injustices, because 'sorry' means you don't do it again.</para>
<para>On Monday night, on the eve of the 10th anniversary of this historic apology, I attended a screening of a film titled <inline font-style="italic">After the Apology</inline>, screened here in the parliament. The film shone a light on the alarming and truly incredible rates of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. The number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care has almost doubled in the past decade. The percentage of children in out-of-home care who are Indigenous rose from 20 per cent to 35 per cent. And the number has risen from 9,000 or so to over 17,000. It is inexplicable that this figure has doubled, and the principle of the Aboriginal child placement seems to have been meaningless.</para>
<para>We heard stories of hurt and pain. We heard stories of humiliation. We heard stories of frustration and a lack of cultural understanding of Aboriginal culture and communities and child-rearing practices—our policy, our policymakers and the people responsible for enforcing these policies. We heard stories of young Indigenous children being removed from their families, their communities, their country and their culture. We heard stories all too reminiscent of the stories from the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report—stories from survivors of the stolen generation. At the existing rate, by 2025 the increase in the number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care will surpass the total of number of Aboriginal children removed as part of the stolen generation. In fact, on the night, one woman at the screening said, 'This is not a new stolen generation, but the stolen generation is never finished.'</para>
<para>The apology will be meaningful only if we as a nation work to ensure that there is no repeat of past injustices, because 'sorry' means you don't do it again. Of course, there are some cases where children need to be removed We recognise that. But the film made it clear that, in cases where children did need to be removed, little effort was made to have the child appropriately placed. I thank the writer and the producer of the film, Larissa Behrendt and Michaela Perske, for this very insightful and moving film. And I thank all those who were involved and brave enough to share their painful stories as well as their hope and optimism for a better future for Aboriginal children.</para>
<para>I strongly recommend that members of this House make the time to watch the film. It not only gave the opportunity for all of us here in the parliament to listen to these stories. It also gave those who have been removed and those who had children taken from them the opportunity to share their stories, their experience and their pain. This week Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government will host a summit on first-nations children. We have committed to a national justice target to reduce the disproportionately high numbers of Aboriginal people in incarceration.</para>
<para>I also want to use this time to briefly respond to the Prime Minister's comments about an Indigenous voice to the parliament. I am concerned that the description by many of this voice has been as a third chamber for the parliament. This is simply not true. The body would be advisory and would also have no veto powers. I'm concerned by the Prime Minister's threat to turn this into an election issue. I caution the Prime Minister—and therefore the government—to be very careful in using these kinds of threats. We are committed to bipartisanship, but the highest bar needs to be set. It is not a race to the bottom.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Water Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>108</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Water infrastructure is just as essential to the agriculture industry and life in the regional centres as it is to the big cities. Without affordable water, our nation grinds to a halt. Water means life. Water means jobs. Water means economic security for both our future on the land and in the cities. We need to make every effort to droughtproof Flynn and, of course, the rest of the nation. There are two major river systems in Flynn. One is the mighty Fitzroy, the second-biggest catchment area in Australia, and the second is the Burnett River, which drains all of North and South Burnett and enters the sea at Bargara near Bundaberg.</para>
<para>It's a picture that Queensland farmers are too familiar with: drought or bust. Drought or flood is what we've learnt to live with over the years. A deluge will often come with the cyclones we've had in the last few years. They do a lot of devastation to not only the crops that are already in the ground but also to the residences along the Burnett River and the Fitzroy River. My plan, and the government's plan, is to capture some of this water that flows out to sea. If you get too much water flowing out to sea, it kills our sea grass, which is essential for the reef. So it makes sense to me that we capture five or six per cent of that water flow. For environmental reasons, you can't stop it all, but we need to invest in dams, weirs and on-farm storage to help our farmers, to regulate the flow in our rivers in flood times and to let water go in drought times to the people who need that water.</para>
<para>At the 2016 election, the Turnbull government committed to funding $130 million—50 per cent—for the construction of the Rookwood Weir, and that's been in the news quite a bit lately. The project would not only deliver water but also deliver jobs, exports and prosperity to Central Queensland. Last week, the Queensland state government and the opposition finally realised the significance of this project and have agreed to fund 50 per cent of the project. Our federal government had previously committed to funding the project 50-50, but the cost of building the weir has jumped from $260 million to $350 million. I ask myself, 'Why?' However, the building of the weir is a must.</para>
<para>To give you an example of how water can improve the outcomes for certain regions, a huge dam was built at Imbil back in 1968 under the federal minister Mr Fairbairn. The Fairbairn Dam was built in '68 at a cost of $30 million. That today has resulted in $5.56 billion worth of product coming out of Emerald, which is the town closest to the Fairbairn Dam. That goes to show what water can do for an area. Emerald grows a lot of crops. It has the biggest citrus farm in the Southern Hemisphere. It has grapes. It keeps their coal mines going because they need water too. There is wheat and there is cotton, which is a pretty big user of water. It's as plain as the nose on your face that water is the way to go. I'm all for weirs, dams and on-farm storage. On-farm storage is where farmers will build a ring tank and, in that ring tank, they will capture flows from the rain that falls on their properties. In real flood times, they'll be allowed to pump out of the river system. In all, it's a great project. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray-Darling Basin</title>
          <page.no>109</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BURKE</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
    <electorate>Watson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ordinarily, after there's been a disallowance motion in the Senate, people come out fighting. We've just had a disallowance motion succeed in the Senate, and I want to adopt a far more conciliatory tone. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan right now is at real risk; there's no doubt about that—absolutely no doubt.</para>
<para>I want to give credit to the minister for the fact that we came very close today to being able to reach agreement, and I want to explain a pathway through. The reason I do that is that I know, better than most but not better than all in this place, that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has only ever been achieved through compromise and through each side not getting everything that they think would make an ideal plan. The consensus began when the current Prime Minister was the minister for water. It was achieved again when I was the minister for water, and it continued pretty seamlessly during the first term of the coalition government.</para>
<para>Two issues happened in 2016 and 2017 that need to be resolved, and, if they can be resolved, we will have a way through. The first was when a question was put as to whether or not it was possible in fact to deliver the additional 450 gigalitres of water. The new minister has gone some way towards trying to provide pathways where that will be possible. With a deadline on a disallowance motion, we did not get to full agreement on that in time today, but it is a key ingredient in making sure we can get the plan back on track.</para>
<para>The second issue, which isn't simply something that affects the environment—it affects good, honest irrigators as well—is the crime of water theft. At the exact same time that people are concerned about whether taxpayer funded environmental water is being pumped straight back into irrigation channels, which everyone would have to agree is a direct theft against the Australian taxpayer, it's very difficult, in that context, to look at anything that would reduce the overall take of environmental water. But, if we can deal with the 450 gigalitres and the issues of compliance with water theft, we are very, very close to being able to form an agreement again with respect to the future of the Murray-Darling Basin.</para>
<para>Some people have said, 'Well, you can never reduce the numbers; you can never change the numbers.' I want to make clear: that is not my view. I accept many of the criticisms that have been made about the numbers that are being reduced in the north. I also believe that, when you have an independent authority, the independent authority will sometimes come up with answers that members of parliament don't think are ideal. But the cost of losing the independent authority is incredibly great and not something that I would want any of us to venture towards.</para>
<para>I want to make it clear: Labor, in supporting the disallowance today, was not saying that the numbers in the north can never be varied. There is a role there for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It's appropriate that they play it. But we have said the whole way through that we can't look at reducing any of the other numbers when the 450 that was meant to have been there is suddenly being put at risk and where the compliance measures have not been addressed. I do believe, with the level of goodwill there is from some state water ministers, that they will, in fact, be addressed. But it's simply not there yet, and it wasn't done in time for the deadline that we had to face in dealing with a disallowance vote today.</para>
<para>Many people will want to see this purely as an issue of a fight between South Australia and different upstream states, or the environment versus irrigation communities. Can I say: there is neither an environment nor an irrigation community on dead rivers. Restoring the system to health and having a healthy, working basin is in everybody's interest, and we will now all decide whether we go forward with cool heads and say, 'Let's get the plan back on track,' and fix some of the doubts that have been put there over the last year and a half, or, in the alternative, end up in a world where insults are thrown around and we lose the sense of consensus that has been fragile but that we have previously managed to achieve. It's not the ordinary speech after a disallowance, but I do believe it's what we need to consider if we're going to ensure that today is an unfortunate step but not the final step on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>South Australian Government</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I had not intended to make this comment but, listening to the shadow minister there, I appreciate his conciliatory words but am flabbergasted by the fact that he has supported that disallowance motion and run the risk of blowing the whole plan up, considering his background. But I hope for better things.</para>
<para>Tonight, I wanted to speak about the state that we find South Australia in, and not just on water issues. We are losing another seat at the federal level. We have a redistribution underway at the moment. In 1997, we had 13 seats in South Australia and, in 1998, we had a redistribution and went to 12. In 2004, we went to 11. In 2018, we are going to 10. For the electorate of Grey, that means it will get bigger. We have to find somewhere near another 20,000 electors for Grey. One would wonder why I bring this up tonight when I have spoken about it before in this place, but it's a very sad state of affairs for South Australia that we are losing the national economic race. Our population is growing, but only just, and, in terms of population percentage, we're becoming an ever-smaller part of Australia. Unfortunately, this has led to a mass migration of our young and best and most-talented people interstate—including two of my children, I must say. This means not only that South Australia's population is shrinking as a percentage of the national pool but that we are ageing as well. In fact, South Australians' median age has gone from 36, 20 years ago, to 40. So it has gone up four years in the last 20 years. It is a very significant increase and it is ramping up demand on government services.</para>
<para>In fact, it was Jay Weatherill who said, 'I don't run a high population growth state, and I think we are doing just fine here.' I mean, really—really! It does raise some questions. How has it come to be that South Australia, which, 20 years ago, had a string of Australia's top 100 companies based in Adelaide, now has three, two of which have accepted government enticements to relocate their business there? How is it that, in the jobs bonanza of the last 12 months in Australia, which has provided 403,000 jobs Australia-wide, South Australia has managed just over 20,000—about half of what one would expect on a per capita basis? Why is it that South Australia has the most expensive but least reliable electricity in the nation?</para>
<para>There's one common thread: 16 continuous years of a state Labor government, one that has promised a huge lift in export performance; one that has committed to a program to attract expatriate South Australian success stories to come back home—these policies were failures, I must add—one that failed to protect the aged and frail in their care; and one that has backed a string of poor-value city-based investments which have not generated any jobs past the construction phase. There are more bells and whistles, and no substance. There have been projects like the unnecessary opening bridge at Port Adelaide; new tram lines running past a disused, old Royal Adelaide Hospital site; and a desalination plant twice as big as we need and which hasn't fired a shot in anger since it was commissioned in 2011. And now we have a string of very expensive patch-up jobs on the electricity network, which they chose to blow up.</para>
<para>The South Australian government has invested big time in big, shiny new announcements which don't support our economy past the construction phase. They have failed to facilitate construction on a genuine deep sea port for South Australia and on building a road network which services our industries that will build our economy and grow the job opportunities in our state. While they have been building a castle of bread and circuses in the city, they haven't invested in the important regional upgrades which would generate real economy for South Australia, including a number of highways, main roads through my electorate which are little more than bitumenised bump tracks at the moment, it must be said.</para>
<para>We've failed on so many fronts. There's been some reference to the GST carve-up in the last few days. Let me say that South Australia received $1.42 for every dollar they put into the GST. Despite what the member for Wakefield might say, I will fight anything that reduces South Australia's ability to compete in the future. But it is a very sad reflection on the way the state has been run that we reached that stage. The Liberal team is offering a new future. Steven Marshall is offering a new future for South Australia. It is time for change. Sixteen years at the wheel is too long.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Integrity Commission</title>
          <page.no>110</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DREYFUS</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
    <electorate>Isaacs</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Watching events over the last week, I cannot help but reflect on Abraham Lincoln's declaration that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.</para></quote>
<para>It's vitally important that the Australian people are able to trust those elected to represent them. Every time a politician or other public servant violates that trust, the strength of our democracy is diminished. Maintaining that trust requires, among other things, that Australians feel confident that their government is open, transparent and free from corruption.</para>
<para>We in Labor have a proven record of fighting for integrity in government. The last time we were in government at a federal level, Labor clearly demonstrated how serious we are about tackling corruption. We did this by supporting significant initiatives and law reforms to make it easier to prevent, detect and respond to corruption. In 2013 Labor signed Australia up to the Open Government Partnership, an international program that provides a framework for national governments to make their public sectors more open, accountable and responsive to citizens and civil society. As Attorney-General in 2013, I introduced the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which at last provided protections for whistleblowers in many parts of the federal public service. When last in government, Labor also introduced sweeping reforms to strengthen Commonwealth freedom of information laws.</para>
<para>In contrast, the Abbott-Turnbull government's record on FOI has been truly reprehensible, as exemplified by former Senator Brandis's desperate attempts to circumvent those laws in trying for three years to keep his appointments diary a secret. Having lost comprehensively at every stage of the wasteful litigation he embarked on, all at taxpayers' expense, it was only when I threatened Mr Brandis with proceedings for contempt of court that he finally provided what he should have provided within 30 days if he had had even a modicum of respect for the laws he was supposed to oversee or the principles of transparency and accountability that those laws are founded on.</para>
<para>Finally, Labor took a national anticorruption plan to the 2013 election, a plan which, to my great disappointment, the turmoil government—sorry, the Turnbull government—has taken absolutely no action to progress through its four years of dysfunctional governance.</para>
<para>That brings me to the policy announced by the Leader of the Opposition just last month for the establishment of a National Integrity Commission. This is a bold initiative. The body we will establish will effectively operate as a standing royal commission with all the powers and resources it needs to detect and stamp out corruption in the federal public sphere. Labor has never had any in-principle objections to extending integrity measures, but for many years we felt that existing anticorruption and integrity bodies were sufficient to the task at hand. But in recent years there has been a loss of public faith in Commonwealth institutions. Australia currently ranks 13th of 176 countries on Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index. That doesn't sound so bad, but we were sixth on that list just six years ago. In January 2018 a survey of federal public servants by the Australian Public Service Commission revealed that five per cent of respondents said that they had seen misconduct, with cronyism and nepotism the most common charge. With scandal after scandal unfolding over recent years, many involving ministers from the Abbott and Turnbull governments, we in Labor believe it's time to do what we can to restore the public's trust in their government. Already every state and territory has now established or is in the process of establishing anticorruption bodies. It's time we held our Commonwealth public officials to the same standard and created a single broad based body to prevent corruption.</para>
<para>As the Leader of the Opposition announced last month, Labor's national integrity commission will be based on seven design principles designed to ensure that the commission will operate as independent statutory body, with sufficient resources and legal independence to carry out its functions free from influence or interference from the government of the day. And, because we understand the urgency of this reform, we have committed that legislation to establish the national integrity commission will be introduced into parliament within the first 12 months of a Shorten Labor government being elected.</para>
<para>As we have said before, Labor is ready to work with the Liberals and other interested parties to begin work on a national integrity commission straightaway. So far, we have heard not a word of support from the Turnbull government for our proposal. If this government truly believes in integrity and the importance of our democracy, they will put partisan politics aside and support Labor's initiative. I reiterate our offer to work together on this important policy now. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Sail Hervey Bay A-Class World Championships, Wide Bay AFL, St James Lutheran College, HMAS Tobruk</title>
          <page.no>111</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Given that it's the last speech of the night, we might finish on a lighter note. Mr Speaker, you may not be aware that, in November this year in the town of Hervey Bay in Central Queensland, in that wonderful location just on the inside of Fraser Island, where the whales come to rest and where there are lots of things to see and do, we will have the A-class catamaran national titles and world titles—the world's sailing titles in a Central Queensland town. It is an outstanding opportunity, Mr Speaker, and I invite you to join us. If you aren't doing anything in November, jump in your panel van and drive up from Victoria. It will be lovely weather up there in Hervey Bay and you can come and see the world titles.</para>
<para>Fraser Coast Regional Council received some $54,000 from the Building Better Regions Fund to help with the running of these titles. Councillor Darren Everard said that there had already been more than 100 enquiries about the Sail Hervey Bay A-Class World Championships. They've already drawn entrants from the United States, Europe, South America and New Zealand, as well as significant interstate entries.</para>
<para>What this is also about, Mr Speaker, as I am sure you know, is jobs and our economy. This will bring lots of people to our local region. There are some 1,400 spectators anticipated, and it is expected that that will inject some $1.5 million into our economy. But they shouldn't do it alone. I think everyone who is listening to this broadcast should get in their car, get in a plane or get on their bike and get up to Hervey Bay to see the world titles, because this is something that is pretty unique. It is very rare. It is in a Central Queensland town in a rural location—but it's in one of the best locations in the world to sail, in the calm waters of Hervey Bay. You can also go and see Fraser Island. The whales will just have left—they close out about October—but there are still opportunities there.</para>
<para>We are expected to attract about 120 catamarans and 240 visitors and 3.5 people per boat. It's expected that 98 per cent of these visitors will stay in commercial accommodation—an additional 5,904 bed nights. That's great news for accommodation operators coming out of the back of the whale season. In whale season, Hervey Bay is chockers with people—because that's where you want to go if you want to see whales in action. But it's not just about the accommodation; it's a great place to eat, a great place to get around and it's great for tourists. You should absolutely take that opportunity, Mr Speaker. I can see you nodding. You are absolutely interested!</para>
<para>Of course, locally, in Hervey Bay, there's lots going on in the local community. In fact, the Wide Bay AFL organisation at Keith Dunn Oval received $150,000 for a lighting upgrade during the 2016 election campaign. The season kicks off next month. This is great for them, because in the winter months it gets dark at five o'clock and it was very difficult to train. It is a fantastic upgrade for them, and it is something that they had been working on for a decade—10 years of work for a $150,000 upgrade, donated by us. I think it is just fantastic for them. It will allow them to train in safety and increase opportunities for night games, and it is essential for health and fitness. It is great to see them out there running around—even though they are playing that very strange game. It is very popular in Victoria and other places, but it is a bit unusual in Central Queensland.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to visit St James Lutheran College in Hervey Bay at the end of last year. They received $995,000 through the Capital Grants Program.    Principal Luke Schoff gave me a tour of the school and showed me the areas which will be upgraded. They include the existing library, the refurbishment of six junior learning areas and a new student amenities block. So good luck to St James Lutheran College. I think that is fantastic for them.</para>
<para>In closing, with not too much time left to go, I just want to bring the focus back to the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline>. We won an absolute battle—between us and Tasmania and a lot of other places around the country that wanted to receive the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk </inline>for it to be sunk as a dive wreck. I am very pleased to report that progress on this is continuing. We expected that it will be scuttled somewhere around late June and should certainly be available for divers by August.</para>
<para>The thing about this ship, as I am sure you know, Mr Speaker, is that it will be the only one of its kind in the world. There are people who travel the world to see these dive wrecks, particularly military ships. The thing that is unique about it—and it's very straightforward—is that, as a heavy landing vessel, the bow and stern of the ship can actually be opened up. So the expectation is that the stern will be open and you will be able to actually swim the full length of the HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tobruk</inline> as a diver—some 132 metres. They are getting ready now. They have cut access ways and they are making it safe. That work is being done locally down at Burnett Heads. I have to say that it's a great sight to see—another opportunity for you, Mr Speaker: get in the panel van and get yourself up to Central Queensland and go to Bundaberg and have a look at HMAS <inline font-style="italic">Tob</inline><inline font-style="italic">r</inline><inline font-style="italic">uk</inline> before it is sunk into the great waters around Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. This is a fantastic opportunity. It will add millions of dollars to our economy, and I congratulate all those involved.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It being 8 pm, the House stands adjourned.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20: 0 0</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>112</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 14 February 2018</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Mr Coulton</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 10:00</span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>114</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Brand Electorate: Tesla Owners Club of Western Australia, Brand Electorate: Sandgropers Land Yacht Club</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I've never been known as a revhead, and so a Perth car club's invitation to join them on a Sunday afternoon to witness a world record attempt was always going to be a new experience for me. And this record attempt was something else indeed! Alongside a crowd of enthusiasts at a warehouse in Kwinana, I watched more than 60 electric cars—including Tesla, BMW, Mitsubishi and Nissan models—attempt to break the world record for the biggest electric vehicle charge. The attempt was the first of its kind and all of those involved worked hard to make the day a success.</para>
<para>Jon Edwards from the Tesla Owners Club of Western Australia is one of those people who are passionate about what they do. He is passionate about the difference electric cars and electric vehicles can make and is keen to share their benefits with the wider public. On this particular day, he invested his time and money in ensuring the event went off without a hitch—which it did. He worked hard to get all the cars there and to make sure there were enough power points for the cars.</para>
<para>On the day, 62 electric vehicle owners from around Perth gathered to try and set the world record for the biggest electric car charge, with the most vehicles charged simultaneously in the same place. I'd like to thank Jon Edwards as well as David Lloyd, also from the Tesla Owners Club of Western Australia, who have been most generous in taking me out for a couple of rides in their respective Tesla cars—remarkable vehicles, including the 'insane mode', which absolutely takes your breath away. I have no doubt electric vehicles are the future. It's up to parliaments likes ours, as well as others around the world, to measure up to that future and make positive policy settings that embrace and encourage electric vehicle ownership.</para>
<para>On the Australia Day weekend, I was very fortunate to go out to the Sandgropers Land Yacht Club to sail on a land yacht on a 430-hectare dried out salt lake known as Lake Walyungup in my electorate. The lake is between Warnbro, Waikiki and Baldivis. The Sandgropers club meet on Sunday afternoons when the lake is dry in the summer. People from all ages come from around the state to sail or pilot their land yachts on this lake. People even came from Kalgoorlie for this Regatta. I'd really like to thank Jay, who took me out on a double-seater land yacht for the first time. I've driven past this salt lake and witnessed the sailing for years—since I was a child growing up in Baldivis—but I had never taken the journey out to where they sail and I had certainly never sailed on that wonderful salt lake. So I was very pleased to do it. It was a little bit frightening and a little bit thrilling. I really hope the members of that club continue to enjoy it. They've been there since 1979, and they get many new members to enjoy the speeds of up to 100 kays an hour that these land yachts can travel at.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Banks Electorate: Filip II Macedonian Community Language School, Banks Electorate: Table Tennis</title>
          <page.no>114</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On 11 December, I visited the Filip II Macedonian Community Language School at Peakhurst West Public School. I have been visiting the school for a number of years, and it's always a great place to visit. There's a very significant community of Australians of Macedonian background in my electorate, and the language school at Peakhurst West is a great exemplar of the strength of the local Macedonian community. It was great to see some of the kids present some of their work, reading in the Macedonian language. Clearly, there's a lot of diligence by the students, their very supportive parents and their teachers. Classes have traditionally been run at the primary school level, but this year they are moving to have high school classes as well, which is great news. Congratulations to Done Koncanovski, the president of the school, and all of the other volunteers who make it such an important part of our community.</para>
<para>The St George area is home to a very strong and proud table tennis community. The Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre has arguably the biggest group of table tennis players who come together regularly to play the sport anywhere in the country and has, indeed, hosted national championships in the past.</para>
<para>On 13 December I attended the annual wards night for the St George and Sutherland Shire Table Tennis Association at Club Central Hurstville. I was able to present a Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement award to Jonathan Tan, and chat with other members of the table tennis community about issues in the sport. Thank you to Connie Chan and Simon Leung for all their efforts and to Douglas Flood for his efforts in leading the association. I'd also like to acknowledge Padstow RSL for its support of table tennis in our area. It hosts a weekly table tennis group in its auditorium. Thank you again to our local table tennis community.</para>
<para>A highlight of every year is visiting the Sing Australia St George Christmas Concert held at Peakhurst South Public School. There was a big crowd this year. There must have been at least a couple of hundred people there. Thanks to John and Toni Darcy for their leadership of the group, and thank you to Sing Australia for attending so many community events—like the Lugano Lions Spring Festival, commemorative services at Club Rivers and many others where they bring their musical talents to bear for the benefit of our community. John, Toni and all the members of this very large choir put a lot of goodwill into the St George area. Thank you so much for this year's concert.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>PETITIONS</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>PETITIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a petition concerning chemical contamination at RAAF Base Tindal which has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions. I am therefore pleased to present this petition.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The petition read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This 'petition on behalf of Katherine residents draws to the attention of the House: That Katherine residents have access to the same health and well-being packages that are being offered to Australians at other Defence sites dealing with the issue of PFAS. That Katherine deserves the same action and investment by the Commonwealth and we be included in the national health and welfare packages for PFAS. We, the residents of Katherine are simply asking for the same action that have been undertaken by the Commonwealth in other jurisdictions, and they include, but are not limited to: • Voluntary blood testing • Counselling for affected residents • An epidemiological study coordinated by the Commonwealth and Australian National University Katherine residents are very concerned similar assistance and provisions will not be made available to affected residents of Katherine until the completion of Defence's environmental investigations for RAAF base Tindal, a process that will extend well into 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We therefore ask the House to: ensure that the residents of Katherine receive the same level of support and assistance that is available to people in other jurisdictions dealing with the presence of PFAS.</para></quote>
<para>from 472 citizens (Petition No. PN0287)</para>
<para>Petition received.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am presenting this petition on behalf of 472 Katherine residents in my electorate in response to the slow and inconsistent action they have received after they found out, 16 months ago, that large tracts of the town, its aquifers, groundwater and river were contaminated by PFAS and PFOS chemicals, which are found in the firefighting foam used at RAAF Base Tindal. The PFAS issue in Katherine has been, for the community, a ticking time bomb. It has taken over a year of lobbying government for the affected residents to finally get some traction to join other jurisdictions in a consistent, coordinated policy approach from the Commonwealth.</para>
<para>Many residents currently living on contaminated blocks in the area affected by these chemicals are in limbo, having saved for their dream lifestyle block that supports fruit and vegetables and carries livestock. They're now being told not to eat anything they grow on their blocks. These are people who were hoping to retire or move on, but they will now be unable to sell their biggest and, for most, only asset. No-one is going to buy a contaminated block at a reasonable price from a vendor, even if the banks are willing to lend. Getting a bank loan in Katherine currently has become harder, even in non-affected areas. I know of one particular instance where a resident wanting to upgrade an existing residence was refused a loan based on the impact of PFAS on the community.</para>
<para>There is anxiety as residents still wait for blood, bore and town water testing that will ultimately show what levels of PFAS they themselves have ingested and have been open to. Residents are still waiting for adequate mental health services to be rolled out, with very little communication from the local primary health network. Special care needs to be taken to educate vulnerable Aboriginal communities along the river where contaminated fish have been found, as well as to educate visitors to the region. The community of Katherine calls for transparency, clear information and ongoing well-coordinated support from government. The final paragraph of their petition says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We therefore ask the House to: ensure that the residents of Katherine receive the same level of support and assistance that is available to people in other jurisdictions dealing with the presence of PFAS.</para></quote>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>115</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kennedy Electorate: Hughenden</title>
          <page.no>115</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are placing before the NAIF and the people of Australia and the government of Australia a proposal to have irrigation at Hughenden, which is about the most central town on the land mass of Queensland. Hughenden had some 400 or 500 railway employees, and the Labor Party government in Queensland sold the railways in the knowledge that the railways would be closed down, with the exception of the mineral operations and the suburban commuter system in Brisbane. The railways were sold. The railways no longer carried any goods, and all goods were carried by road transport. The increase in cost to us was 600 per cent. The bloke who argued for this became the head of Aurizon, which was the new railway owner. He was on $300,000 as a public servant, and he said, 'We have to have privatisation.' He then paid himself $6.1 million a year.</para>
<para>This little town lost 500 jobs. We've got no football team; we've got no basketball team; we've got no eisteddfod. We've got nothing that enriches the people throughout Australia; it was all taken off us. The Liberal government were a party to it but were not responsible for the deregulation of the wool industry. This was so central to the wool industry that the chairman of the Australian Wool Corporation was the mayor of Hughenden. The rugby league teams comprised shearers, cocky's sons and contractors. We don't have them anymore, so now we don't have rugby league teams. So wool was wiped out. Telstra was privatised, and another 50 or 60 jobs in the area vanished without trace.</para>
<para>What I'm reading out here describes what's happened throughout Australia, not just in Hughenden. We're aspirational grazing in this area. We only get 40 inches of rainfall, which means that most years we don't get any rainfall at all. What you have to do is have huge runs, so there's hardly any graziers there at all. You'd be flat out having 100 graziers in the whole area now, where we would have had maybe 400 or 500 previously in the wool industry days.</para>
<para>So what's happening to this area? I tell you what's happening. Thirty years ago it was written on a map of the mid west, 'The best natural grasslands in Australia.' I'm talking about Hughenden and Cloncurry. Now it's a prickly tree forest. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rural and Regional Health Services</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr RAMSEY</name>
    <name.id>HWS</name.id>
    <electorate>Grey</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise again to speak in this place on the supply of doctors in rural areas. I prepared a report about two years ago, and updated it 12 months ago, with some suggestions to address this shortfall. Twelve months ago there were 28 vacancies listed in rural South Australia and 19 of those were either within or substantially within my electorate of Grey. The government has been doing a lot of good work with undergraduates coming out for one-year placements in places like Whyalla and Port Lincoln. I think that all helps, and we have worked with the rural registrar program. But here we are 12 months later and we have 57 vacancies in South Australia, not 28, and there are 29 vacancies in my electorate of Grey. We are heading for a train wreck.</para>
<para>This is something I've been predicting for quite some time. I was involved with hospital boards intensely in the nineties, and it was a period in Australia when we had chronic over servicing in the cities because we had too many doctors in Australia. As a result, governments of the day cut the training numbers for doctors. They kept their foot on the neck of that training number for too long and, consequently, we had a shortage of doctors in Australia. We've imported a lot of doctors. A lot of internationally trained doctors have come into Australia in the last 10 or 15 years, and we have used those internationally trained doctors—and thank goodness we've been able to get them; don't let me talk them down in any way—to plug the holes in the supply of rural doctors. As part of their immigration procedure, we allow these people to come into Australia but they have to go and practice in a place like Port Augusta or Coober Pedy or wherever it might be in more remote Australia. Of course, we won't tell our Australian trained doctors where to go when they get their qualifications.</para>
<para>Now, of course, we have ramped the numbers up. Australian doctors are coming out of universities in their thousands. They are getting their qualifications, and we are having trouble enticing them into rural areas. I confidently predict that, in response to those increasing numbers, we will cut the immigration numbers for international doctors and we will be left without anyone in the country.</para>
<para>My own country town has just lost its doctor in the last two weeks. I have people all over the place wondering what on earth we are going to do to keep our hospitals open and our communities viable. I have been saying for some time that we need to address this in a supply sense. Each doctor receives almost by rote a Medicare provider number. Medicare bulk-billing is providing 85 per cent of their income. I think we should be providing postcode-specific Medicare provider numbers. Doctors will go where we need service, rather than where they want to live. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Fadden Electorate: Community Organisations</title>
          <page.no>116</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>( It is with great pleasure that I inform the House about some of the fantastic community organisations that have been successful in round 3 of the Stronger Communities Program from my community on the northern Gold Coast. Firstly, there is U3A Northern Gold Coast, a wonderful organisation that provides educational and lifestyle courses for community minded people over 50 years of age. They've been awarded funds for the upgrade of information technology for their classes. The project will enhance the existing services that U3A provides, which currently supports over 600 registered community members.</para>
<para>Secondly, I want to talk about the Musgrave Sports Club. The club has been awarded funds for the upgrade of the Keith Hunt Park facilities. The project will enhance the facilities of the club by providing spectators, families and players with more comfortable seating arrangements. Additionally, the facility is used by many schools in my electorate that will benefit from the seating. The club also hosts the Australian Christian Games and numerous grand finals across the Gold Coast.</para>
<para>Thirdly, the Rotary Club of Parkwood has received funding for equipment for the GC100 Charity Bike Event. This is a not-for-profit bike event in its 7th year and it is one of the premiere cycling events on the Gold Coast. All profits raised go towards local, national and international charities.</para>
<para>Next comes Helensvale Rugby Union Club, which has secured funding for the Helensvale Hogs kitchen facilities. The grant will allow the club to serve the players, families and visitors a variety of healthy and nutritious food and beverages. It is a great project to encourage healthy living for all ages on the Gold Coast.</para>
<para>Next, there is the Village Community Services, which have obtained funds for a community bus upgrade. The VCS centre can continue to deliver a very high-quality transport service for people who would otherwise be dislocated and disconnected their local community.</para>
<para>Runaway Bay Lions Club has been granted funds for the purchase of outdoor equipment. The Lions Club, as we all know, do a cracker of a job supporting a variety of community events. The last one was the joint citizenship ceremony we ran with Lions on that great day, Australia Day.</para>
<para>Labrador Sports Club has received funding towards a hockey club bus and trailer. This will allow their team to attend carnivals and games outside of the Gold Coast area, and the bus will ensure all club members are able to participate.</para>
<para>Sailability Gold Coast has been approved for funds for the purchase of a pontoon boat. Boating has been a principal aim of Sailability in all forms for people with diminished capabilities, be they physical, intellectual or both. The pontoon boat will enhance safety, stability and access for their clients.</para>
<para>Bravehearts has funds towards a forensic interviewing pilot facility for child victims of terrible crimes. This project will help drive child protection on the Gold Coast.</para>
<para>On behalf of my electorate and local community, let me thank all those organisations who applied for round 3 of the Stronger Communities grants and congratulate them on great outcomes. Special thanks to my community consultation committee: John Hudson, Len Thompson and Ian Yarker for their wonderful help. Thank you once again.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Petition: Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>117</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MIKE KELLY</name>
    <name.id>HRI</name.id>
    <electorate>Eden-Monaro</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. It's my great privilege to present to the House a petition that has been raised by Carol Bartlett and students from the Sapphire Coast Anglican School, a wonderful group of kids, teachers and the community.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The petition read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">This petition of concerned people of the electorate of Eden Monaro draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being and security of all people around the world, particularly our poorest and most vulnerable neighbours. We remind the House that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are the highest per person among wealthy nations while our emissions reduction targets are among the weakest.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to protect communities in Australia and our region from the harmful impacts of climate change - such as more severe heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising seas by: - committing to deeper and more urgent reductions of our greenhouse emissions; - developing a plan to ensure Australia achieves zero net greenhouse emissions well before 2050, and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use; - providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.</para></quote>
<para>from 1483 citizens (Petition No. PN0099)</para>
<para>Petition received.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr MIKE KELLY</name>
    <name.id>HRI</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The petition is asking the House to protect communities in Australia and in our region from the harmful impacts of climate change, such as more severe heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising sea levels, by committing to deeper and more urgent reductions of our greenhouse emissions, developing a plan to ensure Australia achieves zero-net greenhouse gas emissions well before 2050 and supporting families and communities affected by the transition towards renewable energy and more sustainable land use, providing additional assistance to help our poorest neighbours adapt to the harmful impacts of climate change.</para>
<para>About 1,250 signatures were gathered by the kids and the teachers. I'm very proud, because they have reacted to the issue that challenges their own future—the responsibility for us to ensure that we deliver a secure future for them against the potential ravages of catastrophic climate change—but also, more particularly, as I've mentioned in the past, our region is the canary in the coalmine of climate change. Our ski industry is worth about $2 billion a year. It's half the economy of the Monaro. We've seen reports piling on reports about the threat that's evolving. The CSIRO pointed out in reports last year that the season will be 80 days shorter by 2050.</para>
<para>I spend a lot of time with the Snowy Hydro people; I've been up there a lot. They have a tremendous amount of data which is showing beyond a shadow of a doubt the contraction of the ski season and the thinning of the snow. For them it's not an issue—they rely on any form of precipitation, whether it's in the form of rain or snow—but the data that is indicating the decline of the snow is a real threat. The Climate Council has just put out a report emphasising this, based on 200 source documents. It's saying, basically, that there's been a massively increasing trend to rely on artificial snow as the seasons have shortened over the past 25 years. We in our region were very offended by the offhand way in which the Minister for the Environment and Energy made a joke of this in the other chamber. It didn't go down well, because so many jobs and so much of our economy in the high country depend on the skiing industry.</para>
<para>I call on the government to take this petition that these wonderful kids and members of my community have raised out of real concern for the future of our region. The coastline and their own future in so many ways are affected by this grave threat, which is the gravest threat that confronts Australia as one of the driest continents on the planet. I urge the government to take that seriously. We need to see more action on the National Energy Guarantee—we don't know what the details of that are—and we need to see a more aggressive commitment to renewable energy.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victoria: Roads</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SUKKAR</name>
    <name.id>242515</name.id>
    <electorate>Deakin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>With another year well and truly underway, Melburnians returning to work wouldn't be able to help but feel that the traffic on roads in Melbourne keeps getting worse and worse. According to research undertaken by the Grattan Institute last year, they couldn't be faulted for thinking that, because Melbourne has the dubious honour of being the most congested city in our country, outranking even Sydney, which for many Melburnians would come as somewhat of a shock. As previous reports from the RACV and Infrastructure Australia have confirmed, the Eastern Freeway junction with Hoddle Street and Alexandra Parade is the worst choke point in the entire country, let alone in our city. Sadly, due to the decision of Daniel Andrews and Bill Shorten to cancel the contracts to build the East West Link, there remains no solution underway for long-term sufferers who use this road, most of whom live in the eastern suburbs. It's worth recalling that in 2015 the state Labor government wasted $1.2 billion—and counting—to cancel this crucial project, a project that would have been well and truly underway by now, saving commuters on the Eastern Freeway about three hours per week in travel time.</para>
<para>But, to make matters even worse, the state Labor government is proposing to push ahead with the North East Link, a project that is more than 10 years away and that will ultimately funnel more than 130,000 additional vehicles onto the Eastern Freeway each day. That's 130,000 additional cars on the Eastern Freeway at peak hour each morning and afternoon. While the North East Link is rightly considered a decent project, in a speech to Infrastructure Partnerships Australia last year, infrastructure expert Sir Rod Eddington stressed that there was no silver-bullet solution and echoed the sentiment that you cannot do the North East Link before you have fixed the East West Link bottleneck. Even Labor's own hand-picked advisers at Infrastructure Victoria have stressed that the East West Link should commence as soon as possible to avoid the long-term flow-on effects to Melbourne's economy and, quite frankly, to the standard of living of everybody who lives around the Eastern Freeway.</para>
<para>That's why I'm pleased that the Victorian opposition leader, Matthew Guy, has committed to delivering the East West Link if a Liberal government is elected later this year. That commitment will continue to be supported by the federal government, which still has $3 billion of funding on the table to help build the East West Link. That $3 billion will be there for an incoming Matthew Guy government.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Braddon Electorate: Pensions and Benefits</title>
          <page.no>118</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEAY</name>
    <name.id>262273</name.id>
    <electorate>Braddon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>All of us in this place receive a lot of correspondence, much of which would be beneficial and some that is very compelling. Today, I want to read into the public record an email I received from Karen in Devonport. The email is entitled 'I am lucky'. I quote:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough to be on a Disability Support Pension for 8 years because of a car accident and ongoing medical issues. I am told I could have MS but they are not sure.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky to have a Doctor who understands the pain and restrictions I have, but I have to pay almost seventy dollars which I get back thirty six from Medicare but I have to have that seventy dollars in my bank to see my Doctor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My Specialist is in Hobart and bulk bills.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I travel from Devonport to Hobart twice a year to see him.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Now this is not cheap, with the cost of fuel and a bite to eat I have to set aside at least one hundred and twenty dollars.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough to be able to get a travel allowance but after my specialist signs it—but then I have to go to my GP and get her to sign it…again this cost me thirty five dollars.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">My travel allowance pays me one hundred and three dollars for each trip to Hobart. It makes it hard.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough to get discounted medication, but my Ostemol has been removed from the PBS and instead of purchasing 3 packets for the cost of five dollars twenty I now pay four dollars ninety five per packet.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough to live in a housing Department home.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have been told I need to reduce the "luxuries" in my life. I have a mobile phone and internet.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Not much else.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I need internet to remain in contact with Government Departments.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have pre paid power.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I purchase 25 to 30 dollars a fortnight but lately this runs out the day before pay day—so I go 10 hours without power.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am a very savy shopper for food but because of my medical condition I need to eat healthy, but to be honest, I cannot afford to.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To buy fruit, vegetables and healthy food it takes most of my food budget and leaves very little for meat.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Meat is a luxury.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough to own a little car. I am lucky enough to be able to pay twenty dollars a fortnight for fuel, which never seems to get me through the fortnight.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I am lucky enough that the Government gives me a rise of two dollars, twice a year, but Housing takes one dollar of this as my rent is income based.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">So now you know what I and others struggle with each fortnight. I just want you to understand what it is like.</para></quote>
<para>I say to Karen and to all those in similar circumstances that the Labor side of this House understands these challenges and is the only party prepared to make life for people like Karen a little bit easier. For example, if the Prime Minister dropped his Medicare freeze, Karen's medical bills would stop increasing. Labor gets it, Karen, and thank you for having the courage to allow me to share your story.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Gilmore Electorate: Country Shows</title>
          <page.no>119</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>People living in a regional area, as I do, are absolutely blessed by having country shows, and not just one weekend of country shows. We have country shows just about every single weekend. We started this year on the Australia Day weekend with the Kiama Show, which was absolutely brilliant. The federal government enabled the Kiama Show Society to get a long-awaited stage, so instead of having the young showgirls standing on the back of a truck or doing the presentations from the baseline, where nobody could see anybody, they had a temporary stage that all the other community groups could use as well. We were extremely pleased with that.</para>
<para>The Kiama Showgirl winner for 2018 was Christie Arthur. She comes from Gerringong, one of our heartland dairy areas. I need to congratulate the Kiama Show Society president, Michael Brennan; the senior vice-president, David Barnes; the junior vice-president, Greg Chittick; the treasurer, Ron Gregory; and the ringmaster, who used to be the vet for my puppies, David Chaffey, who does an amazing job. Seriously, the exhibitions, cakes and fruit and vegetables show and reflect what's going on in our communities.</para>
<para>I'd like to mention the other shows as well. We've had the Berry Show, which was absolutely fantastic. They always have a bit of a ball beforehand, where the girls do a presentation speech and we find out about their background and the favourite things they do. Congratulations to Tegan Burt, who became the 2018 Berry Showgirl. I congratulate also Tori Chittick, Kimberley Cotterill, Taylor Lynch and Holly Schornegg. I simply couldn't pick which girl was going to win that one this year! The Berry Show Society's president, Peter Harris; the senior vice-president, Paul Evert; the junior vice-president John Miller; the secretary, Jim Beiler; and the treasurer, Bill Seelis, all did an amazing job.</para>
<para>The Milton showgirl is yet to come. The entrants are Arianne Ingold, Stephanie Kalemusic, Ebony Murray, Emily Jane Joyce, Hayley Perrin and Kiah Findley. Congratulations to all of them for nominating to be showgirl and congratulations to the president, Judith Sloan. The Eurobodalla showgirl winner was Shelli Reid, and the runners-up were Taylah Connaughton and Alicia Bate. Congratulations to the team: president, Bruce Reid; vice-president, Marylin Dredge; secretary, Mary Atkinson; and treasurer, Lindsay Boulton. I have to say I nearly cooked myself while that show was on—it was really warm!</para>
<para>The Nowra show, which is always brilliant, comes under the stewardship of Mrs Wendy Woodward, Tom Cochrane, Mark Stewart, James Thompson and Robyn Nelson, as well as my mate John Bennett in the ring, who always does a sterling job. Congratulations to Sammy Sparks, the Nowra showgirl winner for this year. Kaitlyn Gray was the runner-up. Being a showgirl is not about bikinis and cute dresses; it's about telling the world about agriculture and how important it is to our community. These young women, from one end of the electorate to the other, are doing a phenomenal job of sharing agricultural enterprise and making the most of what we do in the country.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HWN</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Closing the Gap</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs SUDMALIS</name>
    <name.id>241586</name.id>
    <electorate>Gilmore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is now 10 years since the eventful day when the national apology was made to our nation's first people. I was sitting in Macca's, Goulburn, and there were many Indigenous people stopping, talking and, in some instances, crying. The day was eventful and significant, and it was not just a symbol; it was the beginning of a new consciousness that would—and it continues to this day—make our nation a better place, filled with acknowledgement that what had gone on before was not the way we should keep going.</para>
<para>This year, 2018, closing the gap remains a shared commitment. This is a shared journey that I hope will always draw on the wisdom, strength and resilience, learned over thousands of years, of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander civilisation, as well as the learning of present Australians and those yet to come. There is a statement that we should not have to reinvent the wheel. While that is not the complete case here, it should be noted that effective programs and services need to be designed, developed and implemented in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This should not surprise us. It's blatantly obvious.</para>
<para>In addition, and also of great importance, is that governments must take a far more holistic approach, involving agencies from different departments to develop policies and deliver services to First Australians. And, although that phrase is taken directly from the report, I actually argue with the idea of delivering services to our First Australians. It should rather be with our Indigenous family. The lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have improved, but there's still a lot more to be done.</para>
<para>There are four main pillars in any community, and the Closing the Gap targets are no different: health, education, employment and community safety. Each is clearly inter-related. For instance, improving education standards helps to increase employment rates and levels of health. And community safety is fundamental to making sure children attend school and adults maintain employment. Three targets for closing the gap are on track. The first is halving child mortality by this year. Improvements in key drivers of child and maternal health over the past few years suggest that we could even do better. The second target is to have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025. Personally, I see this as one of the foundation stones for long-term change, and I believe it is the indicator in the community for the greatest development potential. Finally, the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is definitely on track. Nationally, the proportion of Indigenous students aged 20 to 24 who have achieved year 12 or equivalent has increased from 47.4 per cent in 2006 to 65.3 per cent in 2016.</para>
<para>In Gilmore especially, I am so very proud of our young Indigenous students, the schools they attend and their teachers. Along with their families, they are making huge inroads of change and achievement. Special mention is deserved for Batemans Bay High, Ulladulla High, Shoalhaven High, Vincentia High and Bomaderry High. With special reference to culture and confidence building, we are getting great outcomes. I'd like to thank some Indigenous leaders in my community in particular for all their efforts to close the gap: Uncle Tom and Aunty Muriel Slocky, Aunty Nell Mooney, Uncle Fred Carriage, Aunty Ruth Simms, Aunty Pat Lester, Aunty Delia Lowe, Alfred and Noel Wellington and Greg Peterson. There are many others, but these individuals I have come to know and I have a very deep respect for them.</para>
<para>We still have to work on overall attendance rates for Indigenous students, and I suspect that we need to develop different strategies to get to that target. Numeracy is on track for year 9 students across the nation, but, gosh, there's a lot more to do here. We do see the gap in NAPLAN results narrowing in reading in years 3 and 5 and in numeracy in years 5 and 9, but we still need to work there. Halving the gap in employment by this year didn't quite come together, so we've still got work to get on with in that area. The last measure is to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031, and I believe we all recognise that it's going to take more than a decade to bring that together.</para>
<para>Developing collaborative working relationships between government agencies and other organisations, and delivering services and programs in consultation with the Indigenous community will be essential in identifying the key social and economic determinants. A necessary part of this is valuing Indigenous knowledge and cultural beliefs and practices that are important for promoting positive cultural identity and social and emotional wellbeing for all Australians. Just this morning I visited the National Museum of Australia and was guided by the enthusiastic Indigenous curator, Margo Neale, to share in our Australian story of the Seven Sisters—the meanings, the evolution and the essential message that should be shared by all Australians. We really must build Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander capacity, involving good and positive mentoring for staff, and making sure their ideas and cultural influences are fully integrated in program design, delivery and evaluation.</para>
<para>Recently, one of my successful Gilmore Indigenous organisations sent me a bit of a report, and this is an excerpt from it:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Waminda's work in the community is driven by its vision for women and their Indigenous families being positive, happy and healthy. Waminda is guided by a vision where Indigenous women are admired and proud of their achievements in their own community …</para></quote>
<para>Their service model is a 'comprehensive and holistic care' model, 'enabling a focus on the social determinants'. They're very successful. Glen Ella of sporting fame is trying to establish a program for sporting development that incentivises students to attend school on a more regular basis. His program is for both boys and girls. There are, in fact, dozens of small-scale programs that are working and making a difference for Indigenous children and their families, including the team at Cullunghutti and the community of Jerrinja. These are huge changes in attitude and expectations of change in themselves.</para>
<para>As education has been and continues to be a priority for me, I see many of the recommendations from the report of the last inquiry, <inline font-style="italic">The power of education: From surviving to thriving</inline>, presented by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Indigenous affairs, which I now chair, as great stepping stones for change. These steps will help to close the gap. We should collect the data relating to successful programs and figure out what's working and what's not. How good would it be to have school-age Indigenous young mothers still attending school while we help them with their maternal responsibilities? We need to alleviate the difficulties of learning where there are hearing impediments for children—or perhaps we should prevent them in the first place. We must work with the states and territories to have a clear strategy in relation to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, as well as having appropriate screening so that learning disorders can be identified and steps taken to remediate these children. How wonderful it would be for some health interventions to be available close to our primary schools, just as Nowra East Public School is developing. In addition to their plan, the school parents and neighbours will be constructing a community kitchen in the garden next to their mini health unit. It's a terrific concept, and I'm only too pleased that we've been able to negotiate a grant of $12,000 to assist them. Ultimately, if we have a cooperative model of information exchange between education and health, what a great advantage that would be for the nurses, the teachers and the other professionals trying to help Indigenous children and their families.</para>
<para>It's wonderful to see the emergence of language in our schools and also that all students are learning language. But what about the rural and, importantly, the remote schools where English is in fact the second language? We really must train the teachers to be proficient in English as a second language. It's not the same as somebody who's trained to improve language, literacy and numeracy. They're actually quite different techniques.</para>
<para>I mentioned the possible Ellavation program in my area, but there truly need to be sporting opportunities for our Indigenous girls. The pride on the faces of our PCYC-sponsored Yuin Snake Teams was magic! Their parents were proud, the young women were proud, and it just showed what potential such a scheme has to change the self-confidence of our Indigenous young women. But other programs besides sport need to be explored to help our young girls. I'm especially thinking about encouraging them towards robotics and STEM subjects. In the report of the inquiry there's a strong call to review Abstudy. It observes how, in many cases, it is acting as an educational barrier. Let's bring in a review, as this too, once remedied, will surely help with closing the gap of Indigenous difference.</para>
<para>I say with pride that today the annual growth rate of Supply-Nation-registered Indigenous businesses is an average of 12.5 per cent. It is actually the envy of all other sectors in the Australian community.</para>
<para>Around 14,700 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are enrolled in early childhood education, which, as I said before, is in fact one of my priorities for all children. Each time I'm a guest at the VET awards night for our Indigenous students, I quietly burst with pride. Each successive year there's been an increasing number of students completing year 12 with a VET qualification. They're proud of themselves, and our entire community is proud of them.</para>
<para>We are closing the gap in Gilmore, and I believe we can upscale all the different and successful programs, not only in my region but across the nation, so that in the next 10 years we'll have six out of seven of the targets met and only the last one to work on. As we know, it will probably take a couple of decades to bring us closer in lifespan, because there are some entrenched health issues that have arisen in the past that we need to address in the future. I think we're doing well, but we can do better.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak to the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the Gap</inline> report that's been tabled in parliament. I will begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and paying my respects to their elders, both past and present. I also acknowledge the Dja Dja Wurrung people, who are traditional owners of my electorate of Bendigo in Central Victoria, and pay my respects to their elders, past, present and future.</para>
<para>'Closing the gap': it is language that is commonly known now, which is about bridging the gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and non Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. All of us in this place have a responsibility. Our governments—our local, state and federal governments—have a responsibility, as do our communities, and in this contribution I'd like to acknowledge some of the great work that is going on in my community to help close the gap.</para>
<para>In that spirit, I'd like to start with some of the words of Aunty Julie, who has kindly let me share some of her Australia Day speech from 2017. Aunty Julie was the Mount Alexander citizen of the year for 2016, and in her Australia Day address in 2017 she reflected on the year she had been the area's citizen of the year. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have run formal cultural awareness days where we can share and yarn about issues. One of the activities I do when taking cultural awareness days is a timeline of the Dja Dja Wurrung history in the Mount Alexander shire. I have historically significant events on cards and ask participants to put them in order …</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One of the cards explains how two-thirds of the Dja Dja Wurrung population was wiped out before a white person set foot in Central Victoria. Who knows why? The timeline shows what it was like before the arrival of others. It was basically a paradise, plenty of food, plenty of water, amazing sites to held Ceremony, et cetera.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Then came disease, massacres, poisoning, dispossession of land. Of the whole Dja Dja Wurrung nation in the Mount Alexander shire, which numbered around 2,000 before invasion, only 70 were left on country by 1863. In less than 30 years nearly a whole nation of proud people was decimated by greed. This is part of the history which must be understood, not dwelled on, but understood so that we, as a People, can be understood.</para></quote>
<para>Those are powerful words by Aunty Julie, and I thank her for allowing me to share them with this place. It goes to the heart of why we must continue to work to close the gap.</para>
<para>We are fortunate in Bendigo and Central Victoria that we have reached settlement without having to go to the High Court. On 15 November 2013, the Dja Dja Wurrung people and the state of Victoria celebrated recognition and settlement. I want to acknowledge the great spirit in which the Dja Dja Wurrung people approached this. The settlement acknowledged that, before European colonisation, the natural places within the Dja Dja Wurrung country were well known, and names and songs were celebrated as part of their culture.</para>
<para>Their vision is for the health and wellbeing of those people to be strong and underpinned by their living culture. As the first peoples of the land, their vision is to be included and politically empowered, establishing a place in society and being capable of managing their own affairs from a strong and diverse economic base. They are working with the Bendigo community and businesses to achieve their own economic independence.</para>
<para>It's always inspiring to catch up with the Dja Dja Wurrung, to learn of their successes, the way in which they're working, the pride that they have in restoring country, their businesses, their enterprises and what they're achieving. They're a demonstration of what can happen when we do stand to the side and allow them to be empowered and to work collectively and collaboratively together.</para>
<para>We've also had amazing success with BDAC, Bendigo & District Aboriginal Co-operative, and the work that they're doing in regard to health, wellbeing, and family and community services. It's important, when acknowledging <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline>, to note the tireless work that they do in our community to ensure that the people who they support the most are achieving the best outcomes. But they're also pragmatic and realistic about the challenges that they have.</para>
<para>BDAC now employs more than 50 people, and 80 per cent of their staff identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. They have been honest and frank with me in the way that only they can about the struggles that they've had with a number of government programs. They say that their clients and their community struggle with the changes to My Aged Care, with packages that are unfair and which don't meet the costs of support. They say that they struggle to help make sure that their clients and their community aren't ripped off by people who charge exorbitant administration fees. By that I mean that their clients and community aren't receiving the best support that they need. This is an example of where government policy is making it hard for us to close the gap.</para>
<para>The Dja Dja Wurrung community includes regional Bendigo, where just under 2,000 Aboriginal people live. They reside in districts like Boort, Redesdale and Creswick. More than half the Aboriginal people in Bendigo are under 24, and therefore there are a number of programs BDAC are working on, such as the men's shed, the youth service facilities, and making sure that we have record numbers of health checks and ongoing health care. Their Prouses Road development is another way in which they're helping to close the gap.</para>
<para>Another program is the way in which BDAC is working to reduce the number of children in out-of-home care. It is quite innovative; it is an Australian first and it was recognised last year. In Victoria, the number of children in the Victorian child protection system has risen 70 per cent over the last three years. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care was 10 times higher than the rate of non-Aboriginal children. This is an overrepresentation of children, and the reason why a new approach was called for by Aboriginal leaders. Raylene Harradine, the chief executive of BDAC, said to her staff and to the community:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's around trying to keep our kids in our community and in the care of our own people …</para></quote>
<para>So they stepped up. It's about having a range of services across an organisation that enable options for children in our community.</para>
<para>One couple shared their experience with a dramatic new child protection approach being trialled in Bendigo, known as section 18, or Aboriginal guardianship. Yorta Yorta man Simon Penrose said it was important that Aboriginal foster children had access to culture. Mr Penrose and his partner have fostered children for just over two years, and in the past six months have been fostering local Aboriginal children into their family. This new trial and approach towards Aboriginal children is, basically, the state government, through the Department of Health, saying, 'We will work with BDAC and these local families to take care of their own.'</para>
<para>But, for all the successes, there is still a lot of work to do. Incarceration rates of Aboriginal people in Victoria remain too high. Statistics for 2016 show that Aboriginal men make up eight per cent of the male population in the corrections centre. The prison rate for Aboriginal women is 10.3 per cent of the female population, and it's high for youth. A lot of these prisons are in my electorate. We have prisons in our electorate for youth, women, and men.</para>
<para>We must do more as a society. We must do more as a community. We must do more as parliamentarians to help close the gap. It's not enough just to have rhetoric saying that we will work with them. We need to demonstrate it through funding. We need to demonstrate it through empowerment. We need to make sure that we're doing all we can to help close the gap.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In parliament this week, the tenth annual <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report was delivered, revealing that four of its seven targets to improve Indigenous health and welfare were not on track. Whilst there has been some progress to acknowledge, it needs to be said that there is also a palpable sense of disappointment. This year, the categories of progress include the target to halving the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020, halving the gap in child mortality by 2018, and having 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025. Those are the targets reported to be on track. The areas the report declares to be off track include school attendance, literacy and numeracy, employment and the key target of closing the 10-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2031.</para>
<para>In Calare, I consider myself fortunate to be representing an electorate that is, from border to border, Wiradjuri country. It has been a privilege to get to know the Wiradjuri elders in the various communities of the Central West. I've known some for a number of years and I've worked with some more recently, since coming to this place. One of the inspiring things about all of them is that they constantly look to the future, striving to make life better, not only for Indigenous communities but all in our country towns and cities. I could tell this House of many remarkable people working to close the gap in central western New South Wales. They are the teachers in our schools; the men and women of the Clontarf academies and girls' academies; doctors, nurses and allied health professionals; sporting coaches and service club members; lawyers and community workers—the list goes on, and it is as long as it is distinguished.</para>
<para>After a decade, we all know that there is no easy answer to closing the gap, no panacea. However, I'm grateful that in our communities the work by so many unsung community heroes goes on. In the work that they do there are challenges and there is difficulty. There is tragedy and sometimes even heartbreak. But through the efforts of these people there are success and triumph as well. I've seen it. Time doesn't permit me to speak today of all of their individual contributions to closing the gap, but they are out there in our communities today, even as we speak, working in so many different ways. Today, I express to them the thanks of a grateful electorate and region.</para>
<para>While we all acknowledge that there are no simple answers, I mention Stan Grant, who said this week:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Clearly there is a need to create meaningful links between Indigenous communities and individuals and the mainstream Australian economy.</para></quote>
<para>I think it's a point well made.</para>
<para>The overall findings contained in the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report are unsatisfactory. The gaps in key areas still exist and, in some cases, they're getting wider. In the Australia of 2018, it's not good enough. It's not good enough by a long shot, and all of us here need to recommit ourselves to closing those gaps. I thank and acknowledge all in Calare who are working so hard to do just that.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUSIC</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
    <electorate>Chifley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, here in Canberra and pay respect to elders, past and present. I want to recognise too, back at home, the traditional owners, the Dharug, in which the electorate of Chifley sits. I want to pay my respects to them and thank them for their custodianship.</para>
<para>Today I particularly want to acknowledge the surviving members of the stolen generation who, for so many decades, spoke their truth without recognition. That they persevered to expose the injustices they suffered deserves our utmost respect but also our thanks. As a country we are better and stronger when we acknowledge our history, imperfect as it may be, and work together to build something better. The Leader of the Opposition expressed this so well the other day, when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you just talk about the problems you're accused of not looking at the successes, if you talk about the successes you're accused of not understanding the problems. It is a mixed record, I understand that.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">But one thing I know is that when we work with First Australians, when we genuinely empower First Australians to take control of their lives, when we don't have top-down but bottom-up decision-making we will get it right more than we will get it wrong.</para></quote>
<para>We can't be afraid of change if we intend to act; we will only fail if we don't. When there is so much to improve, action is essential.</para>
<para>I also want to recognise the determination and decency of many in the previous Labor government who were absolutely focused on the need to ensure that we did not just say sorry but that we acted to improve the lives of so many who had been affected. I want to place on the record my thanks to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and also the support that he got from the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, who had for many years been championing this cause. As I reflected with her the other day, it would be tremendous to be part of a national milestone, in the way that so many people were, but also to do something that was right and was a long time in coming.</para>
<para>This parliament is at its best when it speaks with a sense of unity and respect, when it's acting for all Australians and when it's looking to the future. I believe that as we reflect on the apology we see parliament doing just that. The apology acknowledged our past. It was a crucial step in moving forward together. Recognition by the Prime Minister allowed and encouraged more Australians to share and voice the same sentiments. The apology is a moment in our country's history that I certainly hold close to my heart, as many others do, and I've had the honour of representing the Chifley electorate during that period.</para>
<para>I've never failed to be amazed and inspired by the work of a variety of Aboriginal groups in the Chifley electorate. There are the traditional owners of the land, the Dharug people, but also Indigenous peoples from all over Australia who now call the suburbs within Chifley home and contribute to our vibrant community. I'm honoured to call elders like Uncle Greg Simms, Uncle Wes Marn, Auntie Jenny Ebsworth and Auntie Rita Tobin my friends, and people who I rely upon for counsel and advice. As I reflect on the apology, 10 years on, I can't help but think of the generous response from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, which is, in some ways, the more remarkable act. These proud communities have led the spirit of healing over many years and provided a true service to our nation. In Chifley, this exemplary leadership has been demonstrated in many ways. I'd like to touch on some of these now.</para>
<para>A big event is the reconciliation walk and concert every May, which spreads the message of reconciliation, gives a meeting place to honour Indigenous elders, provides a stage for artists and encourages young people to enjoy a few moments to display their blossoming talents.</para>
<para>Chifley's got the largest urban Aboriginal population in the country. Many Aboriginal people in the electorate are either members of the stolen generation or their direct descendants. The apology made by former Prime Minister Rudd was an enormously healing moment for many in our electorate and they continue to commemorate this historic occasion. This year the walk will take place for the 21st time, led again by Mount Druitt and District Reconciliation Group and its many volunteers. The spirit of the event makes it one of the most significant dates for me personally every single year. I look forward to continuing my involvement, and I would certainly encourage people that live within the electorate of Chifley to get involved and share in the celebration. While recognising our past, I'd also encourage local businesses to get behind the event, which attracts so many people each year; it's such an important date in our community calendar.</para>
<para>Every day in Chifley there are programs and people working to support our Indigenous population and our community more broadly. Ngallu Wal centre, for example, provides outreach services, Centrelink support, financial management support and legal advice. There is also a supported playgroup with activities and engagement for parents and children. It's reaching out further into the community as it develops its new youth drop-in centre. It will provide arts, crafts and indoor and outdoor sport and supervision for young people in our area. It will no doubt be very successful and I wish them all the best with this project. They recently expanded to offer mental health services as well as a baby health service, which is fantastic. These are invaluable services and I congratulate them.</para>
<para>Marrin Weejali is another instrumental organisation, supporting the community by providing one-on-one and group addiction services, combating addiction for people struggling with that in our community. They are providing chronic care for those suffering long-term illnesses. I also want to mention Butucarbin, who are continuing their great work providing TAFE accredited access to work and training, and Aboriginal cultural arts courses. They're also holding a debutante ball, which will return this year. I know it's an event the community enthusiastically gets behind.</para>
<para>Baabayn Aboriginal Corporation, founded by five Aboriginal elders from Western Sydney, is another group providing an incredible service. It was set up with the purpose of connecting individuals and families in a welcoming environment. It provides counselling and advocacy, and hosts invited speakers and a homework club as well, which is a terrific initiative. This is by no means all the excellent work being undertaken in the electorate, but I do want to place on the public record my thanks and the thanks of many grateful people for that work.</para>
<para>With the release of the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report there are positives to be drawn from outside the Chifley electorate. I welcome some of those improvements that have been celebrated in this year's report. It has been said already that it's heartening to see the reduction in child mortality and the improvements in childhood education back on track. Year 12 attainment remains strong. But these improvements simply aren't enough. We know the statistics are far worse for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community than for the rest of society. For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population, the education rate is lower, life expectancy is lower and income rates are lower. At the same time, chronic disease rates are higher, the percentage of the prison population is higher and the percentage of homelessness is higher. So we have a lot to do.</para>
<para>That's why I welcome the announcement by federal Labor on approaches we have set ourselves. For example, we have said that we'll establish a stolen generations compensation scheme to support intergenerational healing. We have listened to First Australians who have called for justice targets to reduce incarceration rates and we have called on the government to urgently sign up to the remote Indigenous agreement with the states. We will also hold a national summit for our first-nation children.</para>
<para>I want to make these closing remarks. Closing the gap is not a statistical ambition. It is designed to bring the nation together with a sense of unified purpose to right wrongs and build better futures. It is important we all work together on this, but I cannot fail to reflect on two unfortunate events that occurred this week. First, when the parliament was supposed to be together in the House of Representatives to hear the Prime Minister's speech, we had a near full representation from the opposition and we had a strong representation from the coalition. As soon as that speech was over, the bulk of the coalition left, and that was disheartening. I said 'bulk'; I noted the presence of certain members during that speech. As I said, this is about national unity; it's not a time for partisan politics. We should all be there together.</para>
<para>The other thing—and I think the Prime Minister's well aware of this—is that his failure to attend the national breakfast yesterday recognising the 10-year anniversary of the apology was something that saddened a lot of the participants there and was reflected upon publicly. Again, it doesn't matter what your politics are. The Prime Minister and the coalition are doing some good things to address closing the gap. There are other things we can do better. But it doesn't matter about your politics. This is a sense of national purpose, that something that had been done badly in the past will be committed to by all of us to be corrected in the future. That's all I'd say on that, but, again, we look forward to better outcomes down the track. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's with mixed feelings that I rise again, this year, to speak on the Closing the Gap statement that was presented to the Australian parliament. Last Thursday, a very powerful presentation was made by the Social Justice Commissioner, June Oscar, in her capacity as one of the co-convenors of the Close the Gap committee, to those who were in attendance at the breakfast and presentation meeting around some of the very profound concerns that first nation peoples have in Australia with regard to the progress or, indeed, probably more accurately, the lack of progress that is being made on a number of fronts. This was not a platform for politicians to speak at—that was made very clear—it was an opportunity for Indigenous people to stand and speak freely to all of us who were able to be present there. I know the Prime Minister had some other commitments and had to leave early, and that was a shame, but a good number of us remained to really try to just listen. Indeed, that was the profound message that came from that event. As I said, it was shaped by Aboriginal people. The message very clearly back to politicians was, 'You need to sit down, be quiet, listen to what we have to say, reflect on this and be serious about a genuine partnership with first nation peoples to develop a pathway going forward and mechanisms to redress what can only be described as a grossly inadequate response to date to the challenge of closing the gap.' That was the profound message I took home. Closing the gap on Indigenous health, education and wellbeing in general must start with a profound commitment to close the gap, but it must also be founded on a respectful and genuine partnership with first nation peoples.</para>
<para>I'd like to turn now to the Close the Gap statement that was presented. As other speakers before me have acknowledged, there have been a few wins in the sense of some gains in some of those targeted areas. We are on track, as others have mentioned, towards halving the gap in child mortality. The most recent data showed that by 2016 that gap had shrunk by 32 per cent, which is an excellent outcome. The goal of achieving 95 per cent enrolment of Indigenous four-year-olds in early childhood education by 2025 is also on track. That rate is now at 91 per cent. Halving the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track. That gap has shrunk to 23.8 per cent. None of those gaps, despite the progress, mean that we should rest on our laurels, of course. We should not be satisfied until there is complete equity in all of these goals.</para>
<para>The very disturbing part of the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the g</inline><inline font-style="italic">ap</inline> report is seeing the consistent failure that we have had in the remaining targets. They are, of course, really critical targets around literacy and numeracy and closing the gap on employment. We've seen Indigenous unemployment rise. We are not closing the gap there. That is going in exactly the opposite direction to what we want.</para>
<para>We've also seen, regretfully, a sliding back on the life expectancy scale. We had an ambition of closing the gap on life expectancy by 2031, but we are clearly going in the wrong direction on that one. Indeed, Indigenous students are still 10 percentage points behind on school attendance rates in 2018, despite some inroads there. I think it is worth reflecting on what programs are in place around them now and why they are failing.</para>
<para>I put it to this parliament that the fundamental reason for those failures is that they are not community owned programs. They are not done in genuine partnership with Indigenous communities. I don't know how many times it takes for us to understand. I heard the Prime Minister standing up in parliament the other day repeating on a number of occasions, 'It's not doing things to Aboriginal people, it's doing things with Aboriginal people.' The only way to make that something more than cheap political talk is to start walking the action now. You cannot keep repeating that phrase and think it's going to somehow come true when your actions actually defy what you are saying in parliament.</para>
<para>The only way that we can close the gap on all of these important targets is with a very deep and respectful commitment to do so, but in a genuine partnership with Aboriginal people. I'm sorry that this government's inability to work consistently in a genuine partnership with first-nation peoples is deeply problematic. It is deeply problematic. When you do not have that partnership basis, when these programs are not owned by the communities in which you seek to implement them and when they are not systematically targeted programs delivered in coordinated ways, there is a problem, because all of the evidence tells us that you need each of those ingredients to be in operation in order to have a successful program. We know, for example, health issues cannot be adequately tackled without also addressing a whole range of other very key social and cultural determiners.</para>
<para>So, when this government decides to backflip on a commitment around a national partnership on remote housing agreement, that has profound ramifications for all of the targets that we're trying to achieve here. How on earth do we provide safe housing for children in communities while they are growing up when there are an average of 17 to 23 people living in any given home in a community? How do we expect kids to be able to do their learning at school and come home and do homework? The concept that there would be some quiet space to retreat to at home in order to do some homework is just ludicrous. I think the government's inability to make those connections between the programs that must be community owned, clearly targeted and coordinated carefully, and the outcomes that they desire is very problematic.</para>
<para>The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, made very clear in his comments around the <inline font-style="italic">Closing t</inline><inline font-style="italic">h</inline><inline font-style="italic">e g</inline><inline font-style="italic">ap</inline> report in parliament on Monday that, whilst we are very keen to work with the government to deliver better outcomes, this bipartisanship cannot be used as an alibi for inaction by this government. I join with the Leader of the Opposition to say that we wish to work with you to deliver better outcomes, but we are not going to sit by and wait for you guys to catch up. We don't have time for that. So I absolutely applaud Labor's initiatives in taking seriously the Uluru Statement from the Heart and those very real issues that were raised there before us. I am absolutely supportive of the idea of adding some additional targets around incarceration and out-of-home care to the list. I think the compensation packages in the Commonwealth jurisdiction for the stolen generations are critical, with money to the Healing Foundation. All of these are necessary— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is both a pleasure and a surprise to follow the member for Newcastle in this debate. It's a pleasure because she is an articulate and passionate advocate for better engagement with Aboriginal people and with Torres Strait Islander people and she is someone who constantly works to put her money where her mouth is, to go out to the community and listen to people. It's a surprise because I would have thought I'd follow a Liberal Party speaker in this debate, but seemingly the Turnbull government has run out of speakers in relation to the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap statement, even though they're in majority government. So I'm a bit surprised to be up next, after the member for Newcastle, but there you have it.</para>
<para>The Closing the Gap statement, of course, cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered in the context in which it was originally created by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. As you'll remember, as everyone of a certain age will remember, the entire nation had been moved by the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report, brought down in 1997. I certainly remember where I was and how I felt at the time that report was brought down, and on hearing the stories—you almost can't call them stories; it's almost too kind a word for the harrowing accounts of what happened to children, what happened to parents, what happened to families. I was reminded of how that felt recently, on the weekend, when I attended an event organised with Link-Up and with the state of Queensland to acknowledge the 10th anniversary of Prime Minister Rudd's apology. That was an excellent event.</para>
<para>Link-Up is a sterling organisation. It is an organisation that reunifies members of the stolen generations with their families. Sometimes that's very joyous, sometimes they get time with parents they have had no time with before and sometimes it is very sad. Sometimes it's sorry business. Sometimes it's reunification, not with a living parent but with someone who's already passed away, at the graveside. So it's very important work and it's work that must be absolutely endorsed.</para>
<para>At the event held on the weekend with Link-Up and the state of Queensland, the former Prime Minister and member for Griffith, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, spoke in commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the giving of the apology. Many other people spoke at the event as well, but the people who were there I think would have found the most striking speech to have been the one given by an elder, Brian Gray, a member of the stolen generations, who told us what it was like for him as a three-year-old and a four-year-old. He told us of the treatment that he suffered and what that had meant for him as he grew older and grew into an adult. There wasn't a person there who wasn't crying. And there wasn't a person there who didn't want to reach back through time and stop it. But we can't, of course. We can't do that.</para>
<para>We can express the nation's feelings about what happened and we can commit to doing better—and that's what the apology was. The apology was an acknowledgement of pain. The apology was something that brought our nation together and forced us to confront the past. And it forced us to do it in a way that would inspire us to do better, not just in relation to the removal of children—and, of course, that remains a significant issue today—but in relation to all of the measures by which the quality of life of someone who was born Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in this country can be assessed in a comparative way with everyone else. That's what closing the gap should be about. That's what the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report was about, and I wanted to thank Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for what he did and for his leadership.</para>
<para>I made this point when I spoke at the event with Link-Up on the weekend. After the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report, there wasn't consensus. The apology wasn't inevitable. It wasn't something that would definitely happen. It was really far from that. Calls for an apology were radical politics back then. We had to march; we had to fight—all of us, with Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people leading that, of course, and other members of the community, allies, standing beside them. It seemed impossible that anyone would apologise and that the then Prime Minister was staunchly opposed to a national apology being given. But with the change of government, with the new Prime Minister, what had previously been impossible was done.</para>
<para>Now, 10 years later, it seems as though it was inevitable. It seems as though it was something that was always going to happen, but, of course, it wasn't. It took that leadership from the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to bring us together, to unify us. He has many legacies, of course, but one of his greatest legacies, if not the greatest, is that his work, his leadership and the leadership of others with him in the cabinet at the time, have brought us together to commit at least to measuring and to actually asking, 'What's going on?'</para>
<para>There is a saying in business: you don't manage what you don't measure. It's the same for our nation. We have to measure, because it forces us to admit that we're not doing well enough, that we're not meeting the targets that we set, that we're falling short as a nation and that, in doing that, we're letting down our friends, our colleagues and complete strangers. We're letting them down. So it is with this year's Closing the Gap statement. Three measures out of seven are on track. That's better than last year. The reduction in child mortality is on track, the improvement of involvement in early education for Indigenous kids is on track and year 12 attainment is on track. But there are four other measures that aren't, and isn't it terrible that life expectancy is one of those that are not on track and that employment is not on track?</para>
<para>I think it's appropriate to note that the Prime Minister is seeking to review the targets. In doing so, I hope that he will not try to make them less ambitious. We need ambitious targets. As was the case with the apology, some things seem impossible until they're done; then you've done them and you move on. We owe it to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to be ambitious and to have ambitious targets. As the member for Newcastle said so eloquently, we need to think about why we're failing and think about the role of Aboriginal and Islander led organisations, or the lack of them, in our success or otherwise.</para>
<para>Being able to speak a few words in Ngunawal, as the Prime Minister can, is great. What's even better is listening to the words that are spoken to us by Aboriginal and Islander people. It's not enough, as the member for Newcastle said, to recite the proposition that we will do things with Aboriginal people, not to them. That's not enough. We have to walk that talk.</para>
<para>The Uluru Statement from the Heart was too readily dismissed by this Prime Minister and this government. If we're serious, and we should be, because we have to be, then respect should be paid to the Statement from the Heart. We should acknowledge the importance of truth telling. We should acknowledge that we need a voice to this parliament, a continuous voice to this parliament, so that it's not close the gap speeches once a year but a continuous engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about what we're doing—about what the parliament is doing and what the executive government is doing. And ultimately we need to come to the view that treaty is something that we can do, that we can have a more mature relationship as a nation and that we can be reconciled in a much fuller sense of the word.</para>
<para>The apology was so crucial. It was such a watershed moment for our nation. It was absolutely fundamental and necessary for healing and for progress. But it's not enough of itself, because we need to continue to push. Let's never stop seeking to make progress, and let's place Aboriginal and Islander led organisations and voices at the centre of the progress that we seek to make.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I acknowledge the traditional owners, the Ngunawal people, of the land on which this speech is given today, and I pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging, two of whom I had the pleasure of sitting with at breakfast on Monday. In doing so, in acknowledging that this was, is and always will be Aboriginal land, I recommit myself to ending the scourge that is entrenched Aboriginal disadvantage. I commit myself to reducing the high rates of incarceration of young people, so that it is not the case that if you are young and Aboriginal you are more likely to be in jail than you are to graduate from university. I recommit myself to reducing the numbers of children in out-of-home care—away from their families, culture and community—which have doubled in the last 10 years since the apology to the stolen generation was given. I commit myself to reducing the alarmingly high rate of family violence in Aboriginal communities, which is 32 times higher for Aboriginal women. I commit myself to closing the gap. It is a reminder to all of us that each of us has a role to play in closing the gap, and I use my acknowledgment here today to remind and energise each of us to go back to our communities and do something about it. When you say sorry for something, you make a commitment to yourself and to that person or group of people that you will not repeat the mistakes of the past or your wrongdoing. I've raised my children and the children I used to teach in my classrooms like this.</para>
<para>This is how I open all of the addresses I am lucky and privileged to give as the member for Lindsay, as the representative of my community—every speech. In every meeting, in every room where there is a gathering I speak at, those are the words I speak. I feel it's imperative to provide that reminder that this country was well cared for, enriched by the culture and practices of Aboriginal people for some 60,000 years or more, long before colonisation, long before Captain Cook arrived and well before we here making rules about everyone's lives were even born.</para>
<para>I am disgusted, quite frankly, by those who see this as tokenism, by those like the Hills Shire Council in the electorate of the member for Mitchell, Alex Hawke, who have refused to include the acknowledgement at the start of council proceedings, which is at odds with the rest of the Western Sydney councils. It is out of time, out of touch and out of place. Western Sydney, where his electorate lies, also happens to have some of the highest numbers of Aboriginal people in an urban setting.</para>
<para>I am proud, though, of my local Penrith council for how they acknowledged and marked the 10th anniversary of the apology on Monday. Penrith's mayor, John Thain, acknowledged that Apology Day is a reminder to everyone to continue:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… to build on lessons from the past and work for better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the future.</para></quote>
<para>The mayor also acknowledged that the council's ceremony was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a powerful reminder that our community's future is shared between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and that our future—</para></quote>
<para>is much brighter, not dampened—</para>
<quote><para class="block">because of it</para></quote>
<para>My local council celebrated the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and their important contribution to the lands and waters of Penrith city.</para>
<para>This week, when we marked the 10th anniversary of the apology made to Aboriginal people, their families, their communities and their future generations, I was incredibly proud to be there. It was an apology and an acknowledgement of our past—our past mistakes and our past wrongdoings—and of how we as legislators are given the opportunity in here to promote equality for everybody.</para>
<para>Sadly, the Prime Minister was not in attendance. He attended the photo gathering at the front of the Marble Foyer but then he nicked away in a not-so-sneaky sneak off. Unfortunately, it didn't rate as a significant enough event for 'His Honour the Prince of Point Piper', also known as the Prime Minister, to attend. Sure, I get the workloads of this place are demanding. But what is more important than attending an anniversary of an apology that meant so much to so many? After he snuck off from the Closing the Gap event last week, one would have thought he might have taken the hint. It just shows that when you're born to rule learning from your errors is not essential, which is why the apology probably means very little. On further reflection, I am actually glad he didn't come, because the time for paternalism, tokenism and excuses is over. Frankly, that's all we would have heard.</para>
<para>The leader of this country should have bothered to show up and be accountable on this day to Indigenous people and the rest of us non-Indigenous people who care enough to take up the fight on their behalf. That is our job in this place and that will always be our job in this place. The reality is when it comes to closing the gap, when it comes to actions for First Australians, this government is weak and out of touch. That weakness drips down into the conservative hearts of commentators who don't understand the inaction that not closing the gap is bringing. This inaction—far from dripping into the lives of our first nations people—causes deluges of inequality to rain down on them. The gaps are not closing. The list of targets that are not on track should fill us all with a sense of great shame and regret, because consistently falling short of the benchmarks we've set ourselves is not an outcome. We cannot amplify our limited successes in this place. We need action and we need acknowledgement.</para>
<para>Would it be such a difficult thing to fly the Aboriginal flag on the top of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, for example? Absolutely not. But would it mean the world of difference to many people in our communities? Absolutely. Would it mean that we as Australians acknowledge that we are a country of not all white Australian settlers and that there were people here before us? Absolutely not. But it would mean a great deal to those people in those communities where that flag means the most.</para>
<para>We are given two ears to listen and one mouth to speak. Therefore, we should always listen twice as much as we speak. I heard my good friend the member for Griffith in here remarking on the Prime Minister's grasp on the Ngunnawal language and his ability to give his acknowledgement in language from country. But, unfortunately, he doesn't use his two ears to listen as much as he's obviously taken the time to learn that. The Uluru Statement from the Heart would be a perfect instance where the Prime Minister could listen twice as much as he speaks. The response to that from those on the other side of the House—and the lack of listening to the voices of our first nations people—is not good enough. I acknowledge that there are not very many speakers on this report. If this issue is not a priority for the government, then I'm not quite sure what they're busying themselves with at the moment.</para>
<para>I echo the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, in the response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… who are we in this parliament to simply reject it out of hand?</para></quote>
<para>As he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's time we worked together to deliver—</para></quote>
<para>We will work together, but we will not wait—</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a voice enshrined in the Constitution; a declaration to be passed by all parliaments—Commonwealth and state—acknowledging the unique place of the first nations in Australian history, their culture and connection; and a Makarrata commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth telling.</para></quote>
<para>We will deliver a compensation scheme for those people who were removed many, many years ago—not that for any second do any of us on this side believe that that would wipe out any hurt or damage that has been caused.</para>
<para>These are small steps to addressing the inequality that exists and a small way of going forward to help close some of those gaps. Reconciliation is not just about confronting the past. It's about making sure mistakes are not repeated. As I said, when you say sorry, you mean it and you move forward so that you don't repeat or continue to repeat those mistakes. There is much, much more to be done to close the gap, and every small step to do so is greeted with warm welcomes, providing that those steps are the right ones. I believe that is absolutely on track when we say we should do things with Aboriginal people and not to them. I am not quite sure why the Prime Minister's action on the Uluru statement is at odds with the rhetoric that we keep hearing.</para>
<para>I am proud to stand up for all people in this House, especially those who don't have the opportunity to do so for themselves. With the work that I have already done in my community around helping to end Aboriginal disadvantage, I will continue to do that, in spite of those who seek to railroad that and ensure that we don't actually address this.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I call on the next speaker, I would request that members refer to members by their correct title. The question is that the document be noted.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:35</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to make a contribution to take note of the Prime Minister's report on closing the gap. I do so recognising what a momentous week it is in this place as we all reflect on our responsibilities as lawmakers to do justice to first-nations people.</para>
<para>Yesterday, in particular, was a day to think—I was thinking—about the power of politics, what happens in this place and its limitations. It's 10 years since former Prime Minister Rudd apologised. He said sorry. The commemoration of that was fittingly done in the Great Hall. The video that was shown was terribly moving and I, like the previous speaker, the member for Lindsay, have reflected also on this Prime Minister's constant evocation about doing things 'with' rather than 'to'. That video showed the experience of those men who were stolen and had their identities ripped away from them, where people sought to diminish their humanity by referring to them as numbers. They had things done to them by us.</para>
<para>If we are to discharge our moral obligations to those men, to their descendants and to all first-nations people, we have to continue to acknowledge those injustices and our complicity in them. That's something that struck me in the power of the words spoken by Prime Minister Rudd—beautiful words—and the power of the statement that marked the opening of parliament 10 years ago. I acknowledge also the extraordinary work and commitment to this cause by my friend the member for Jagajaga. We also have to take stock of how far we have to go. Sadly, the <inline font-style="italic">Closing the gap</inline> report for this year shows how far we have to go. I will turn to that briefly.</para>
<para>I also wanted to acknowledge some former colleagues of mine. I am very proud to have worked at the law firm Holding Redlich. In the 1990s they acted on behalf of two incredibly brave people, Lorna Cubillo and Peter Gunner, members of the stolen generation in the Northern Territory, in litigation that was unsuccessful, on behalf of all stolen generation members. I want to acknowledge the work of that team of solicitors and their counsel, which includes the now member for Isaacs. They are Michael Schaefer, Andrea Tsalamandris, Mark Champion and Luke Brown in particular. Andrea Tsalamandris—now Her Honour Judge Tsalamandris—told me yesterday that while the litigation was unsuccessful in the court she regarded the apology as completing that journey. That's something I wanted to share with the chamber today.</para>
<para>I spoke about the power and limitations of actions in this place, of words spoken in this place, and I think that's something we should all reflect on. If we are to talk about doing things with rather than to people, we should accord people respect. Too little respect has been accorded to our first-nations people this week by our Prime Minister. On Monday, at the presentation of the report we are debating now, the Prime Minister left early. He did not attend the gathering in the Great Hall yesterday. He should have attended that gathering. So the Prime Minister can say 'with, not to', but these words are belied by his actions. In particular, they are belied by the government's approach to refresh, in its terms, the Close the Gap Statement of Intent. I think there is room to talk about how the Closing the Gap statement and its targets can be better considered, but we should think about how we do that. The member for Barton has made some very constructive suggestions in that regard.</para>
<para>When we talk about refreshing our approach to closing the gap let's think about what Aboriginal people have been saying about this. I just want to note the comments of Professor Megan Davis, someone who is always worth listening to on these matters, when she referred to the refreshing of the targets as reflecting the aspirations of the government and its policy priorities rather than those of Aboriginal people. I hope the Prime Minister and his minister will reflect on that criticism, and on the need to engage more broadly across the parliament around closing the gap.</para>
<para>On the Closing the Gap targets, I think all of us welcome the progress that we are seeing in three of the seven target areas but, in doing so, we also have to confront the fact that in four of the areas we are falling behind: in school attendance, in literacy and numeracy and in life expectancy, probably most problematically of all. As the member for Barton said, as well as looking to this mechanism to keep us on track—of course, one of the reasons we are not on track is that very significant cuts are inhibiting our progress at a federal level—let's also think about expanding our aspiration, because the Closing the Gap targets are a mechanism by which we can judge our progress towards equity and equality. They're not an end in themselves. It seems to me that to look only at the seven present targets is blinding us to some real imperatives.</para>
<para>I want to put on the record my strong support for two additional targets being looked at: incarceration—the Leader of the Opposition has looked at the injustices facing Aboriginal people, particularly young Aboriginal men, and that's a matter that requires much closer attention in this place—and also out-of-home care. If we are to reflect on the experience of the stolen generation, we cannot turn away from the moral stain that is the increasing number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care today. I'd encourage all members to reflect on the contribution of the member for Barton in this debate in this regard.</para>
<para>I also want to touch very briefly on some issues that impact the communities that I'm so proud to represent in this place. Melbourne's northern suburbs are home to an increasing number of Aboriginal people and I want to acknowledge the leadership of the council in pushing for reconciliation and support for the Aboriginal communities that make up the City of Whittlesea in that part of my electorate. As I have in previous years, I also want to touch upon the extra ordinary work of Bubup Wilam early childhood centre. The leadership that's shown by Lisa Thorpe, the CEO, and her team is extraordinary. I am so proud of her fearsome advocacy, especially on behalf of young Aboriginal children in Melbourne's northern suburbs, and her determination to ensure that they can overcome intergenerational trauma. We're seeing extraordinary results, thanks to her work and the work of the community that is behind her. Of all the things I'm proud of in my electorate, Bubup Wilam is so dear to my heart.</para>
<para>I also want to acknowledge a conversation I had with another amazing Aboriginal constituent of mine, Marcus Stewart, who came to see me in parliament last week. I know Marcus will make a great impact right across public life. He drew to my attention the work that he is doing around language preservation, as well as work he is doing on behalf of traditional owners generally. In thinking about closing the gap in the wider sense, obviously, culture is so important and so is language. It does mean something that the Prime Minister acknowledges country in language—it matters—but it matters so much more profoundly that we don't allow language to die and with it so much of culture.</para>
<para>I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate. It is a really important debate. It forces all of us to look not only at what we say about our responsibilities towards Aboriginal people but how they can be realised. We have not done enough. We must all recommit ourselves to work hard; not just to use this as an exercise to mark off a date in the parliamentary calendar but as a reminder of the obligation that weighs so heavily on every non-Indigenous Australian to accept that we are responsible for dispossession and that we are responsible with Aboriginal people, with our first nation Australians, for ensuring the gap is closed.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Much has been said in this debate which I'm not going to repeat. My contribution today is to bring to the table some input from the people in Indi—the importance of giving voice, self-determination, supporting leadership and making sure that we actually have accurate data.</para>
<para>As many colleagues in parliament know, many members of my community come to parliament as part of our Indi volunteer program. Today I'd like to acknowledge three of my volunteers, Catherine, Tracy and Luke. I would particularly like to acknowledge Catherine, who has provided much of the background for this speech that I'm going to give. I asked Catherine for input and I'll be using her words as I move through. She talks about her leadership, particularly her work with the Wodonga Aboriginal Network. She talks about the need to support young people in leadership and she also talks about the need for accurate data.</para>
<para>So let's start with data. There's general agreement within the Aboriginal community that the population data issued by the ABS significantly underestimates the Aboriginal population living in Albury-Wodonga. The 2016 data reports a combined total of approximately 113,000 people, with the Aboriginal population making up 2.6 per cent, or around 3,000 people, whereas anecdotal evidence from the community suggests there are about 4,000 people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background living in Albury-Wodonga. The significance of this is that the allocation of funds is based on population data, and our numbers are way short of what the reality is. So we really need to look at that.</para>
<para>I want to speak now in Catherine's words. I asked her to help me with my speech today. I asked her to introduce herself. As I move through I'll be using the personal pronoun 'I', as in Catherine's voice. 'So who am I? I am a proud Gunditjmara woman, a descendant of Susannah McDonald from the Lake Condah area of south-western Victoria. I've grown up and lived most of my life in the Wodonga Aboriginal community. I'd like to also acknowledge my father's English-Irish heritage and I believe having contributions from both worlds has provided me with the difficulties and challenges that living in both worlds can present.</para>
<para>'I, along with my sisters, Jacqueline, Lucy and Mary, attended local primary schools and high schools before studying a Bachelor of Behavioural Science, Psychology, at La Trobe University in Wodonga. I continued my education by completing a postgraduate Diploma of Psychology with Central Queensland University via distance education. I was employed with the Department of Human Services for over 10 years, before becoming a senior planner with the National Disability Insurance Scheme in July 2017.'</para>
<para>Catherine is still currently living in Wodonga with her husband, Ash, and her twin daughters, Charlotte and Maya. That is no small beginning in life. Catherine says she attributes her strong cultural connection to her mother, Aunty Judith Ahmat, a respected Aboriginal elder within the Wodonga community, and she's inspired by other local Aboriginal people, including Darren Moffitt, Aunty Liz Heta, Tammy Campbell and the local Koori young people she's connected with. She says, 'I have watched and listen to mum and influential aunties sitting around my kitchen table as we discuss local issues for as long as I can remember. I have a strong desire to fuel change, reduce racism, increase self-determination and close the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.' Catherine is currently on the board of Albury-Wodonga Aboriginal Health Services. She's a 2017 recipient of the Fellow of Indigenous Leadership, emerging leader, and she's current chairperson of the Wodonga Aboriginal Network.</para>
<para>I'd like briefly to talk of the Wodonga Aboriginal Network. It's one of 39 local Aboriginal networks operating in Victoria, made up of community volunteers. The network is a fantastic way to bring Aboriginal people together from many different nations within Australia. They are a strong and diverse community. The networks' participants support each other in a safe environment and they assist individuals and organisations to connect, share, learn and lead to improve outcomes for Aboriginal people. The network promotes self-determination and helps local people determine local priorities and develop local solutions. What a fantastic resource that is to a member of parliament.</para>
<para>The local network's current community plan has four main goals. These include reviving the Burraja Indigenous Cultural and Environmental Discovery Centre, supporting opportunities for young Aboriginal people, cross-border cooperation between Albury and Wodonga, and vice versa, and collaborating with other local Aboriginal networks to assist in progressing initiatives and programs at the regional level.</para>
<para>I'd like to speak briefly about some of these programs. The Burraja youth program is for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people between the ages of 10 and 15. It's designed to connect Koori young people to cultural local services and community, and to improve cultural identity. Over the last six months, the youth program has had 67 students enrolled over five programs, and has delivered 120 activities to participants. It's really working well and I'd like to acknowledge the committee: the co-chairpeople, Walter Melrose and Valda Murray; Liz Heta, who is the treasurer; Tammy Campbell, the secretary; and Mark Cottee as a mentor. I want to thank them for their work, and particularly Uncle Alan Murray and Brendan Kennedy for their work. The program is auspiced by Gateway Health Wodonga.</para>
<para>There are a number of other projects done by the Wodonga Aboriginal Network in partnership with the City of Wodonga and the Koori Youth Council. In 2016 they hosted the first Victorian BLACKOUT youth event. Yarning sessions were held to address three main topics: the need for stronger cultural connection, issues with drug and alcohol and the need for youth activities. As a direct result, the Wodonga Koori Youth Network was established. It works with young people living in Wodonga, supporting them to do the work that they need to do. Fantastic work!</para>
<para>Another work is the Mara Healing Possum Skin program. I think you'll love this one, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks! The aim of the Mara Healing Possum Skin pilot program is for families who have a family member diagnosed with a terminal illness to work through the grief they're experiencing when they have that diagnosis. A pilot workshop was held in 2017, and 21 community members participated. A possum skin sash was made up to help the family during their sorry business and for future ceremonies. We're currently seeking funding to take this project much wider. It's so powerful, and the little pieces that were made are now being put into a quilt which is going to be held in the Aboriginal Health Service. It's great work.</para>
<para>I'm conscious that my time to speak is running out and I want to use some more of Catherine's words. I asked her what her future vision is for the Albury-Wodonga Aboriginal community. She said: 'I have strong responsibility and obligation to ensure our culture is honoured with authenticity, and the Aboriginal communities across Indi are sustained with strong, recognised leaders. The key to this is to strengthen our families to ensure healthy communities.' Catherine's vision for the future includes a rise in self-determination and a decrease in racism.</para>
<para>She said, 'Self-determination is the key for us to make our own decisions about our needs and taking ownership of our own culture and future.' She said that, historically, this right has been taken away and that, as a result, her people have suffered greatly. She said, 'In order for self-determination to be fully effective, further development of skills needs to be implemented to assist with strong governance and decision-making.' How right she is.</para>
<para>She said that the young Aboriginal people in her community have a significant role to play in leading self-determination into the future. And, therefore, it is important to provide the new generation of emerging leaders with the skills and knowledge required to ensure her people succeed in moving forward. Catherine commits to working towards this goal with the support of the Wodonga Aboriginal Network and community leaders.</para>
<para>So, colleagues, what a strong and powerful call! And how proud I am to say that I am a representative of my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in north-east Victoria. I'd like to take the opportunity today to acknowledge, honour and thank them for all their work. I'd particularly like to acknowledge their patience and tolerance as they work with non-Indigenous people like me, who come with goodwill but who often need tutoring and care.</para>
<para>I finish my comments like many others today, by making a commitment to work with the leaders in the community, to do everything we can do within my community and within this nation to close the gap. I'd like to particularly acknowledge you and thank you, Catherine, and wish you well in your leadership journey.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
    <electorate>Lingiari</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It gives me great pride to be able to contribute to this discussion today. We saw earlier in the week the report to the parliament on the Closing the Gap targets and we heard eminent speeches from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We had a breakfast which, sadly, the Prime Minister failed to stay for and we had a wonderful opportunity just yesterday to see a great show of unity around the stolen generations—again, sadly, the Prime Minister wasn't present. I think that's indicative of some of the issues we're confronting here.</para>
<para>The Closing the Gap targets are to: close the gap in life expectancy by 2031, halve the gap in child mortality by 2018, have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025, close the gap in school attendance by the end of 2018, halve the gap in reading and numeracy for Indigenous students by 2018, halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 and halve the gap in employment by 2018. We know from the report that three of these targets are on track, which is a really good-news story. The target to halve child mortality is back on track. It had previously been on track and last year it fell off track, but, from 1998 to 2016, there's been a 32 per cent reduction in the gap in child mortality rates, and we are on track to halve those mortality rates by the end of this year. That's an important outcome. I want to pay tribute to all of those who are involved in that, particularly those involved in the primary healthcare networks across this country—most importantly, Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, who are a beacon as to what can be done when you work with local communities in addressing issues in those communities, including working on prevention.</para>
<para>The other targets, as we know, were commented on extensively by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The opposition has been proposing for some time now that there be an initial target around the question of justice. Sadly, this is yet to be picked up, but we understand that, as a result of the refresh of the Closing the Gap targets which is currently under way, it is very likely—we hope—that this target will be picked up, potentially along with others, but we are, most importantly, concerned that we address this justice target. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his contribution to this debate:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think most Australians would be surprised to learn that, in 1997, 20 per cent of the children in out-of-home care were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but today it is 35 per cent and growing.</para></quote>
<para>And he asked the question, 'How can this be?'—a relevant question to be asked. He went on to note the relationship between broken communities and the justice system, and he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's why Labor has listened to First Australians and long called for justice targets to reduce incarceration rates and improve community safety.</para></quote>
<para>I think that's a very important message to all of us.</para>
<para>A number of issues were raised this week in the debate around Closing the Gap, not all of which have addressed the Closing the Gap targets directly, but what I want to do is concentrate for a moment on some of the issues which are outside of the Closing the Gap targets but which are fundamental if we're ever to reach those targets. They are related to the social determinants of health in particular but also of other outcomes. How do we expect to have a healthy young child if we don't have adequate housing? I think it's a question which all health economists and those involved in prevention appreciate. Those addressing the highest rates of rheumatic heart disease in the world, which are in this country, understand that, if we don't address the housing problem, we're not going to address the health problems; and, if we don't address the health problems, we won't get the educational outcomes we're after. It is very simple, in my view.</para>
<para>Yet this week, we've had confirmed that this Prime Minister and his government have said that they will not renew the Commonwealth's commitment to the remote housing agreement. In the case of the Northern Territory, instead of matching the $1.1 billion stumped up by the Northern Territory government for the next 10 years, they are prepared to provide funding for two years only, transitioning out of supporting the Northern Territory community in the provision of remote area housing. In the case of Queensland and the other jurisdictions, they've said that the end of June this year will be the end of their relationship in terms of investment in those states for remote-area housing. That raises a very serious question about whether we will ever address all of those comprehensive Closing the Gap targets, because if we don't improve the housing outcomes for Aboriginal people in remote Australia we will not meet those targets. It's plain and simple.</para>
<para>The government says, 'We're concerned this is a state problem.' It is not a state problem. It's a national problem, and we as a parliament and as a country are embarrassed by the fact that this government has chosen to withdraw its support from the most needy community in the world—almost—in the context of housing and the prevention of diseases like rheumatic fever. If we don't provide support, we're going to see a continuing escalation of rheumatic heart disease, a continuing escalation of diabetes and renal failure, and a continuing escalation in the other health issues that confront Aboriginal people who live in remote parts of this country on a daily basis. You don't have to be Einstein to work this out. Most informed people in the community would be able to tell you that this is the inevitable outcome of the failure of the government to agree to be involved in that discussion.</para>
<para>Then we had what I think is probably one of the sorriest moments of this week: seeing the Prime Minister stand up in the parliament yesterday and reject, out of hand, the concept of a national voice emanating out of the Uluru statement.</para>
<para>An honourable member: His view.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SNOWDON</name>
    <name.id>IJ4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As my colleague reminds me, that is his view. But it's not a view which can be readily accepted, because what he's tried to do is say that, somehow or other, Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islander Australians are saying to the rest of us that they want an extra chamber of the parliament solely for them. That's what he's implying, and that is just plain wrong. What they are saying is that they want an advisory body to the government. We had one of these in the past. It was called ATSIC. It was shot down in flames by the Howard government—one of the first acts of the Howard government was to get rid of ATSIC. There were issues around ATSIC, there is no question about that, but it didn't need to be abolished—reformed, yes; abolished, no. Instead of working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around the country, what the Howard government did is what this government is doing, which is to say, 'We're not prepared to listen.' What they should be doing is sitting down with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and listening to what they are actually saying, as opposed to what the Prime Minister thinks they're saying.</para>
<para>It is not beyond the wit and wisdom of us in this parliament, as a national organisation responsible for the governance of this country, to work out with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, by sitting down and listening to them, what a voice to parliament—called something else, if you like—might look like. It could be built on the sort of thing that was proposed in the context of a reformed ATSIC, but it might be something entirely different. The Leader of the Opposition said in his statement to the parliament the other day:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It's time we took the Statement from the Heart into our hearts. It's time we worked together to deliver on its key recommendations: a voice enshrined in the Constitution; a declaration to be passed by all parliaments—Commonwealth and state—acknowledging the unique place of the first nations in Australian history, their culture and connection; and a Makarrata commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth telling.</para></quote>
<para>He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The truth is that the Statement from the Heart calls for what both sides of the House say they are committed to: genuine partnership with, not to; real empowerment; and solutions constructed by first nations people.</para></quote>
<para>As someone who's been here all but three decades, I say to this government and I say to the Prime Minister: instead of listening to selected voices, it's time you actually sat down and talked to Aboriginal people in a fair dinkum way, listened to what they have to say, understood the messages they're giving and did not interpret them in a way that is politically convenient to you. It's time to act truly and to properly represent the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this nation.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
    <electorate>Fenner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On Monday morning, I was privileged to attend the Deadly Fun Run, organised by the Indigenous Marathon Foundation's Indigenous Marathon Project to acknowledge Closing the Gap Week. The fun run was organised by Nadine Hunt of Cairns, Elsie Seriat of Thursday Island and Adrian Dodson-Shaw of Broome. Plenty of Canberra and Queanbeyan Deadly Runners showed up, including Cara Smith from last year's Indigenous Marathon Project squad. Cara is now leading a beginning running group in Queanbeyan which has proved extremely popular with local women and children who are looking after their own health and supporting Cara in her attempt to run the Berlin marathon in September. We were joined by Minister Scullion and Senator Ketter, and it was a pleasure and a privilege to run a lap of the lake with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. Other Indigenous runners who attended were 62-year-old Rhonda Woodward, who began running last September and is now aiming to complete her first 10-kilometre in April; 32-year-old Emma Towney, who started running to help deal with mental health issues and hopes to complete her first marathon this year; and William Poi, who has lost over 15 kilograms after joining Canberra Deadly Runners.</para>
<para>I've been a strong supporter of the Indigenous Marathon Project for several years now, since running the New York marathon with the squad in November 2015. I've been proud to wear the Indigenous Marathon Project supporter singlet in the Tokyo, Berlin, London, New York, Sydney, Canberra and Gold Coast marathons, and always feel that donning the IMP supporter singlet makes me run a little faster. It puts a little more energy back in tired legs.</para>
<para>I acknowledge the squad from last year who ran the New York marathon. The 10 runners who completed the race on 5 November 2017 were Luke Reidy of Perth, Zane Sparke of Port Macquarie, TJ Cora of Cairns, Roy Tilmouth of Alice Springs, Scott Cox of Broome, Layne Brown of Warilla, Allirra Winmar of Perth, Natasha Shires of Karratha, Maletta Seriat of Thursday Island and Cara Smith of Queanbeyan. As head coach Adrian Dodson-Shaw said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I selected these men and women for IMP because I saw in them the qualities of strength and resilience and the ability to lead by example.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I'm so excited for them. They've completed one of the hardest things you can put yourself through. It's very rewarding to see how proud and happy they are.</para></quote>
<para>I recognise, too, the leadership of Rob de Castella, still the Australian marathon record holder with his extraordinary two hours and seven minutes; Lucy Campbell; Nadine Hunt; and Kellie O'Sullivan, who has recently finished up at the Indigenous Marathon Project. I thank them all for the important work that IMP does in order to work on closing the gap.</para>
<para>But, overall, the picture on closing the gap is not a pleasing one. Since the Closing the Gap targets were formed in 2008, there has never been moment in which a majority of those targets were on track. I seek leave to have incorporated into <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> a table which shows from 2009 to 2018 whether particular targets have been on or off track.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The table read as follows—</inline></para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Fisher for providing leave on this occasion. This table shows that, for the period in which there were six targets up to 2014, we at best had three of the six targets on track. Since then, since the school attendance target was added in 2014, at best we've had three out of seven targets on track. Last year only one out of seven targets was on track, and that was the target to halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020. This year, we have three out of seven targets on track, but, as the House will note, the target to halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five by 2018 is only just on track, given that it was off track last year.</para>
<para>The target to ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities by 2013 is on track this year, but there was no data available last year. Throughout the period that it has been a target, the target to halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2018 has not once been on track. The same is true of the target to close the life expectancy gap within a generation. Either it has not been on track or there was no available data.</para>
<para>So, as a nation, we have performed poorly in closing the gap, and it is only right for Indigenous Australians that we acknowledge this underperformance. The right response to that is not to lower the targets. As the Leader of the Opposition said in speaking to the Deadly fun-runners as we were about to set off on Monday morning, you don't deal with a tough race by moving the finish line a little closer. The marathon is an extraordinary effort, but no marathon runner worth their salt should be saying: 'Well, 42.195 kilometres is a bit tough. I'm feeling the pain in my legs. I think we'll just say 35 kilometres makes a marathon.'</para>
<para>An honourable member: As much as they would like to.</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr LEIGH</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As much as they would like to, as the honourable member notes. As my friend Andrew Dodd likes to note, there's no such thing as a full marathon; there is simply a marathon. There is no such thing as lower Closing the Gap targets; there should only be the Closing the Gap targets.</para>
<para>The member for Lingiari, in addressing the issue of life expectancy in his speech, noted the most recent Indigenous life expectancy figures, published in late 2013, still show a gap of 10.6 years for men and 9.5 years for women. The reduction in the gap between the periods 2005-07 and 2010-12 was only small: 0.8 years for men and 0.1 years for women, suggesting that that gap still remains at about a decade, suggesting Indigenous men and women still die a decade before non-Indigenous men and women—that they enjoy 10 fewer Christmases, 10 fewer birthdays of their friends and family, 10 fewer years on this planet—and that's simply not good enough. Chronic disease remains the leading cause of mortality, with the second-highest leading cause being cancer, of which lung cancer is the leading cause of cancerous death. It is rising and the gap is widening.</para>
<para>The opposition announced that we will put in place a national healing fund, applying to ACT and the Jervis Bay territory. The announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition, along with the member for Barton, Linda Burney, Senator Pat Dodson, Senator Malarndirri McCarthy and the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, was that a Labor government would provide stolen generations survivors in the Jervis Bay territory and the ACT with one-off ex gratia payments of $75,000, and $7,000 for funeral expenses. This is clearly an important announcement for my constituents, as I represent half the ACT and all of Jervis Bay. These are communities of great strength and resilience, with a legacy that is almost unimaginable to European settlers. We should honour and treasure that legacy, and these payments are an appropriate response to the trauma that was inflicted through the stolen generations.</para>
<para>A national healing fund will be set up to deal with intergenerational trauma caused by childhood dislocations, with a summit held on first nation children. As the Leader of the Opposition noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The traumatic effects of forced removal and separation from families, communities and culture have been severe and long-lasting for the Stolen Generations and their descendants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The fund will be administered by the Healing Foundation—an Indigenous-run organisation that supports the ongoing needs of the Stolen Generations with services such as counselling, family reunion, return to country, and support for elderly survivors.</para></quote>
<para>I have covered a range of topics in this speech, but closing the gap must remain a core focus for any Australian government. It is a vital performance metric, and the Closing the Gap targets must never be weakened.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today we're taking note of the Prime Minister's annual report on the Closing the Gap targets. I'd like to open my contribution by joining with the member for Cunningham in paying tribute to the life of the late Aunty Agnes Donovan. Unfortunately, neither the member for Cunningham nor myself can attend her funeral in Wollongong today because of our parliamentary responsibilities. We send our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Aunty Agnes. She was a much-loved elder within our community.</para>
<para>She was well respected as a member of the local community in the Shellharbour Aboriginal Community Youth Association, where she served as the chairperson of that organisation for many, many years. She always stood up for what she believed in and dedicated her life to closing the gap for Aboriginal people. In her role as the chair of SACYA, she implemented a range of programs helping disadvantaged Aboriginal families and young people, including the alternative learning centre for disengaged Aboriginal high school students. The aim of that program was to ensure that at-risk kids stayed engaged and stayed at school.</para>
<para>She has been a longstanding member of the Shellharbour Aboriginal Advisory Committee and worked on the council's Aboriginal employment strategy, which included the cultural heritage management assessment toolkit. She also worked with the Bass Point Interpretive Centre working group. She has made a tremendous contribution, not only to the Aboriginal community on the south coast and the Illawarra but to the broader community in our electorates. And we pass on our sincerest condolences to her daughter, Emma, her sons, Todd and PJ, and the many grandchildren that she loved and doted on. We thank you, the family, for sharing your mother, your grandmother, with us.</para>
<para>The Closing the Gap targets were established by the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2008. We are 10 years on. In 2018 the report has found that only three of the seven targets are on track to be met. These targets include halving the gap in child mortality rate by 2018, having 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025, and halving the gap in year 2 attainment by 2020. These three targets are on track. Nothing that I say hereafter should take away from the fact that these achievements should be celebrated. It is unequivocally a good thing.</para>
<para>However, if we look at the targets that have not yet been achieved, we still have a lot of work to do. Over the long term, between 1998 and 2016, the Indigenous child mortality rate has declined by 35 per cent. That is a great thing. We've also been narrowing the gap by 32 per cent. Improvements in the key drivers of child and maternal health over the past years suggest that there are significant gains that can be made. I'll have something to say in a moment about addressing the rates of smoking within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the benefits that can be gained if we are only able to bring those rates down to the background rates in the general community.</para>
<para>In the area of early childhood education, in 2016, 14,700 Indigenous children or 91 per cent were enrolled in early childhood programs. Again, that is a great thing. We should celebrate that. Nationally, the proportion of Indigenous 20- to-24-year olds who have achieved year 12 or equivalent increased from 47 per cent in 2006 to 65 per cent. The gap has narrowed some 12.6 per cent.</para>
<para>We can pause for a moment and say these are good things, but let's focus on the work that is yet to be done. The target to close the gap in school attendance is not on track. Overall, attendance in 2017 for Indigenous students was 83 per cent compared to 93 per cent for non-Indigenous students—a lot of rhetoric but not a lot of achievement on this important target. The target to halve the gap in reading and numeracy attainments by 2018 is also not on track. The target to halve the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. Indigenous unemployment has fallen slightly over the decade, but far more needs to be done. In 2016, the Indigenous employment rate was 46 per cent compared to 71 per cent for non-Indigenous Australians. The target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track. Between the periods 2005-07 and 2010-12, there was only a small reduction of only 0.8 years for males and 0.1 years for females.</para>
<para>We don't have to look far to find some of the causes for this. Can I say, in a bipartisan manner, that nobody expected that we were going to make immediate gains in the first one or two or three years of establishing these targets. But that is, indeed, why you set yourself long-term targets and measure them on a year-by-year basis, to ensure that we are making progress. Last week the Closing the Gap campaign released its 10-year review of the Closing the Gap progress. It found that the aim of achieving health parity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians by 2030 was effectively abandoned after five years—it was effectively abandoned after five years. The report highlighted that the government's $530 million cut to Indigenous affairs and programs in the 2014 budget had a material impact on this nation's ability to meet those objectives.</para>
<para>I said a moment ago that, if we could just focus on one area for a moment to achieve some of those gains, particularly in health outcomes, we could address the smoking rates in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and bring them down to the background rates in the general communities. We know that this is possible if we look at some of the areas where they have achieved this successfully. In the Darug community in Western Sydney, intensive programs invested in over a long term have seen a significant drop in the smoking rates, particularly the maternal smoking rates, in the Aboriginal community in Western Sydney. But, when the government seeks to congratulate itself, as it did this week, for reintroducing an anti-smoking program that it had cut in 2014—it axed an anti-smoking program in 2014 and it now seeks applause for reintroducing that program this year—we cannot do anything but criticise the government for what has been an appalling record in this area. If we want to do something about the life expectancy rates and we want to do something about the low birth-weight rate in infants, this is one program that, if invested in over a long period of time, can make a significant difference.</para>
<para>I want to say one final thing about the relationship between this government and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I have no doubt that, in his heart, the Prime Minister wants to do the right thing, but, when you commission a process that resulted in the Uluru Statement from the Heart and had significant support right across the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community about a way forward on reconciliation between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the rest of the country, and you reject that statement out of hand, by way of press release, and do not even have the courage to stand up and explain to the community why you did that, is it any wonder that the community is deeply sceptical of this government's commitment to the project ahead?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to also note the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap report and the Leader of the Opposition's excellent response, in particular the commitment, as we've heard here from other speakers, to have a system of reparations for those members of the Stolen Generation from both the Northern Territory and the ACT, who were the responsibility of the Commonwealth during that period, so that that part of our history is addressed. It is excellent that we've had some progress on some of the targets, as we have already heard. However, I must, by way of representing the Northern Territory, say that we are not on track to close the gap in early childhood education, school attendance, reading and numeracy, employment or life expectancy.</para>
<para>Indigenous children make up close to 80 per cent of the child mortalities in the Northern Territory, making it the worst rate in the country. That sets a bit of a benchmark for priorities in our society. If we have infants dying at such a high rate in those communities, it does speak to the widening gap. It is a real issue in the Northern Territory. In regard to Indigenous school attendance, the rate of Indigenous kids going to school in the Northern Territory fell. In 2014 it was 70 per cent of Indigenous kids going to school, and last year, in 2017, it was down to 66 per cent, so that's fewer Indigenous kids going to school.</para>
<para>Initially, it was encouraging that the Minister for Indigenous Affairs and senator for the NT, Nigel Scullion, said that he would match the NT government's record commitment to funding remote housing. However, after the Prime Minister's intervention, he's had to backflip on that. That is disappointing because housing is such an important enabler of healthy communities, families and lives. Education will improve if housing improves. So in terms of the Commonwealth's commitment, instead of backing away from the Northern Territory, we want to see the federal government step up and do more. Housing and land servicing is important, and I call on the Prime Minister to make a serious commitment in that area.</para>
<para>I also want to mention that the Turnbull government's response to the NT royal commission has, unfortunately, been totally inadequate. The protection and detention of Australia's young people is a national issue and a national responsibility. These are young kids we're talking about. They need and deserve better, especially from the federal government that called the royal commission in the first place.</para>
<para>I'll say this in a spirit of bipartisanship, but the Prime Minister must understand that national leadership includes looking beyond the harbour side view to the broad horizons of our country, and that includes, obviously, the Northern Territory—one-sixth of the Australian landmass. I encourage him to listen to the experts in the field and to show some real commitment so we can see some real progress on the ground in the Northern Territory in relation to these targets.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BUSINESS</title>
        <page.no>138</page.no>
        <type>BUSINESS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Rearrangement</title>
          <page.no>138</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That business intervening before order of the day No. 10, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>139</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standing Committee on Economics</title>
          <page.no>139</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>139</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms MADELEINE KING</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
    <electorate>Brand</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the <inline font-style="italic">Review of the four major banks (third report) </inline>conducted by the House Standing Committee on Economics. I was a member of this committee and participated in two of these reviews. I'd like to thank my colleagues the member for Kingsford Smith and the member for Burt and those members opposite who were part of the committee, and also the secretariat for all of their efforts in conducting not only this review but all the work that the House Standing Committee on Economics undertakes.</para>
<para>I also participated in briefings with the Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Philip Lowe, and in hearings with Dr Lowe and his very able team: Dr Guy Debelle, Deputy Governor; Dr Luci Ellis, Assistant Governor (Economics); and Ms Michelle Bullock, Assistant Governor (Financial System); among others. The Reserve Bank is a very important institution providing central bank services, and is a touchstone of the Australian economy. The RBA performs this work ably and professionally, and I thank the Reserve Bank and all of their staff for all of their efforts.</para>
<para>As a member of the economics committee, I also had the entirely unedifying experience of witnessing government members attack industry super funds in public hearings with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and ASIC. It was staggering to see the government attack those superannuation funds, which have been the best-performing super funds in the country over decades. Industry super funds are respected, trusted and embraced by their members because of their exceptional and consistent performance. They deliver lower administration fees and higher returns, as well as delivering the best value for money for Australian workers and their hard-earned money, which will support them in their retirement. This is what the government wants to attack. By virtue of my former employment for over a decade at a university, I'm a member of an industry super fund—UniSuper. Like most members of industry super funds, I'm very happy. Returns are good and management is excellent. This is what the government wants to attack.</para>
<para>With regards to the review of the four major banks, it was remarkable to witness this government dig their heels in, oppose the royal commission and get down to the business of protecting their powerful friends in the banks. This government, ridiculously, said that this review would sufficiently address any and all concerns held by victims of malpractice in the banking sector and lead to a more open and transparent culture in what has fast become one of the most scandal-ridden industries in Australia. As a member of the standing committee reviewing the four major banks, and after participating in the second and third hearings of these reviews, it was clear this was not happening, and it just highlighted the farcical nature of the whole process.</para>
<para>This is reflected in the dissenting report from Labor members of the committee—the member for Kingsford Smith, the member for Burt and me—that shows just how much we disagreed with the whole thing from the outset, and just how imbalanced the whole process was in the economics committee. It was dominated by government members who are utterly out of touch with the victims of bad behaviour by the banks—they are either out of touch or they are hamstrung by their party. Members had 10 to 20 minutes only to question the most powerful business executives in this country, to assess and to try and work through myriad of issues in what is a complex and highly secretive industry. It was clearly not enough, and this was evident throughout every hearing and every question that was asked.</para>
<para>Finally, Labor has dragged the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to a royal commission. We have consistently called for a royal commission, but it took a letter from the old mates at the banks to bring it on. But even now it seems it won't go far enough, and there are already glaring holes in the submissions process, not least of all the lack of information about how the commission will allow for public submissions, given that everyday Australians are the most affected by this. And I must congratulate the ACTU for setting up a website very quickly to collect individual stories of the victims. This Liberal royal commission already echoes all the fatal weaknesses of the review that has preceded it—padding up the banks and preparing them for a soft landing. Make no mistake: the big four knew that this was coming, and the last 12 months has been an exercise in preparation and anticipation of the day they knew would come. I even asked each executive during the hearing if, in fact, they knew a royal commission was inevitable. I was given a mix of responses, including one from Mr Ian Narev, formerly of CBA, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If there were to be any other forums—in parliament, royal commissions or whatever they might be—we would be prepared to come and do what we do here, which is talk about what we're doing and talk about what we can do better.</para></quote>
<para>There's a lot they can do better. I received a similar response from Ms Catherine Livingstone, the Chair of the CBA, when asking about preparations in the boardroom. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I think the conversation around the board is on the extent of the regulatory environment and also the intersection with community expectations …</para></quote>
<para>Communication expectations? I bet the community didn't expect the CBA to facilitate money laundering by criminal gangs right around this country.</para>
<para>The letter produced to the Prime Minister only a few months later from the big four banks only confirmed my suspicions and, frankly, the very obvious fact that these banks have been preparing for a royal commission for some time. They had got their ducks in a row, preparing the terms of reference. All these circumstances serve to undermine a royal commission before it has even started.</para>
<para>These banks need a royal commission to re-establish accountability and public confidence. That much is true and that much they admit. The most profitable industry in Australia is also the most scandalous with the largest of these corporate scandals currently playing out in the Australian courtrooms with the CBA under money laundering allegations from AUSTRAC to the tune of some $600 million. Other allegations include: failure to report transactions of $10,000 or more on some 53,000 occasions in three years; failure to calculate interest on offset accounts for home loans; 8,600 customers receiving poor financial advice over nine years; allegations of unpaid super to part-time employees; inadequate systems and controls for inappropriate conduct as identified by ASIC; ongoing fees when not providing a service to customers; misappropriation of funds from clients; and exorbitant ATM fees. These are just some of the allegations engulfing the sector as set out in the Labor report. I could go on and on.</para>
<para>In the first two reports, Labor members made one recommendation only, that the government:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… take responsibility, stop defending the banks and establish the systematic, thorough and transparent investigation that only a Royal Commission can provide.</para></quote>
<para>Unlike the recommendations made by the government members on the committee, which have largely been ignored, Labor's single recommendation, a royal commission, has been adopted by the government. This is clearly a vote of confidence in the Labor opposition, and I thank the government for its support. Sadly, yet surprisingly, it is a half-hearted, insipid and lacklustre attempt at holding this bank industry to account. As it stands, it is unlikely to restore public confidence in institutions which are at the centre of the Australian economy and which should have treated Australians with greater respect than they have.</para>
<para>In the third report on the banks review by Labor members, we've recommended to the government that, if this royal commission is to go ahead, it must appoint more commissioners to deal with the royal commission's workload and extend the terms of reference of the royal commission to include the matters that Labor has been calling for. These include: looking at the culture of the banks and executive remuneration; consultation with banking victims groups; protection for whistleblowers; regulation or oversight and the overall regulatory architecture of the banking system; and the conduct of liquidators where this relates to the financial services sector Finally, Labor recommends removing the term:</para>
<quote><para class="block">And, the Commission may choose not to inquire into certain matters otherwise within the scope of this Inquiry, but any such decision will be the Commission’s, alone.</para></quote>
<para>That's the get-out-of-jail-free card for the banks. Then and only then is it possible that this royal commission can retain some semblance of propriety, due process and validity to combat the rising tide of malpractice and malfeasance of the four major banks in this country.</para>
<para>Once again, I'd like to thank the secretariat of the House Standing Committee on Economics for the extraordinary work they do and for the preparation they do to help all members of the committee in preparing for all the reviews that we do. And thank you very much for the support of members who were on the committee with me. I thank the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to rise and to have the opportunity to speak on our—the House Standing Committee on Economics—ongoing inquiry into the banks.</para>
<para>One thing I'd like to comment on about the royal commission that's been called is that I have some concern that many members of the Labor Party have given false hope to many people who will try to appear before the royal commission—that they think they can get some compensation. The entire problem, or the vast amount of problems that we've seen in the banking sector, is simply that our legal system does not give the victim of banking malpractice a fair crack. That is the fundamental problem. Someone who is in a business circumstance and who has a dispute with their bank simply does not have true access to justice because of the high legal costs.</para>
<para>That's why the most important thing that the coalition is doing is establishing a tribunal that will level the playing field somewhat. That will give an opportunity to someone who feels or believes that their bank has engaged in unconscionable, or misleading or deceptive conduct, or has broken some contractual term of their arrangement, to take their dispute to a tribunal and to have that dispute heard without undue cost to them. That is what will solve the problem. I'm sure that, when the royal commission finally hands down their report, that will be one of the strong recommendations they'll make.</para>
<para>But, just getting back to some of the last bank inquiry hearings, one of the things I have great concern about is that the banks have engaged in a form of political correctness to try to shadow away many of the things they've been doing. I will go to a couple of examples. Firstly, it's the National Australia Bank and the testimony of their CEO, Mr Thorburn. I asked him a question:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… you put out a press release in 2015 saying that you weren't going to loan any funds to the Carmichael coalmine. At that time, had you been approached for any loans for that project?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Mr Thorburn: I don't think so …</para></quote>
<para>I continued:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… but you put out a press release saying that you wouldn't loan them the funds.</para></quote>
<para>What we had there was the situation where one of the large banks put out a press release that they were not lending money to a certain project when they'd never even been approached. Now, that has to do commercial damage to that project. This is a foreign investor that comes into our country, that has already spent billions of dollars and that is already employing hundreds of Australians in real jobs, and we have one of the big banks issuing a press release saying they are not going to lend to them, which damages their commercial reputation, yet without that investor even approaching that bank. I don't think that conduct is good enough and I don't think it's responsible, given the significant reliance that our nation has on foreign investment. That was the National Australia Bank.</para>
<para>And they continued. Before Christmas, they put out what I can only describe as an 'ecopopulist voodoo statement', where they said they would no longer finance any new thermal coal mining projects. Surely, it's the banks' responsibility to weigh up the commercial viability of someone who approaches them for a loan and to make a decision on that basis? The banks should not be making a decision on what is politically correct at a certain period in time. The banks may well argue, 'There's no extra demand for thermal coal.' But, last year, we saw thermal coal prices up by over one-third. We saw our exports of thermal coal to Japan jump 50 per cent. We saw China's consumption of coal up 5.2 per cent. We've seen the International Energy Agency forecast that the demand for coal will increase between 2016 and 2022 by 300 million tonnes. We only export 200 million tonnes of thermal coal from Australia, and the International Energy Agency says that demand will increase by 300 million tonnes.</para>
<para>Industry experts are talking about the prospects for thermal coal. MineLife's Gavin Wendt said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">There is a very healthy price outlook for thermal coal.</para></quote>
<para>The New Hope Group chief executive said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We're seeing strong demand for higher quality Australian thermal coal in Asia, and that is what's driving the price.</para></quote>
<para>It goes on and on. There is simply no reason, other than trying to appease a politically correct attitude in this nation, that the National Bank would put out such a statement. This shows, above all, why it is a very good thing to have a royal commission in this nation</para>
<para>And it didn't stop there. In the press release the National Bank put out they went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">An orderly approach to the low carbon transition is critical to ensure Australians can continue to have access to secure, reliable and affordable energy and support our economy.</para></quote>
<para>Hang on—'to continue to have access to affordable energy'? Do any of these bank executives actually open their electricity bills? Do any of these bank executives live in South Australia, where they have the highest electricity prices not only in the nation but in the entire world? They put out a press release saying, 'Continue to have access to affordable energy.' This shows that the executives of the National Bank are clearly out of touch with what is happening in the Australian economy. It shows that they are clearly out of touch with the economic needs of our nation going forward. To put out such a statement defies belief and shows why the decision for a royal commission should be supported.</para>
<para>But it didn't finish there. We also had the same thing from the other banks. We had the ANZ make the decision to put out a press release saying that they wouldn't finance a thermal coal station if it had an emissions intensity of over 800 grams per kilowatt hour. How can a bank make such a decision? Surely it has to weigh it up against the economics and the investment parameters rather than setting these artificial limits? It's the same thing with the Commonwealth Bank. The Commonwealth also put out a statement saying that they, 'wouldn't be loaning any funds and wouldn't consider a loan to the Carmichael coalmine in Queensland'. But, yet again, they had no responses asking them for a loan. How can we have our banks trying to mirror some of this anticoal rhetoric that we see in our community? They're just trying to cover up some of their misdeeds and to create a good feeling about some of their policies.</para>
<para>Our inquiries into the banking sector will continue with a House committee. There are still many issues we need to resolve, but, most importantly, we need to get the tribunal right. We need to ensure that if someone has a dispute with their bank they can take that dispute to a competent tribunal without the risk of being run over by legal costs and time, because that is the current system that we have. When a bank has had a dispute with someone and the person has said, 'I'll take you to the Supreme Court,' the bank would just laugh at them. It is that mismatch of power in our legal system that has caused the problems in our banking sector. I hope that with the policies of this government on our tribunal, and with the input of the royal commission, that this is something we can address so Australian entrepreneurs can go out there, risk their capital and try new business ideas, knowing that if something goes wrong with their bank they have the right to a fair hearing in a dispute.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:50</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for coal—I mean, the member for Hughes—for being able to make nearly all of his speech about coal while discussing a report from the economics committee's inquiry into banking, and in particular for introducing us to the term 'eco-populist voodoo' economics. That's the quote of the day right there, member for Hughes.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Craig Kelly interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Coming back to the main point about the banking inquiry, which our committee has been dealing with, the genesis of this inquiry—and we have now handed down our third report—was the work of the banks in managing to increase interest rates on Australian consumers out of cycle with the rates being set by the Reserve Bank. One of the critical things that have come out through the work of the economics committee to date has been the high degree of profitability of our banking sector and how much money our banks are making out of the Australian consumer. While many of us are paying for this, critically it is not all of us. In fact, many parts of Australian society do not benefit in superannuation that may flow from those profits in our banks; some of us have but many people haven't. In the meantime, nearly all members of Australian society are paying for those profits through their use of banking. Of course, in the 21st century, it is almost impossible to maintain an existence in Australian society without paying banks interest rates or fees.</para>
<para>At the same time, the committee has had to grapple with a litany of historical and sometimes current scandals in the banking sector. We have the AUSTRAC scandal with the Commonwealth Bank. We've had the subsequent removal of ATM fees by major banks. It would appear they only did that once one moved. They were quite happy to continue to gouge Australian consumers for as long as possible. We've had the ongoing bank bill swap rate saga, where a number of banks have settled but there was litigation recently commenced by ASIC against the Commonwealth Bank. And of course we now have the government's announcement of the clayton's royal commission into banking.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth Bank, which seems to have been the focus of so much of this scandal, is not alone. Westpac have been accused of having the highest interest rates on their liar loans, which is not surprising after the ABC's <inline font-style="italic">Four Corners</inline> program found that lending staff were expected to complete between six and nine home loan requests per week. If targets were exceeded, staff could earn bonuses of $6,000 a quarter, but current and former bank staff said that if they didn't meet the lending targets, they were performance-managed out of the bank.</para>
<para>Last year ANZ paid over $43 million of an estimated total of over $52 million in compensation for failing to provide general or personal financial advice to customers whilst charging them ongoing advice fees regardless. ASIC has also banned a number of financial advisers, including from millennium3 Financial Services, after it was discovered it that it was ultimately owned by ANZ Bank. The NAB has also paid $25 million in compensation to victims of dodgy financial advice. A number of NAB advisers have also been banned by ASIC, including former financial planner Patrick Mitchell, who was later sentenced to eight years in jail.</para>
<para>The member for Hughes has referred to the government's proposal, now with legislation going through the parliament, for a financial complaints tribunal, trying to bring together some of the disparate tribunals in this sector. But it is not in any way a panacea to the issues we are seeing in the banking sector, nor is it able to help consumers. At the end of the day, 'tribunal' is a misnomer for this body. It is not in any way going to have independence from the sector. It's paid for by the sector, it's set up by the sector and it doesn't have force of law. It is effectively a contractual body, and that is a fundamental failing in the regulatory regime that we have in Australia.</para>
<para>As the Productivity Commission has very recently pointed out, there are also significant gaps in the regulation of the Australian financial services sector. You can't fix the banks, in particular the culture of the banking sector, without making sure our regulatory regime creates the proper environment. This is particularly important when we realise that the financial service regulator and the financial regulation environment in Australia have been expressly excluded from the terms of reference of the banking royal commission. In that regard, as in so many ways, the government's response to the issues we're finding in the banking sector through the inquiries being conducted by the economics committee and many other bodies is entirely inadequate.</para>
<para>The government has proceeded with the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, the BEAR, which I should point out was actually a Labor recommendation from this committee. However, what the government has put forward is much more teddy bear than grizzly bear, because, unlike the UK scheme which it is based on, the Australian regime only looks at the issue of prudential regulation, having vested administration of this regime with APRA. Of course, all of the scandals I mentioned before and many others have primarily been consumer facing. The consumer regulator, ASIC, is not going to be involved in the BEAR regime at all. If you think about it, the mantra 'profit at any cost' that we've seen from the banks is hardly going to cause a prudential problem, so one really wonders what it is that the government was thinking. Or is this again just a bit of paint over the top to make it look like the government is doing something?</para>
<para>In every report that this committee has handed down, the Labor members of the committee have said to the government: 'We must see the establishment of a banking royal commission.' This has been Labor's position for quite some time. The government has resisted this for years, but, finally, having been instructed by the banks that they would like a royal commission and being provided by the banks with terms of reference that they could live with, the government acceded to the calls that the Australian public have made for so long and announced that it will hold a royal commission. Of course, it has announced a royal commission that has a great deal of breadth in its terms of reference yet manages to exclude things like the regulatory environment, but it has also provided the royal commission with only 12 months in which to do its job of covering all of these matters that need to be investigated. We'll have an interim report handed down in September and a final report in December. The royal commission will cover matters which have seen over a dozen inquiries run in this parliament alone into different aspects of the banking sector over a large number of years and yet, remarkably, the government thinks it can wrap all of this up in a royal commission lasting 12 months. My hope is that as this economics committee continues its inquiry into the banking sector we can look at some of the areas that the royal commission is seemingly excluded from going into, areas such as the regulatory regime.</para>
<para>The other big failure of this royal commission so far, which I hope to see it rectify, is that whilst the banks have said that they will allow their employees to breach their contractual confidentiality requirements in providing evidence, which is only fair, given that the law requires that, there is at the moment no method for confidential submissions to be provided to the royal commission. Confidential submissions are quite different from anonymous submissions. Confidential submissions would allow the royal commission to know who has made the submission and to follow up on the information that has been provided to it. We have a large number of players in the banking sector that are not employees of the banks. In particular, there are a large number of consultants, whether they are the big four banking accounting firms or other specialist advisers to the banks. They have information and have positive ideas about how we can improve the banking sector in Australia, but because of the work that they do there is no way that they can put themselves on the record to the royal commission by name. There needs to be a way for them to be able to provide that inside knowledge, that expertise, to this royal commission so that it can look at how we can improve the banking sector here in Australia.</para>
<para>I suppose one thing at least has been achieved out of the inquiries that have been conducted by the economics committee to date. After I pointed out that the CommBank CEO was paid double that of Westpac's, the new CommBank CEO is starting on a much reduced remuneration package. Maybe that reflects that the banks are starting to listen to what the Australian public are telling them: 'You're doing a bad job; you can't keep ripping us off.'</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 16 : 02</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>143</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Walker, Mr Ronald Joseph, AC, CBE</title>
          <page.no>143</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to comment, albeit briefly, on Ron Walker's passing. Ronald Joseph Walker was a great doyen of the Melbourne establishment, a great Liberal, a businessman and a successful promoter of sport and culture in Melbourne. I first met Ron Walker in about 1989 or 1990 when I was on the federal executive of the Liberal Party as the federal vice-president of the Young Liberal Movement. Of course, the president was Marise Payne, who's now the Minister for Defence, and I'm now the Minister for Defence Industry—we have mirrored each other throughout our careers. Ron Walker was legendary in Melbourne and in Australia but also overseas, particularly in the UK. He was a great promoter. He was an activist, an advocate for his city and his state, a great successful businessman, a self-made man and a spruiker for his home town.</para>
<para>He did more than anyone between 1983 and 1996 to keep the Liberal Party alive as a political force. Over that time, in those 13 years, we had a number of changes of leaders and we lost several elections and we almost won a couple. One of the constant attributes of that period was that the organisation of the Liberal Party was very healthy and maintained its health with federal presidents and federal executives who ensured that we could run campaigns and hold the Hawke and then the Keating government to account. One of the main reasons that that happened was the finances that Ron Walker attracted to the Liberal Party of the time. As we all know, in opposition it's very hard to raise money; it's much easier in government. Without finances for campaigning, you can't really run the kinds of campaigns that the Australian public expect. Much has changed since 1996 in terms of fundraising and disclosure laws et cetera. They are good changes that should have happened. Ron Walker, as the treasurer of the Liberal Party throughout that period, did more than almost anyone else that I can think of to ensure that we had the finances that were necessary. He attracted the largest donation to a political party in the history of the Commonwealth up till that time, which was only surpassed by the donation to the Liberal Party by the current Prime Minister at the last federal election. The donation was from the United Kingdom. He worked very hard in the Thatcher government to convince businesses in Britain that had interests in Australia that having a strong opposition on the non-Labor side and a non-Labor government eventually—the Liberal Party and National Party government of John Howard—was important enough for them to take an interest in Australian politics. That was an achievement all its own. He supported and loved the Australian Liberal Party.</para>
<para>He was a great friend of many of my friends: Andrew Peacock, Michael Kroger, Peter Reith and, particularly, people like Jeff Kennett. These are the people in Victoria who have transformed Melbourne over the nineties, noughties and teens. They have completely transformed the economy of Victoria. They decided that after the Cain-Kirner period, when Victoria was in up pretty bleak place economically, they would change and modernise Melbourne. Melbourne is now the fastest growing of all the capital cities. In fact, on the current projections, it is expected that Melbourne will surpass Sydney and be our largest city in the decades in the future. Of course, in the early part of the 20th century it was the largest city in Australia and one of the largest cities in the British Empire. So Melbourne was transformed by these men, and women like them, who invested in sport, stadiums and competitions. Unfortunately, they stole the grand prix from Adelaide, where the grand prix had been lured, but that's competition and that's what happens. They have done a great job with the grand prix. Many of the great sporting events that we love in Australia, whether it's the AFL grand final or the Australian Open tennis, are placed in Melbourne. They had been of course for a long time, but these gentlemen—people like Ron Walker—made them into blockbuster events, like the Melbourne Cup, that put Australia on the map. They could see the transformative nature of sport, arts and culture. Melbourne therefore owes him a great deal, and Australian politics owes him a great deal. We are the people who get to be elected to parliament, which as we all know is a great privilege and a great honour, and we all work very hard in preselections and then in general elections to get here, but the people behind us are critically important to the health of the polity. Ron Walker was one of those people who contributed very much to the health of Australian politics, whether it's on the Labor Party side or the Liberal Party side.</para>
<para>On a personal level, he was an unfailingly courteous, polite and engaging personality. He was very tall, very imposing, with a tremendous mane of hair. For a young person he was somewhat intimidating, but he defused that because he was unfailingly courteous. He was very generous and very encouraging of young people. He was very encouraging of me. As a Victorian Liberal he would probably be closer to my position on the political spectrum than many others, although you certainly wouldn't have described him as a leftie under any circumstances. But he was very encouraging of young people in the Liberal Party. He saw us very much as the future and that they needed to be nurtured.</para>
<para>He would go to the trouble, which I know is quite old-fashioned these days, of writing handwritten notes to me to congratulate me on speeches or lectures, like the Menzies lecture I gave a few years ago, or even after a performance on <inline font-style="italic">Q&A</inline> or <inline font-style="italic">Insiders</inline><inline font-style="italic">.</inline> Not necessarily sharing our political viewpoints, <inline font-style="italic">Q&A</inline> can be quite torrid for Liberal and National members of the government. He would write me short hand-written notes saying he'd watched me the other day and was very impressed. It was a very touching thing for someone to do. I do it myself when I can. It's old-fashioned and there is something very special about it. He did that even when he was very ill.</para>
<para>His last great campaign was against cancer. He was claimed by cancer, but for six years he fought it. I saw him many times during that period, but a couple of times I saw him when he looked very much close to death's door, and I thought, 'Ron's in bad shape.' But he would come back; he would fight back. After six years, sadly, he was finally claimed, and has gone to God.</para>
<para>I do wish his family every condolence. To Barbara, and Candice, Joanna and Campbell: you should be very proud of your husband and father. I, as a friend of Ron, was very proud to be able to call him a friend. He very much encapsulates the final lines of the poem by Tennyson called Ulysses, which is very well known, but I will read it into the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline><inline font-style="italic">:</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">We are not now that strength which in old days</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">One equal temper of heroic hearts,</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield</para></quote>
<para>I thank the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>145</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>145</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>145</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to make a few short comments on this committee report. I might start by congratulating the chair and deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs in particular and the remaining members of the committee on their work in reaching a consensus position in relation to their report on family violence in family law proceedings.</para>
<para>This is a deeply important issue, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz. The former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia said that, in about 41 per cent of contested family law cases, family violence is a feature. That's 41 per cent of cases in which domestic and family violence is an issue in the proceedings. That means that we have to be very cognisant of the impact of family law proceedings on both the perpetrators and the victims and survivors of family violence. Of course, in the latter category I would include children and former spouses.</para>
<para>The report does a good job of going through a range of the issues that arise in respect of the way that family law proceedings are conducted in the Federal Circuit Court and the Family Court of Australia—and the Family Court of Western Australia, for those people who are in the west. It does raise a number of concerns and issues in respect of the way that those proceedings can have an impact on, as I said, victims and survivors on the one hand and perpetrators on the other. But there are a few issues that I particularly want to mention.</para>
<para>Firstly, Labor took to the last election a commitment to introduce a policy, if we were elected, to prevent family violence perpetrators from directly and personally cross-examining their former spouses. Our policy was aimed at allowing judges, at the first mention, to determine whether or not existing options, such as video evidence, would be sufficient to protect victims and alleged victims, and, if not, to determine that family violence perpetrators would be prohibited from personally cross-examining. Our policy recognised that there was an interest in preventing perpetrators from personally cross-examining and, equally, there was an interest in ensuring natural justice by allowing the perpetrator to have, by other means, opportunities to cross-examine. Specifically, we included a policy provision allowing for the appointment of a lawyer for that person and, of course, the appointment of a lawyer for the other party in the proceedings.</para>
<para>This is important because a lawyer's first duty is to the court as an officer of the court. They have ethical responsibilities that they must discharge and they have professional responsibilities that they must discharge, and, in the event they fail to discharge those professional and ethical responsibilities, there are a range of sanctions that can be levied against them. In other words, a lawyer is not to act as a mere mouthpiece for their client; they must conduct themselves ethically and professionally, and, in the event they don't, there can be ramifications for them personally.</para>
<para>We thought this was an important policy and we therefore allocated more than $40 million in additional legal aid funding to allow both parties to be represented legally in that situation. Of course, you wouldn't want a situation where the alleged perpetrator was able to obtain legal assistance but the alleged victim was not; that would be a perverse consequence of this policy.</para>
<para>We took that to the election because the Productivity Commission had called for this back in 2014, because women's legal services had been calling for this measure and because Fair Agenda had been calling for this measure. We were very proud to take it to the election. We called and called and called on the government to introduce cross-examination reform. Unfortunately, the Turnbull government dragged its heels on this very important issue. Ultimately, though, I'm pleased to say that they did announce there would be cross-examination reform to prevent perpetrators from cross-examining victims, But, unfortunately, there was no money attached for additional legal aid, and the discussion paper that the Attorney-General distributed indicated that they weren't sure who would be doing the cross-examining on behalf of the alleged perpetrator. It could be a layperson, it could just be a friend of the perpetrator's asking the exact same questions the perpetrator would be asking and undertaking the same intimidation, revictimisation and retraumatisation that the perpetrator would be doing if they were asking the questions themselves.</para>
<para>We've been very critical of this policy. I'm very pleased that the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has recognised the importance of ongoing reform of procedures in the Family Court system and the Federal Circuit Court system to seek to prevent the direct personal cross-examination of witnesses by alleged perpetrators of violence against them. I encourage the government, in considering this report, to consider the importance of meaningful protection for victims. That means additional funding for legal aid to make sure that victims and perpetrators can be represented so that everyone can get a fair go, so that no-one is denied natural justice and so that you have someone who is bound by their professional obligations asking the questions in a situation where domestic violence has been alleged.</para>
<para>There are many, many important issues in the report itself, and, as I said, I congratulate the chair and the deputy chair particularly for the bipartisan fashion in which they went about fashioning this report. But there are two other really important issues that I want to flag for the parliament. The first is the importance of reforming the family consultant system. In the family law courts—and I particularly refer here to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia—judges have very heavy workloads. Judges often come in, become a judge and are handed a docket with 300 cases on it. It's also a system where judges don't necessarily have family law experience when they're appointed, but the Federal Circuit Court does the lion's share of the family law litigation in this country. In those circumstances—the intense workload, the different experience of the courts and the fact that the lion's share of the work is done in this particular jurisdiction—it is important to recognise that judges are often under significant pressure. That means that when they have unrepresented litigants in front of them, when they've got a lot of cases on their docket, when they've got a massive directions hearing with people everywhere and when they're trying to get things done in a way that meets targets, they are going to be under a lot of pressure. So what do they tend to turn to? They tend to turn to and reply upon the reports provided by family consultants.</para>
<para>That's why it is absolutely imperative, as a matter of justice and fairness to the parties, that family consultant reports are able to be trusted. At the moment, there is no complaints mechanism if a family consultant conducts themselves in a way that the parties find unsatisfactory. There is a great deal of pressure on family consultants, because the fee schedule for family consultants has not been amended in a very long period of time. At the other end of the scale there are family consultants who charge very high fees privately, which of course gives rise to problems if you are in the position as the wealthier of the two parties in a family law proceeding and you're able to obtain a better quality, more detailed family consultant report.</para>
<para>There are several recommendations in the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee's report that go to professionalising the family consultant role, that go to accreditation and that go to ongoing learning and development in relation to understanding the dynamics of family violence specifically.</para>
<para>I want to very clearly welcome any moves that might be made to give effect to the recommendations that go to the issue of ensuring that everyone in our community, especially both parties and especially the court, can have confidence that the family consultant's report has been developed appropriately, that fair amounts of time have been spent with the parties and that the family consultants themselves understand the dynamics of family violence very well and are up to date with emerging understandings of evidence in respect of family violence and the research work that has been done in respect of the causes of family violence in its manifestations. So, as I say, I particularly welcome the provisions of this report that go to family consultants.</para>
<para>The last point I want to make is that this report does contain a recommendation which encourages the government to revisit the presumption of equally shared parental responsibility. What that presumption does, as was acknowledged in the <inline font-style="italic">Time for action</inline> report on family violence in 2009, is place the burden on the person least powerful and most vulnerable, the abused partner, to prove that the presumption should not apply, to prove that the abusive partner should not have equally shared parental responsibility.</para>
<para>This should just be a case-by-case assessment by the court. The court should look at each situation, particularly if there's family violence involved, and ask: what's in the best interests of the child? The best interests of the child must primarily be about safety for the child. We have all heard the stories. We had Our Watch in here talking about family violence yesterday. We all know how serious a problem family violence is in this country. This is an important recommendation. I congratulate the bravery of the committee, and particularly the chair and the deputy chair, for including it in the report.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BANKS</name>
    <name.id>18661</name.id>
    <electorate>Chisholm</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak about this very important committee report, <inline font-style="italic">A better family law system to support and protect those affected by family</inline><inline font-style="italic"> violence</inline><inline font-style="italic">: Recommendations for an accessible, equitable and</inline><inline font-style="italic">responsive family law system which better prioritises safety of those affected by family violence</inline>. The scourge of domestic and family violence has far-reaching effects on Australian families. I reflect today on the excellent work done in 2017 by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, a bipartisan committee, under the leadership of the chair of the committee, the member for Corangamite.</para>
<para>May I take this opportunity to thank all those who made submissions to the inquiry. For victims of family violence, many of whom have had involvement in the family law system, sharing personal traumas and experiences to help others is indeed commendable, and their courage in wanting to contribute to systemic change so that others may be better helped and assisted has had an indelible impact on the inquiry and our subsequent report, so I thank them immensely.</para>
<para>I'm very proud that, in March 2017, the Attorney-General requested that this House of Representatives standing committee inquire into how Australia's family law system can better support and protect those affected by family violence. Many families across Australia access the family law system for assistance and support to resolve the legal issues which arise following a family breakdown, and many of these families have had experience with family violence. It is imperative that adequate support and management is provided to these families to ensure their ongoing safety and wellbeing.</para>
<para>In my early days as a lawyer, I practised family law and saw firsthand that divorces and breakups are inherently serious and complex in any event. But when the element of domestic violence becomes an integral element of that situation—that is, when domestic violence is implicated within the family law proceedings—it often has significant, enduring and devastating consequences for the victims of violence, particularly for young children. Domestic and family violence has a far-reaching effect for those who are experiencing it; it is devastating for the children who are often caught in the situation, as well as for the respective partners.</para>
<para>As the report advocates, it is essential that we have an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises the safety of families and that steps are taken to ameliorate instances where evidence suggests the family law system is not adequately supporting or protecting families which have experienced this violence. In particular, the report raises key concerns identified in evidence provided by the people regarding the current family law system's approach to family violence, including the difficulties posed by an adversarial family law system, the existence of inappropriate responses to reports of family violence, exorbitant legal fees, complex court procedures which reduce the accessibility of the family law system, and the complexity in navigating state, territory and federal jurisdictions. These myriad complexities burden families affected by family violence, and the current design of the system has at times failed to support and protect families affected by family violence. I'm proud that the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee has proposed the exploration of reform for the current system in this context.</para>
<para>Our committee's report recommends a nationally developed risk assessment tool for use across the family law system and by all professions working within and adjacent to the family law system. We have also called for a stronger, more uniform approach to identifying and responding to family violence in family dispute resolution, using the new nationally consistent risk assessment tool. Another proposal to redress systemic shortcomings is the greater use of legally assisted family dispute resolution for families affected by family violence, thereby reducing the number of cases which proceed to court and have to wait for court dates, which frequently leads to lengthy delays in resolving disputes, with increasingly prohibitive costs.</para>
<para>As a committee we've recommended significant reforms if and once a matter reaches court, including ensuring that the determination of family violence occurs early in the proceedings, which must be supported by a stronger initial assessment of risk so that the court can make informed decisions regarding parenting and property matters. The committee also makes recommendations for improved case management of family law matters involving family violence, including the adoption of a single point of entry to the federal Family Court so that cases may be appropriately triaged and actively case managed. The committee has also recommended that more uniform rules and procedures are implemented to reduce complexity, as well as stronger referral pathways and penalties for abuse of process—which we know happens far too frequently—perjury and noncompliance with court orders.</para>
<para>Following the submissions, it is clear in the findings that obtaining an equitable property settlement after the breakdown of a relationship which has involved family violence can become very difficult. The initial divorce proceedings can be quite simple, but the property division can increase and extend the difficulties posed. The report presents evidence that property settlements can provide abusive partners with a new and fresh avenue for abuse and leave families impacted by family violence in significant financial hardship, which overlays the hardships they're already experiencing. In response, the report discusses options for safer, fairer and swifter property settlements, including simplifying the process for superannuation-splitting orders.</para>
<para>Some families experiencing family violence, such as families from a number of different backgrounds, can face additional barriers when accessing the family law system. Having English as a second language can be prohibitive. Barriers can be faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, culturally and linguistically diverse families and people with disability. As such, our report recommends that the previous recommendations of the Family Law Council be implemented.</para>
<para>In addition, the report recommends improving the capacity of family law professionals to respond to family violence so that inconsistencies in capacity do not place families at risk of further harm. So, too, must resources to the family law system be increased to redress a backlog of cases in the federal Family Court system, which is yet another element which elongates the time for the hearing of cases. The committee believes that ongoing support services can provide families with security and safety after a family law matter has been resolved. We have expressed support for specialist domestic violence courts to employ wraparound models of court based support. The committee also recognised the importance of evidence based, evaluated and best-practice behaviour-change programs in the ongoing safety of families which have experienced family violence and has made recommendations for the incorporation and expansion of programs in existing services.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I thank the former Attorney-General, Mr George Brandis, for requesting that the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee inquire into how Australia's family law system can better support and protect those affected by family violence. As the inquiry has determined, the family law system can be incredibly difficult and prohibitive for victims of family violence to navigate. I'm pleased that our report recommends tangible and, indeed, measurable improvements so that the scourge of family violence may be dealt with through the family law system in a person-focused, timely and efficient manner. I commend the committee's report.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish I could be as convinced as the member for Chisholm was in her speech just now about the committee's work and the report. There is something that the government can do immediately about the inconsistencies and the incongruences occurring in the Family Court, which includes up to four years delay for somebody seeking justice through that system. They could appoint the judges that have left that system through retirement or assist those judges who have over 300 cases on their dockets.</para>
<para>The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs throughout last year had the opportunity to inquire into a better family law system to support and protect those affected by family law. Unfortunately, this is a subject I have an expert lived experience in. Recommendations have been made for an accessible, equitable and responsive family law system which better prioritises the safety for those involved. Many families across Australia access the federal family law for assistance and support to resolve the legal issues which arise following family breakdown, including those impacted by family violence. Family break-up happens all the time. Not all of them land in Family Court. The ones who do are there because they cannot resolve it outside using the usual mechanisms. These are special families who are incredibly vulnerable and need this parliament's and the legislation's full support.</para>
<para>I am well aware and all too familiar with the shortcomings of the family law system. The shortcomings for families who are impacted by this system are far greater than for those who are not. I would go further and say they are not shortcomings; they are absolute, abject failures, and the people they are failing most, and the most grievously, are children. The struggles families face following breakdown are difficult, and the legal system is complex to navigate, but it is even harder when you are marginalised by having family violence as a feature of that breakdown.</para>
<para>The inquiry was about the specific way in which family violence and family law interact with each other. The 6,000 or so pieces of evidence we took throughout this inquiry told the story of how desperately inadequate the system is at serving families affected by family violence. When the chair of this committee, the member for Corangamite, denied the judges of the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court the opportunity to attend a hearing, I was most grievously offended. The people who have the oversight, whose life's work it is, and who spend every single day presiding over this, were not invited. They were invited; then they were uninvited. That is an insult. When family violence is a component of family break-up, separation and divorce, the complexities and difficulties are compounded exponentially. For the committee to be unable to hear from those judges and the two voices who were the most expert on this, you must ask yourself how serious this chair was about actually getting on with looking into the job we were tasked with on behalf of the Attorney-General.</para>
<para>Our current system absolutely needs to change, and addressing the shortcomings with real solutions instead of tinkering and teetering with the versions would be an absolutely great start. The addendum made in this report by Labor members provides a good insight into our feelings on those, and our reservations in supporting this without a caveat.</para>
<para>Families that experience family violence need adequate support and management to be provided to ensure their ongoing safety and their wellbeing is a priority. This doesn't end when they hit the family law courts. And it is not just that they deserve it; we absolutely owe it to them. In this place, we talk about and we say we are aware of the impacts of domestic and family violence, but are we really? At least one woman a week is killed by a current or former partner. It is week seven of 2018, and we've already had to count nine women. When a woman leaves an abusive relationship, the very, very least we can do is to provide a legal system through the family law courts that does not exacerbate the abuse. This is exactly what we are seeing now. The committee have made 33 recommendations; seven of them are needed absolutely right now.</para>
<para>Recommendation 12 focuses on the imbalance created when an unrepresented perpetrator of family violence is legally allowed to stand up in a courtroom and query their victim. I'm aware the government has made an announcement to support ceasing this. The member for Griffith talked ad nauseam about this and we have spoken at length about it on this side. But it's only an announcement and you cannot hang your hat on it or feel warm and fuzzy on the inside over an announcement. An announcement must be followed with action. Victims need help now and I call on this government to move past the announcing and get onto the delivery.</para>
<para>Recommendation 19 talks about the assumption of shared parental responsibility. This is a hangover from the reforms made by former Prime Minister Howard. It's not surprising he didn't seek a woman's opinion on this, because I'm sure, if he had and he'd done some investigation, he would have understood this is absolutely the wrong way of moving forward. These reforms were hastily delivered and create a situation where the perpetrator of domestic violence can use the courts to continue to perpetrate the violence, continue the imbalance of power and use the courts to try and obtain custody from the person they committed domestic violence against.</para>
<para>Who are these people? When you commit domestic violence against the other parent in your relationship, you do harm to the child. In New South Wales, our jurisdiction says that a secondary victim of domestic violence is the child that is in that household. So what right, I ask, does a perpetrator of domestic violence have to rock up to a court and use the legal processes to try and seek a shared equal parental responsibility? They have a right, absolutely, to a relationship with that child, but they also had a responsibility and a duty of care when they were living under that roof and were a perpetrator of domestic violence. We have a law that currently says, 'That's fine; you're entitled to ask for it and to go through that system'—a system which takes up to four years from beginning to end, at exorbitant cost of up to about $30,000 or, in some instances, even more than that.</para>
<para>We also heard about the extraordinary circumstance where, when the child ages another two years, the perpetrator can then ask for the file to be reopened and go back to court, dragging the victim and that child back through the process all over again. I cannot begin to imagine the impact on those children or that victim in being re-traumatised over and over again. So, when we call for shared care not to be presumptive, it needs to be understood what that actually means. It's not some law where we just want to marginalise all these poor perpetrators of domestic violence; it's actually taking into consideration the long-lasting impacts that trauma has on developing brains and young children.</para>
<para>The penalties need to be greater. If you were to commit DV, would you continue to do it if you knew when you were doing it that it actually meant access to your children would be dissolved as well? I don't see it as a penalty; I actually see it as a responsibility and something that we could do to help move to end the cycle of domestic violence. We know violence creates long-term harm and the consequences do not cease once people have exited the family law system or once that perpetrator is removed from the home.</para>
<para>Of the women who fall victim to violence, more than half have children in their care. I say 'women' because we do know that there are more women than men affected by this. It's imperative that these women who land in the family courts are supported. With this in mind, I note recommendation 31, which talks about the disgraceful delays in the Family Court system—delays that, out of all of this, notwithstanding our judicial officers working incredibly hard, are the most important thing to be addressed right now. It is something where, with a very easy pen stroke to put more judges into those positions, we could start addressing some of the backlogs. It is unacceptable that a woman and a four-year-old child could enter a family law system and not exit until that child is in middle primary school. When you are facing these things, you face the prospect of not being able to make decisions about where your child is going to attend school or about who's caring for them medically. That is four years out of a developing child's life. You learn everything that you're going to learn between the ages of nought and seven. If we are subjecting children to this life of instability because Family Court's going to drag on for four years, we are not doing our jobs as parliamentarians and legislators, or good jobs.</para>
<para>Recommendations 27 and 28 talk about better training for judicial officers. Recommendation 8 talks about the abuse of power, which I touched on briefly, and how perpetrators continue to use the system to gain access to their victims and continue the abuse long after the victim has left the family home.</para>
<para>We will await the commission's review and recommendations to allow any reform proposals to be thoroughly considered before they're implemented. I would caution against the use of parent management hearings. During our inquiry, we heard it was on, and then it was off—it was on and it was off. The people who are supposed to be charged with the responsibility of delivering these parent management hearings cannot be sure about who's going to be served by the parent management hearings or who will preside over those parent management hearings.</para>
<para>Before I finish, I'd like to acknowledge the tremendous effort of the committee secretariat, who did an extraordinary amount of work and took on incredibly heavy evidence on behalf of the committee.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great privilege to speak on this report by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. It would be fair to say that the inquiry process, for many members, was a challenging one. For me as somebody who hasn't had direct experience of the subject matter of the inquiry—family violence and the family law system—parts of it were eye opening, and I think we need to acknowledge that. Some other members, including the previous speaker, the member for Lindsay, have perhaps had closer experience of the subject matter than I have. Nonetheless, it was a good opportunity to cover many of these issues as part of a package of issues that the government is dealing with in the space of family law.</para>
<para>I'd like to start by commending the chair for her leadership and all the other committee members for their participation in the inquiry, and I was privileged to be able to be part of this process of trying to bring the human stories and lived experience of many Australians in the family law system to the fore, to be codified for the record and to be part of a pathway of positive change to improve the system for Australians needing to deal with family law—for victims of domestic and family violence and, in particular, for children. The committee is trying to ensure their best interests are put at the heart of any system. That is the basis on which the report has been put forward. It is also the basis on which the report has been written and the recommendations have been designed.</para>
<para>We also want to thank, very strongly, those who made submissions, both written and oral, throughout the inquiry. They have been critical in making sure that this report and the recommendations have integrity and making sure those voices are heard, because human stories sit at the heart of the problems that are faced by people in the Family Court. Human stories anchor this report as examples of the experiences we are seeking to address so we can improve the system for the better.</para>
<para>I don't want to labour in too much detail the different recommendations but simply acknowledge that there have been a number of key themes which have resonated with me throughout the inquiry. These include the section outlined in the committee's report that relates to parenting orders being heavily influenced by evidence provided in family reports and prepared by family consultants. It is extremely concerning, as the chair noted, that families are often paying thousands of dollars for these reports which may be written by practitioners who have no formal training in or understanding of family violence or its impact on children. It's critical that the quality and reliability of family reports improve. Something as simple as codification of people's stories to improve the system is clearly at the heart of fixing the system. It shows you how much opportunity there is, through simple procedural improvements, to dramatically improve the current situation faced by many people who experience the family law system.</para>
<para>Recommendation 5 follows on from that. It's about the need for the greater use of mediation or alternative dispute resolution by the Family Court during proceedings to encourage earlier resolution of matters. It came from concerns directly as a consequence of issues around family violence, to make sure that there are alternative avenues to deal with problems so that people do not get caught up in the legalese of the family law system. That means they can focus much more on human outcomes, particularly in removing environments which lead to conflict and focusing on how we can get to a point of resolution in the best interests of families and children. I'm particularly taken by recommendation 11, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General works with state and territory counterparts through the Council of Australian Governments to establish a trial in one or more specialist state or territory family violence courts (including reaching agreement in relation to resources, education and court infrastructure) enabling family law issues in family violence cases to be determined by the one court, including expedited pathways for breach and enforcement proceedings. One of the trial courts should ideally be located in an area of high Indigenous population.</para></quote>
<para>Central to a lot of the things we heard throughout this inquiry were the issues that people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds face. In fact, the system does not properly accommodate or recognise diversity and the lived experiences of many people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. That needs to be better recognised and accommodated within the court system if it's to achieve the best interests of the parties involved, and, again, particularly children. That is especially so in the case of the Indigenous population, who, we heard time and time again, have not been fully recognised in respect of how the family law system works. That is something we can do and that we can lead successfully to improve outcomes for every Australian.</para>
<para>Another recommendation that I thought was particularly prescient follow on directly from that, particularly recommendation 24, which also deals with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. Looking at past reports, it said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the Australian Government implements the Family Law Council recommendations from both the 2012 <inline font-style="italic">Improving the family law system for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients</inline> report, and the 2016 <inline font-style="italic">Families with complex needs and the intersection of the family law and child protection systems – Final Report</inline>, as they relate to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, including those recommendations addressing—</para></quote>
<para>exactly going to those issues—</para>
<list>community education;</list>
<list>cultural competency;</list>
<list>service collaboration;</list>
<list>culturally diverse workforce;</list>
<list>early assistance and outreach;</list>
<list>legal and non-legal services;</list>
<list>interpreters;</list>
<list>cultural reports;</list>
<list>family group conferences;</list>
<list>participation of elders or respected persons in court hearings; and</list>
<list>consulting with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representatives in the development of any reforms.</list>
<para>In the same context, many similar issues come as a direct consequence of CALD families and the situations that they face.</para>
<para>That particularly leads to a subject that perhaps wasn't given the full attention of this inquiry, not because it wasn't important but because it could have its own inquiry. I think it is very important to address and I would recommend that the committee considers for future discussion the issue of dowry demands. It was covered in section 7 of the report, dealing particularly with the issue of dowries and how they can be used as a form of bride pricing and how they are used as a form of psychological, financial and emotional violence which can undermine the independence of women. They are common in some subcultures of people, particularly from new migrant families. This subject was covered by the inquiry, but it probably justifies further extrapolation. I know there's some work being done by the Victorian government in this space. The use of bride prices or dowries as a way of controlling women is completely unacceptable in our country, and I'm sure you share that sentiment, Deputy Speaker Buchholz. Manjula O'Connor, a constituent of the great electorate of Goldstein, regularly raises with me some of the issues around dowry extortion in migrant communities. She is concerned particularly, that some new arrivals to this country haven't had the opportunity to understand, or haven't had the lived experience to understand, that this practice is not acceptable in our country. There needs to be further work done to make sure that women are not finding a situation where they experience this type of emotional violence and physical violence as a consequence of it but are able to live full and independent lives. Part of the family law system has to recognise where this may be a factor in relationship breakdowns, and that's part of making sure that people can live that full independence.</para>
<para>I recommend the report to the parliament. I congratulate the chair and everybody who participated in it, and I will take the opportunity to acknowledge and congratulate the new chair of the Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, Julia Banks, on her illustrious elevation after the departure of our previous chair, and wish the committee its best work and deliberations into the future.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Communications and the Arts Committee</title>
          <page.no>151</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>151</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Australian screen industry employs more than 25,000 Australians and generates more than $3 billion in economic activity, including $252 million in export revenue and $725 million on tourism. Deloitte estimates that 230,000 international tourists visit or extend their stay in Australia each year as a result of viewing Australian film and TV content. Screen is a valuable industry we need to nurture and grow.</para>
<para>Late last year, a contingent from the film and television industry came to Canberra to lobby us to save Australia's cultural soul. What I recall most strongly about that Make It Australian visit, is that industry stalwarts, famous names amongst them, with little personally at stake, came to make the case not just for jobs but to ensure that those of us with the privilege of serving in this place never lose sight of the importance of sharing Australian stories on screen.</para>
<para>I acknowledge, and Labor acknowledges that it costs money to support our screen industry; it is a subsidised industry. But we're not talking about subsidising the manufacture of widgets. We're talking about ensuring that we remain culturally connected to our land, our histories and our communities. After all, the arts have been publicly funded for centuries. Would Shakespeare, navigating the emerging Puritan movement and otherwise subsisting on pennies on entry, have survived, let alone flourished, without the patronage of Queen Elizabeth I? The fact is that every film we make and every series and miniseries that beams through our TVs and PCs is another thread in the tapestry that tells the stories of Australia, and that, to Labor, is priceless.</para>
<para>In a dissenting report to the report on the inquiry into the Australian film and television industry, Labor members of the Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts noted:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Labor members are committed to supporting Australian stories being created and told by Australian performers and crew in Australian film and television productions. Labor is the party of the arts and is the only party with developed, integrated and comprehensive policies that set up a vision for the sector and whose policies have been implemented and appropriately funded.</para></quote>
<para>Labor members on the committee further noted that implementing such a vision requires:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a long-term commitment to a well-supported and funded Australian film and television industry.</para></quote>
<para>While the majority report calls for a flattening of the producer tax offset to 30 per cent for both film and TV production, Labor members were concerned that reducing the film offset from 40 per cent would make some films unviable to produce in Australia. Screen Australia has expressed concern that movies like <inline font-style="italic">Lion</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Sapphires</inline><inline font-style="italic">, The Dressmaker</inline> and <inline font-style="italic">Sweet Country</inline> would not have been made with a 30 per cent tax offset.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Howarth interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll take the member for Petrie's interjection. I suppose it depends on who you talk to at Screen Australia.</para>
<para>Labor members therefore are unable to support the committee's recommendation to reduce the tax offset for films to 30 per cent. Labor members did support the recommendation to remove the 65-hour cap on TV series accessing the offset. It is a decision, which if implemented by the government, should lead to longer-run TV series.</para>
<para>Australia's screen sector is blessed with highly trained and highly motivated hands-on people. Whether it is the actors whose names appear in lights or the myriad crew whose names zip by in the credits, the contributions are—whether the productions are a Hollywood blockbuster produced on the Gold Coast or an arty indie shot on a shoestring in rugged Tasmania—professional and world class.</para>
<para>Last year, I visited the set of <inline font-style="italic">Rosehaven</inline>, which was being shot in the town of Oaklands in my electorate. It was the second season. The first season was shot in New Norfolk, another town in my electorate. I'm gutted that I'm yet to have found a part—a small part, perhaps—in the show, but they are shooting a third season, so time is on my side! <inline font-style="italic">Rosehaven</inline> is a gentle comedy—a bit like this place—co-written by its stars Luke McGregor and Celia Pacquola. Luke grew up in Tasmania and his innate understanding of the place gives <inline font-style="italic">Rosehaven</inline> its beautiful authenticity. One of the signature lines that you'll hear throughout the series is, 'So, you couldn't hack it on the mainland?' It's a refrain familiar to any Tasmanian who leaves home only to return. It's something that only a Tasmanian could have written.</para>
<para>Of course, there is more to <inline font-style="italic">Rosehaven</inline> than Luke and Celia. There are the co-stars and supporting cast, like Kris McQuaid, one of my constituents, who portrays Luke's iron-willed mother, and former Tassie teachers union chief Noela Foxcroft, who plays the near-silent receptionist, and the myriad crew.</para>
<para>When in town, the production supports businesses, and the benefits flow on. When the show is screened interstate, it reminds mainlanders that Tasmania is somewhere they need to be. Tasmania is increasingly sought out as a filmmaking destination. Yes, the weather can be challenging with the light changing from hour to hour, but that has not stopped a host of films and shows being made on our beautiful island. Let me rattle off a few: the cult series <inline font-style="italic">The Kettering Incident</inline> and the award-winning movies <inline font-style="italic">Lion</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Light Between Oceans</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Arctic Blast</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Beaconsfield</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Blind Company</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Tasmania Devils</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Dying Breed</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Exile</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">For </inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">he Term </inline><inline font-style="italic">o</inline><inline font-style="italic">f His Natural Life</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Hunter</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Last Confession </inline><inline font-style="italic">o</inline><inline font-style="italic">f Alexander Pearce</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Manganinnie</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Outlaw Michael Howe</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">The Tale Of Ruby Rose</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Tasmania Story</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">They Found </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic"> Cave</inline>, <inline font-style="italic">Van Diemen's Land</inline>; and the upcoming, <inline font-style="italic">The Nightingale</inline>. Just in case you think too many are about escaping convicts who devour human flesh, the 1980 smash-hit comedy <inline font-style="italic">Young Einstein</inline> also had scenes shot in Tasmania.</para>
<para>It goes without saying that technology has transformed and continues to transform the screen industry. Screens are available everywhere: on phones, wristwatches, tablets, desktops and the backs of seats in planes and cars, and in kitchens, lounges and bedrooms. Those of us in our 50s and 60s in this chamber grew up with one telly in the lounge and perhaps three channels to choose from. Our younger colleagues in their 40s would have grown up with VCR as the norm; and those in their 30s, with multiple TVs and many more channels. The changes mean audiences have fragmented. Where once advertisers could rely on millions of Australians watching a prime-time TV show, those certainties are no longer there. The fragmentation of audiences has led to the destruction of advertising value, which has, in turn, led to an ongoing transformation of media business modelling.</para>
<para>Labor members on the committee are pleased the inquiry recognised the challenges confronting the Australian screen industry, including slow growth for the independent production sector and the impact of fragmenting audiences and technology change. Increasingly, consumers are showing that they are willing to pay for content, not just at the cinema or at the video rental store—remember those?—but also for online rentals and sales, and subscriptions to streaming services.</para>
<para>If I may double-strangle a metaphor, I am concerned that Australians could get drowned in a flood of content from these big US streaming services like Netflix, Stan and the others, while I'm doubly excited at the same time that we might see off the tide. It's important that we put in place the mechanisms that ensure the continued production of Australian stories while avoiding the pitfalls of unnecessary interference. We should, as much as possible, nurture Australian content while never seeking to direct what it says.</para>
<para>For generations, Australian children have grown up with their lives reflected back to them on screen. I grew up in the suburbs of Perth in WA with Fat Cat, the mascot for Channel 7, and Flapper, the elephant mascot for Channel 9, as a daily part of my young life. I remember loving Flapper so much I literally cried with joy when it was announced he was visiting our local shopping centre. But if Channel 9 Perth had not been required to provide local content, I wonder whether Flapper would have ever existed. I don't know what lasting effects my love affair with Flapper has had on my emotional development, but the love was pure and remains so to this day!</para>
<para>There are a number of other recommendations that I'm not going to get to. Recommendation 5 of the majority report calls for a review of the hours based quota. Labor are generally supportive of the need for a review, but we strongly caution the government against just rushing into changing these children's programming requirements. The UK experience shows that they had a 93 per cent drop in children's TV investment when they changed their requirements. So there is a note of caution there. But, in general, there was a lot of good feeling on this committee.</para>
<para>Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, the member for Dobell, who is in the Chamber, is a member of this committee. With your indulgence, and perhaps on the chair's behalf, I express the committee's and the chair's condolences to the member for Dobell on the death of her father yesterday. I am sure the House would second that.</para>
<para>I'm not a member of the committee. I'm just a former journo who loves communication and the arts, so it gave me great pleasure to speak to this report, and I thank you for your time.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Disability Insurance Scheme</title>
          <page.no>153</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>153</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the report <inline font-style="italic">Provision of services under the NDIS Early Childhood Early Intervention approach</inline>. I am a proud member of this committee, and I will devote a lot of my time—probably an inordinate amount of my time—in this place to ensuring that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is something that we get right, because it is imperative that we get it right and there are a huge number of things that we need to fix.</para>
<para>I thank the chair of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the member for Menzies, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, for all of his work on this committee and for the nature of the way in which he approaches the bipartisan committee and allows everybody an adequate amount of time, energy and resources to get our job done. He's an amazing chair. I know that he's on the opposite side of the bearpit from me, but he's an incredible advocate for the NDIS. I also mention the member for Jagajaga, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, who has devoted more of her working life to ensuring that we get the NDIS up and running than anybody else currently in this place. I thank all the members and senators on the committee and particularly give thanks to the staff of the committee secretariat, who always make coming along to and working for this committee an absolute joy: Gerry McInally, our secretary; Apolline Kohen, the principal research officer; Kimberley Balaga, the senior research officer; and Brooke Gay, the administrative officer. I pay special thanks to Brooke, who has moved on and will be replaced by someone else. I wish her all the best in her new role. The committee received 76 submissions and held six public hearings, and I thank everyone who gave their time by making a submission or attending the hearings and giving evidence.</para>
<para>The NDIS is an insurance scheme that takes an investment approach for people with a disability under the age of 65 to build skills and to improve their outcomes later in life. This is incredibly important for children with a disability. This inquiry was designed to individually determine and facilitate the most appropriate support pathway for children aged zero to six with a disability or developmental delay, regardless of diagnosis—the 'regardless of diagnosis' part is incredibly important to the legislation—and their families. It is incredibly important when we talk about culturally and linguistically diverse families, where advocacy for their children is not as culturally acceptable or as appropriate as it would be if they were not culturally or linguistically diverse.</para>
<para>Having had a lot of interaction with early intervention and the early intervention approach, I can absolutely assure everybody involved in every process that the NDIS is involved in that intervention at those early years is critical. I know that Dr Freelander, a paediatrician with some 40 years experience, will be in here later and will back me up. I have watched very closely the development of a number of children with autism spectrum disorder in particular and have seen kids who were able to get access to early intervention. I have watched a child once diagnosed with severely regressive autism, whose mother was told that he would never speak and never attend a mainstream school, overcome some of those challenges and some of that disability to be playing in a mainstream soccer team now and attending a mainstream school. The benefit to our country in later years when that little boy is employable, when that little boy can live independently and when that little boy does not require the full-time support or care of his mother or sisters is incredible. I can speak quite convincingly on that because that little boy is my son. He has autism spectrum disorder, which was diagnosed at 16 months of age. He was given access to every early intervention under the sun, and he now has a much better future. So I come into this place to be an advocate for everybody with disability—I have a lived experience. But I also know that the benefits for communities, for families and for our country of ensuring early intervention for those individuals are enormous.</para>
<para>By 2019-20 it is expected that 47,000 out of just under half a million NDIS participants with approved plans will be children between the ages of zero and six. The NDIA estimates that a further 59,000 children aged between zero and six may identify as having a developmental delay or disability but are not expected to need individualised funding supports.</para>
<para>The inquiry's terms of reference were the eligibility criteria; the service needs; the time frame; the adequacy of funding; the costs associated with early childhood early intervention services; the evidence of the effectiveness of the ECEI approach; the robustness of the data; the adequacy of information; accessibility, in remote areas in particular; the principle of choice of ECEI providers; the application of current research and innovation; and other related materials. There were some concerns expressed by the committee that I would like to briefly outline.</para>
<para>I know there was cause for concern from the committee that the current access arrangements are potentially disadvantaging families who cannot afford to source expensive assessments and reports to expedite their child's access to the scheme. I mentioned those at the beginning of my speech. The committee is also concerned with the numerous reports of significantly underfunded plans for early childhood early intervention participants, and I will draw the House's attention to a speech the member for Blaxland has recently given in the House where a child's plan had been reduced by 70 per cent. The support that that child is receiving is now reduced by 70 per cent. I'm not sure what therapies that child has had removed from her plan but, let me tell you, if that child presents with epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder and global developmental delay, those supports would be significant and needed.</para>
<para>This is happening now quite frequently. Planners may have a poor understanding of the needs of the children they are developing plans for. My local NDIS office is accessed not by a lift but by a flight of stairs. I will just let that wash over everyone: just marinate on the irony of that for half a minute.</para>
<para>The committee report also explores evidence in relation to recurring shortfalls in plans for children with autism spectrum disorder and the PEDI-CAT tool that is unsuited to assessing the functional capacity of children with a developmental delay, including those with autism spectrum disorder. There is a concern that the ECEI partners do not currently have the capacity or funding to conduct essential outreach and support services for vulnerable cohorts, because all the funding is now individualised. The committee has recognised that the ECEI approach is also in its infancy, so we do give it time to make some errors and to help it along the way.</para>
<para>The committee has made 20 recommendations to strengthen the scheme to ensure children can be appropriately supported to reach their full potential, which is the ultimate outcome of the NDIS. I want to mention recommendation 2, which falls under early childhood partners. The committee is recommending that a nationally consistent process for the engagement of partners be identified by the NDIA. The adequacy of plans, in recommendation 8, says that the NDIA should provide 'ongoing and targeted training' to planners who are creating ECEI plans for children, to ensure they are equipped with the most up-to-date knowledge, expertise and resources in their decision-making.</para>
<para>I would also add in there that their buildings are adequately accessible for those who need to get into them. Funding of plans, in recommendation 11, speaks about the committee urgently recommending that the NDIA address the issues of scope and level of funding in plans for children with autism, with a view to ensuring that recommend evidence based supports and therapies are fully funded. Recommendation 15 says that we want the NDIA to consider allocating specific funding for the development and provision of tailored support programs for parents, carers and siblings of children with a disability through the ILC. I note that the committee acknowledges that better access to support for families and carers should be an integral part of the ECEI approach.</para>
<para>I know that this is important to families because, when you care for a child or a sibling with a disability, it is not just the child with the disability that it impacts on; it is everybody in that household. The rates of divorce and family breakdown where they are caring for a small child with a disability is extraordinarily high, much higher in those communities and those families than without. I know Lindsay families and parents are crying out for better access to supports. My office is a de facto NDIS office. There would not be a day that goes by that I don't deal with or tackle at least half a dozen inquiries from families who need more help, more access or more support with their NDIS plans.</para>
<para>Recommendation 19 is that we want to collaborate with a people with a disability from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and CALD communities, to co-design and develop accessible information about the scheme. That is why I was devastated to hear one of the committee members last week at our meeting say that we don't need brochures or information in other languages. I strongly recommend that we do this and do it as a matter of expediency.</para>
<para>I want to thank everybody who made submissions, those who gave evidence and particularly those who care for children who have a disability, those who make the time to take their kids to the paediatricians, the speech therapists, the occupational therapists, the intervention therapists, the social workers, the play therapists, the music therapists and the special playgroups that are supported and their own support services, because it is an incredible job and an incredible task. I think we all owe it to those people to support them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>First of all, I'd like to thank the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS for their hard work and their very detailed findings, which I thoroughly support. I'd also like to thank all those who made submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and in particular the families that made submissions and spent a great deal of time considering the information they should relate about the NDIS. As I have said, I welcome the findings. In some ways they perhaps don't go far enough, and I think there are some issues with the NDIS that we still need to address.</para>
<para>I have spent all my working life dealing with children with disabilities, and I thoroughly support the NDIS. I think it's a fantastic social intervention that has always had bipartisan support, and I welcome that and I thank people on both sides of the parliament for the development of the NDIS—in particular, Julia Gillard, the Labor Prime Minister whose reputation grows and grows the longer it has been since her prime ministership. I also thank some on the other side, such as the member for Warringah, Mr Abbott, who was also a strong supporter of the NDIS.</para>
<para>As I have said, I think the NDIS is a fantastic social intervention, and I've seen the relief on the faces of parents who have a child with a severe disability, knowing that their child or children will receive lifelong care and support. I would stress that that is not just because of the financial supports involved and the supports in providing housing and intervention services. This is something that's really important to me. What the NDIS says to those who have a child or a person in the family with a disability is: 'You are part of us; you are part of our society. We will bring you with us. You are as deserving of the fruits of our social networks as anyone else.' I think that's a really important inclusive message, and a very important message that the people of Australia are giving to those who are less fortunate. So it is really important from that philosophical point of view as well as from the other points of view. It's a sign that we as a community recognise that we're all in this together and that we will lift you up and you will come with us on our journey. As I have said, I welcome the findings of standing committee and I welcome its recommendations.</para>
<para>I acknowledge that the NDIS rollout has not been perfect. I didn't expect it would be. I think there are few of us in the paediatric community that found it all smooth going. There are lots of wrinkles that need to be ironed out. The rollout in many places has been very rapid and there have been problems with poor training of the planners and assessors. There have been some haphazard plans and long waiting times before review. I tell all my patients and their parents not to accept plans over the phone, that the planners need to see the child in person, preferably in their own home. As has already been mentioned, there have been some difficulties even in accessing NDIS offices, and I think that's been part of the poor planning process. I know that originally in many areas there was a plan to have standalone NDIS offices. But, because of moves by this government to try and compress the budget, NDIS offices have now often been forced to move into Centrelink offices, often in cramped conditions, with poor wheelchair or even poor stroller accessibility. That's not been a good thing and I hope that that will change.</para>
<para>I think that some of the planning basics that should have been considered by the NDIA have been underbudgeted and not thought through—things like personal care costs, transport costs, transition-to-work programs for people with disabilities and, in particular, and it's been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents, funding for mental health disorders and rehabilitation for people with severe mental illness. These issues are brought up time and time again, not only by the constituents and their families but also by some of the providers in my electorate of Macarthur, and I'm trying to work through these issues on a daily basis with many of them.</para>
<para>We know that many parents who have disabilities have a lot of trouble interacting with the NDIS, and they can have similar problems, in this day and age, dealing with Centrelink. I think that's an issue that needs to be thoroughly canvassed. It seems that the people who get the best NDIS plans are often those who are the most articulate and the best advocates for themselves and for their children and family members. So I think we could do more in that space.</para>
<para>However, to me the most glaring deficiency has been the lack of planning for those very young children requiring early intervention programs. These are children who often present with problems from birth, and we have previously had very good services for them. We are now in danger of actually making things worse, not better. A prime example is those children who are born with severe to profound hearing loss. In Australia, we have one of the best programs in the world. Every newborn child in Australia has a hearing test in the first few days of life, and if they're diagnosed with a severe or profound hearing loss they're immediately referred to the National Acoustic Laboratories—a free service provided by government—and then on to an early intervention program. In my home state of New South Wales, the biggest provider of these services is the world-famous Shepherd Centre, which provides fantastic early intervention programs for children with severe to profound hearing loss—often those children requiring cochlear implants.</para>
<para>We know that world's best practice is to intervene very early for those children—with hearing aids and speech therapy and other interventions on a frequent basis. The problem is that with the NDIS there is a long lag time between diagnosis, the package being produced and the financial remuneration. This means that places like the Shepherd Centre have to carry the not inconsiderable cost of the early intervention programs, often for many months, before the remuneration package comes through. That means that they may not be able to provide the services that they have been providing throughout New South Wales. That's something that certainly needs to be looked at and reviewed. We don't want to lose our world's-best-practice management of infants with severe to profound hearing loss.</para>
<para>We also know that in cases of very young children with disabilities it's often hard to form a final diagnosis, and it's often hard to get in for assessments because of long waiting times. In my electorate of Macarthur our child development unit currently runs on a waiting time of almost 12 months. This means that even though the children would benefit from early intervention, because of financial constraints, very often they may not get their therapies until their NDIS package is approved after the initial assessment for which they have already waited a year. They may then wait many months after that to get the financial package. So I think we need to do more about the early provision of NDIS packages for children with severe disability who are very young and who require early intervention.</para>
<para>Our long waiting times often relate to funding issues at our local hospitals. That's certainly true in my electorate. I think we could do more to commence early intervention programs in very young children. In Macarthur there's a very good program, the KU Starting Points, run by the former Kindergarten Union. It provides early intervention programs, but it does miss out on funding from the NDIS because of the long delays.</para>
<para>I think the NDIS is a wonderful program. I thank both sides of parliament for it and I thank the standing committee for their findings. But there is more to be done.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standing Committee on Environment and Energy</title>
          <page.no>157</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>157</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms STANLEY</name>
    <name.id>265990</name.id>
    <electorate>Werriwa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my pleasure to rise and support the findings and recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy report titled <inline font-style="italic">Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid</inline>. For most of 2017, the committee looked at Australia's electricity grid, centred on the eastern states. In line with the terms of reference, the committee gave particular consideration to the means by which a modern electricity transmission and distribution network can be expected to ensure a secure and sustainable supply of electricity at the lowest possible cost; current and future technological, economic and regulatory opportunities to achieve a modern grid; and the experiences of international jurisdictions and how they can be used to inform planning in Australia. We were looking to provide recommendations that will serve the consumers of energy well into the future and address issues of the ageing fleet, new technologies and price pressures.</para>
<para>The committee was particularly aware that it was important to find a consensus position, and I thank my colleagues on the committee for their willingness to embrace this position, despite there being a large divergence of views about how electricity should be generated and supplied. I especially acknowledge the member for Mallee and the member for Shortland, as the chair and deputy chair, for their leadership and assistance during the committee hearings and deliberations to ensure the effectiveness and usefulness of the report. I also acknowledge the member for Petrie, who is currently in the chair, and the member for Brisbane, who were part of this consensus and worked very hard to get there. I also recognise the work of the committee secretariat, Penny Deane, Emma Matthews and Ashley Stephens, for their professionalism, knowledge and support, which kept the committee focused and prepared to speak to well over 60 experts in public hearings. The committee was pleased to accept the contributions of over 58 written submissions as well as more than 2½ thousand online submissions.</para>
<para>Interestingly, it was clear from the work the committee did, both in Australia and in examining the experiences in the several markets we visited in Germany and the United States, that a well-functioning grid needs policy certainty. Policy certainty will address pricing and supply. This requires all parts of the political spectrum to come together to ensure that there is agreement on policy direction. The committee heard evidence that the inability of this place to provide certainty in energy policy over the last 10 years has placed the equivalent of a $50-a-tonne carbon price on electricity generation. Why is certainty required? Certainty will provide the stimulus for investments in both plant and innovation to supply Australian businesses and consumers with affordable, accessible power. It is clear that this place needs to lead and provide that certainty, and I encourage all of us to do that as soon as possible.</para>
<para>Australia has always been at the forefront of embracing new technologies—from mobile phones to computers and televisions—and electricity is no exception. The take-up of alternative generation sources such as rooftop solar has risen exponentially in the last decade. Some of this growth was increased by subsidies from previous federal and state governments, but the growth has continued after subsidies have disappeared. It seems there are many reasons for this continued trend, bill reduction always being a primary concern, with a wish to provide cleaner energy and a lower carbon footprint being other determining factors. The amount of generation behind the meter needs to be assessed, modelled and then incorporated into planning for the grid and for future production to ensure stability. Further, we heard that innovation of behind-the-meter generation can negate the need to build as much extra power generation.</para>
<para>It is important when decisions are made about how power is generated that consideration is given to ensuring that there is equity in this system and that consumers, particularly those on low incomes or renters, are not left to shoulder grid costs as those more able to afford rooftop solar and other options leave the grid. For the Australian public and industry, the most important function of an electricity grid is to provide dependable power when they need it. This report and its recommendations can provide the basis of a proper and robust energy future for Australia, with a secure, reliable, affordable grid with lower emissions. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr EVANS</name>
    <name.id>61378</name.id>
    <electorate>Brisbane</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This report,<inline font-style="italic">Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia’s electricity grid</inline><inline font-style="italic">, </inline>is a significant contribution to this parliament's work on the very important topic of energy. It's significant for a number of reasons. This report is, indeed, bipartisan. It's worth reflecting for a moment on what it means when members with diverse world views, such as the member for Melbourne and the member for Hughes, stand together for what is essentially a consensus on energy policy. The point is that this report is bipartisan, and it contains very sensible work that will help take some of the ideology and politics out of the energy debate, hopefully, and help to restore that important certainty that the member for Werriwa just spoke to—the certainty that is critically needed in the energy industry to attract future investment and, ultimately, to put downward pressure on prices.</para>
<para>The first recommendation of this report makes that very clear—the importance of policy certainty. The report goes on to make a number of very other important recommendations, 23 all up, that underscore the importance of some of the other key planks of this government's energy policies. They are an increased focus on dispatchability, the flexibility of the energy grid going forward and the need to promote stability in both a technical and an economic sense.</para>
<para>I want to outline some of the significant recommendations of this report. The first ones relate to grid planning. The recommendations about better future planning of transmission investments and those testings of the business cases for new interconnectors or other transmission assets, for example, I think will prove to be critically important for the future operation of the National Electricity Market. The recommendations around changing the market rules, speeding up that process, are also quite significant. When the industry is undergoing such rapid change, it's very important that the regulatory framework and, indeed, the bureaucracy don't move slower than the technology. We don't want to block sensible, efficient innovation from occurring.</para>
<para>Some other very notable recommendations relate to the search for efficiencies in industrial and business customers. The recommendations to help industrial users to audit their processes, plus updated resources for small and medium businesses, should be welcomed, especially by those small business operators who are often so busy in their businesses that it becomes very difficult for them to find the time to work on their businesses by researching and considering some of their other energy options. In many cases, the options available to those small businesses will have moved on; the costs and the benefits may have changed significantly since they last considered the state of play, possibly some years ago.</para>
<para>It's also important to understand where this report fits into the broader energy debate. Obviously, the energy grid is but one important part of our energy system. That's why there are a number of other key planks to the government's energy policy suite. Separate to the grid and the area of generation for wholesale markets, the government's National Energy Guarantee is the mechanism that will help settle that energy trifecta of affordability, reliability and emissions reduction. The reliability guarantee in the National Energy Guarantee helps deliver that right level of dispatchable energy when it's needed by customers, while the emissions guarantee will ensure that Australia simultaneously meets its international environmental commitments. This two-part guarantee designed by the experts and, indeed, by the Energy Security Board will help deliver that affordable and reliable energy supply we want to see by creating the future policy certainty that all members of this committee have strongly sought to endorse—that certainty that we need for our investment and our wholesale markets.</para>
<para>Another key plank of our energy plan, reflecting the need for storage relating to intermittent electricity from some new and emerging technologies, is Snowy Hydro 2.0. I visited the Snowy Hydro scheme last week to see the opportunities it presents, given that pumped hydro is the more mature, proven storage solution that's been both technologically feasible and commercially feasible for years now. The one thing that struck me more than anything else, I think, was probably the sheer scale of the project in terms of its relativities to the size of our entire energy system. To put it into perspective, Snowy Hydro 2.0. is the equivalent of 35 million household batteries—35 million household units. It provides up to 350,000 megawatt hours of supply. To put that number into perspective, the Tesla battery plant that's recently been installed in South Australia provides 129 megawatt hours of supply—129 compared to 350,000 megawatt hours of supply for Snowy Hydro 2.0. In other words, Snowy Hydro 2.0 is essentially the equivalent of 2,700 of those South Australian Tesla battery installations lined up one against the other. That's not to denigrate or to choose between the two; it's to give an explanation of the scale of the solution that we're talking about here.</para>
<para>There are some other key planks in our suite of energy policies. One is supporting those very important trials and the research and development that's needed to ensure that some of those new and emerging technologies can continue to come down the cost curve and become more financially and commercially viable alternatives. Another key plank, obviously, is the pressure that we're putting on gas markets to ensure that the price of gas is kept down by ensuring that our abundant local supplies of gas meet our own domestic demand. That's important because gas power plants are now so often setting the spot price in wholesale electricity markets.</para>
<para>On top of that, the government has also removed the ability of energy companies to use limited merits review—that's a form of lawfare, essentially—in tribunals to potentially undermine the pricing decisions of the regulator. That should help to keep downward pressure on prices from that aspect of our energy system. And at the retail end of the industry, we have also obviously done a lot of work to ensure that customers can take advantage of whatever better deals there might be for them out there in the marketplace amongst various energy retailers.</para>
<para>I wanted to spend the time going through that checklist just to reinforce the point that there are all of these planks to our energy policy. I wanted to make the point very firmly that the energy policy debate has moved on in the last 18 months. Less and less is it about the politics, and more and more it's about the competence in managing and delivering the transition currently occurring in our energy industry. That transition is being managed and delivered by this government. That transition does include the transition for a modernising electricity grid. This report, focusing as it does on that transition in the grid, is therefore one more plank of that certain energy policy future that we all want to see.</para>
<para>I want to give some very quick thank yous, first of all, to all of those stakeholders who gave evidence to the committee as it did its very important work; a very big thank you to the secretariat for their work; and also a very big thank you to my other committee members for all of their bipartisan efforts. It was important work.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a pleasure to rise to speak to a report into Australia's electricity grid. It's been a long time in the making, but it was a very timely report. It's really the first opportunity that parliament has had to sit back, look and ask: 'What has been the effect of a decade or two of privatisation and deregulation and turning our electricity grid into a market system? Has it worked for people? Also, is it working to help us make the clean energy transition we need to make?' We know from submissions to other Senate inquiries that to meet the targets that were set in the Paris agreements, Australia is going to need to close the equivalent of one coal-fired power station a year between now and 2030 and switch over to renewables. So we've got a big job ahead of us. This was an opportunity to do a bit of a health check and work out whether or not the way we run our electricity system was working. The inquiry didn't look at the generation side of it, how electricity is made, and it didn't look at the retail side of it—how it's sold to us. It looked at all those bits in the middle—the poles and wires and transmission lines that get the electricity to us.</para>
<para>When you think about it, there are not that many times you get a report agreed to by the National, Liberal, Labor and Greens parties, but this report was. What's crystal clear from the report is that all the rules that were set up when the National Electricity Market was established back in the late nineties aren't really fit for purpose any more and haven't delivered us the grid that we need. The inquiry turned up a number of things that I think would probably shock a lot of people in Australia. Most people would probably think that the electricity grid is there as a public good; it's there to get electricity from the generators to us in our homes. They would think that someone is sitting at the top of it and planning to make sure that we're building the infrastructure that we need. And, given that we as consumers have to pay for it in the end, people would probably think you don't get a new piece of electricity equipment being built without someone, from an engineering point of view, having first of all made the decision that it is needed.</para>
<para>It turns out that, in our attempt to turn this natural monopoly into a market, we've actually stuffed things up. The committee found that the process does not work as it is does in the United States, for example, where you have a not-for-profit planner who sits at the top of the electricity system and says: 'Here's where we need to build a new transmission line. Let's go out to the market and find the cheapest way of doing that.' Instead, we have a system in Australia that works the other way around. The big companies that own the electricity networks are the ones that drive the process. They front up to the regulator and say, 'We'd like to build X billion dollars worth of new transmission lines or substations or poles and wires.' The regulator then looks at it and says, 'That seems reasonable; we'll tick it off.' Not only do they tick it off, but they say, 'You've got the right to charge customers to recover the cost of that.' They usually get rates of return up in the order of seven per cent. What we found during the committee's inquiry was that the government could do it at, say, 2½ or three per cent. But what's been happening is that companies come up and say, 'I want to build this piece of kit.' The regulator says, 'Yep, and you can charge twice as much as it would cost for the government to do it, and consumers have to pay the bill.'</para>
<para>So, it's all been driven by these companies who just want to make money—whose interest isn't in the public good or making sure that the electricity system works—and during this inquiry the regulator told us some pretty scary facts. They said, for example, that over a five-year period in recent times we spent about a billion dollars a year on building electricity infrastructure that's only used for about two or three days a year. The regulator also told us that there'd been a massive, massive overspend, and some experts came along and told us that somewhere in the order of $20 billion of unnecessary spending on poles and wires and infrastructure has gone on because of the way that we've set this system up.</para>
<para>Then other witnesses came and told us that so bizarre is this system that, although on the one hand you can get the tick off for spending $20 billion on unnecessary infrastructure, on the other hand, if someone came up now and said, 'I want to build a big transmission line out to Central Queensland to where the sun is shining the brightest; I want to build it out there because I know that, in time, a lot of new companies would like to build renewable energy,' you couldn't get that past the regulator because it wouldn't pass the test.</para>
<para>So, on the one hand, we have a test that encourages people to build unnecessary infrastructure. On the other hand, you can't pass that test if you want to build for the infrastructure of the future, because that doesn't meet the rules. So, we got the rules wrong. We're treating this natural monopoly that should be there as a public good as a market, and we're introducing all these artificialities into it like letting big companies come along and put forward what's in their best interests, not what's in the public's best interests, and then we all have to pay for it. And, secondly, we don't have an independent planner sitting at the top of it.</para>
<para>That's why I think recommendation 16 of this report is so crucial. I remind the parliament that this was a cross-parliamentary recommendation. The committee has said, after looking into how this is working, that what we need to do is looking at giving the operator who runs the energy grid in this country:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… a distribution planning role that enables planning along the National Electricty Market.</para></quote>
<para>Most people would probably think it already exists, but, for the reasons I've already said, it actually doesn't. It is all being driven by companies, not an independent planner acting in the public interest. We said, 'Let's give the operator that power':</para>
<quote><para class="block">In the alternative, the Committee recommends the establishment of a new independent planning body for the National Electricity Market.</para></quote>
<para>This is really fundamental. This is, I would suggest, an admission that the market based approach has not worked and that the committee has recognised that it's time to do what they do in the United States, where electricity is much cheaper than it is here. That is to say that we should be building our electricity infrastructure, our grid, because a central planner has said, based on engineering, 'This is what we need to do,' rather than because a company has come along and said, 'This is how we can make a profit.' If we did that and nothing else, we would do two things. One is that we would massively reduce people's power bills.</para>
<para>The second is—and this is noted in recommendation 16—that we would speed up the transition to renewables. As the recommendation says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Australian Energy Market Operator, utilising its current transmission planning functions, consider the establishment of renewable energy zones.</para></quote>
<para>If we had this centralised planning role, we could plan those transmission lines out to Central Queensland and Central New South Wales, out to those places where the sun shines the brightest and the wind blows the hardest. At the moment, our transmission system is essentially a series of copper and aluminium lines out to coalmines. That's just the way it's been built up. What we need to do is shift to make sure we bring on more renewables. If we've got the situation at the moment where building a line out to build more renewable energy wouldn't pass the regulatory test; we need to change the rules.</para>
<para>I want to finish on that point about changing the rules. There was an extraordinary attack on the network operator from Frontier Economics recently, a consultant regularly used by the rule-maker, the AEMC, and various other various political parties. They said the network operator is not doing its job. Well, can I say, that's not borne out by this committee's report.</para>
<para>The committee, I think it is fair to say on any fair reading of this report, can see that the network operator, especially under the new CEO, is doing its best to make this transition happen and is forward-thinking. The committee has made a great deal of implicit criticism, though, of the rule-maker, the very one that often engages Frontier Economics. The rule-maker has been told to lift its game. It has been told—this is the AEMC—that it is not acting speedily enough and that its responsiveness is not up to scratch. If I were the rule-maker sitting down looking at this, I'd take it very seriously. When pretty much every political party in the parliament comes together to say, 'Lift your game', it's a sign something is wrong.</para>
<para>Lastly, I want to express my thanks to the secretariat for their great work and also to the chair. The chair, in particular, went to a great deal of effort to ensure that this was a report that canvassed a wide range of opinions and represented a consensus view. I think, to that extent, that the chair should be commended. I thank my colleagues who participated with me on the committee as well. When you have people from diametrically opposed positions agreeing on some sensible reforms, it is something everyone should take notice of.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CRAIG KELLY</name>
    <name.id>99931</name.id>
    <electorate>Hughes</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will concur with the member for Melbourne on that point. If we can agree on some of these issues, that shows there is true hope in this parliament for bipartisan support. There are a few comments I'd like to make on the report, firstly on the introduction:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Like many countries around the world, the electricity system in Australia is undergoing a period of significant transition, driven by the changing mix of electricity generation, the emergence of a range of new technologies, and government policies for emissions reduction.</para></quote>
<para>I think the very important point to make is that this so-called transition is not driven by market principles. It is not driven by ensuring we get the lowest cost electricity. It is being driven by government policies that we mandate unreliable and intermittent electricity into the grid. And we see what that actually does to the electricity system. We have to understand that all electrons aren't equal. When you force intermittent and unreliably generated electricity into the grid—and you force it in through government mandates—it's like infecting the grid with a computer virus. It completely skews the normal workings of the market. It undermines the economic case of the existing generators. That is what we've seen. We've seen that happen here, and we have seen that result in possibly the fastest increasing electricity prices anywhere in the world. Other nations have had big increases in their electricity prices, but I don't think anywhere else in the world has experienced electricity price rises to the same degree as Australia.</para>
<para>We were very fortunate that the committee was able to make a trip to Germany to discuss the German energy policy with German politicians and many experts in their energy generation and distribution sectors. At the beginning, the German policy, Energiewende, was seen to be a bipartisan policy. Everyone in Germany seemed to be onboard with that policy. But now they are starting to see the results of this policy—pushing tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of German households into energy poverty.</para>
<para>Only recently there's been pushback. Some German politicians are starting to speak out about this. As recently as a week ago, Sandra Weeser from, Germany's Free Democratic Party, gave a speech about the growing green energy capacity being installed—that the effort to reduce CO2 had failed, and what was left was an unpredictable power grid that often produced energy when it's not needed, thus costing Germans unnecessarily hundreds of millions of dollars annually. She went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">…that the expansion of the green energies is totally out of proportion with the existing power infrastructure, and that even the most perfect grid will not be able to handle the volatile wind and solar energies.</para></quote>
<para>There is one big difference between ourselves and Germany. In Germany, they have interconnectors to almost all their surrounding countries. When the wind is not blowing in Germany, they can tap into the nuclear power plants over in France. They can tap into the coal fired generators in Poland. They can tap into the hydrogenerators in Norway and Sweden. We can't do that. We, as a nation, are an island. We're an electricity island; we cannot tap into other countries' electricity supplies. The difficulties we have are far greater than the difficulties the Germans have.</para>
<para>Another recent speech was given by Dr Rainer Kraft, a German politician who is a former doctor of chemistry. He described Germany's Energiewende policy as the policy of 'a fool'. He called it 'eco-populist voodoo' designed to bring about 'an eco-socialist centrally planned economy.' The tide appears to have turned in Germany. Our feel-good policies are coming up against the hard engineering realities of the real world. That is why we must be so careful about what we do here, in this nation, to our electricity policy.</para>
<para>We have conducted an experiment. There's nothing wrong, at times, with conducting experiments, because small-scale experiments are how we advance as a civilisation. It's how businesses advance. They innovate and try something new, and they test the water. They test the market to see if it works or not.</para>
<para>That's what we've seen in South Australia. I often criticise them, but they went out there and they tested the water with a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They described it themselves as a big experiment. The results of that experiment are in. It has been nothing other than an unmitigated failure, a complete disaster, which has seen that state have not only the highest electricity prices in the nation but the highest electricity prices in the entire world. On top of that, in a state with a population of only 1.7 million people, they've had to take half a billion dollars—which could have been invested in schools, hospitals, aged care, kids with disabilities, drug rehabilitation and all the things we like to see money spent on—and put that into diesel generators. It's the big stunt of the big battery, nothing other than a complete stunt. We've seen that in the results over the past month. Half a billion dollars has been spent just to try and keep the lights on.</para>
<para>We've seen the comparisons between the cost of electricity in Australia and in the USA. One of the things we have to be very careful about in this nation is that we remain internationally competitive in everything we do. One of the most important things that we need to be internationally competitive with is the cost of our energy compared to the cost of other nations' energy, especially the USA, which is still the largest economy in the world. We have seen that the cost of electricity in many states in the USA ranges from US10c to US12c a kilowatt hour. That is the equivalent of A13c, A14c or A15c. So our electricity prices are not double those of the USA; they are in many cases triple those of the USA. We cannot continue to grow the wealth of this country if the cost of energy in Australia is double and triple what it is in the USA, when only a decade ago the cost of energy in Australia almost had parity with that in the United States of America. If we look forward, the USA projects that by the year 2050, the middle of this century, its energy costs will still be around the same as current costs.</para>
<para>We have to really think as a nation about what we are going to do. We need to set targets to ensure that our electricity supply price is comparable to that of the USA. Otherwise, how can industry compete? How can we create the wealth that we have in the past with our aluminium industry, our glass industry, our food-processing industry? How can those high-energy-intensive industries compete if the cost of energy in this nation is so much higher than it is elsewhere in the world?</para>
<para>We also need to look at the cost of the transmission lines. Our electricity generators are free-riding. We see that AGL is closing down Liddell power station. There is at least a billion dollars in sunk costs in those transmission lines. If AGL closes down Liddell, that cost is written off, and it's a cost to the national economy. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>While he is in the chamber, I would like to acknowledge the member for Hughes, who is a member of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, which produced the report <inline font-style="italic">Powering our future</inline><inline font-style="italic">: inquiry into modernising Australia’s electricity grid</inline>. That committee is chaired by Mr Broad. I would recommend the report to all those who are interested in electricity, and I think many people are interested because of the escalating cost of electricity. I welcome the committee's latest report, which deals with a topic that affects every facet of Australian society. It impacts every home, business and industry in my electorate of Paterson.</para>
<para>It is all about energy. As I've said before, energy is the oxygen of our economy. With this report we should celebrate the fact that members of this standing committee from different areas in this political arena came together to create a document that charts a path forward. That's right, a consensus was achieved across four parties, and that is no mean feat in an area that has seen so much division—and derision, I might add.</para>
<para>I congratulate the committee on its 135-page document. I urge the Prime Minister, his government and his cabinet to look at this report and treat it as a roadmap that can lead to some energy sustainability in this country, a roadmap towards a national energy policy, which we are so desperately in need of, a roadmap to investment in energy, lower pollution and lower electricity prices, which my constituents and the people of Australia genuinely are calling out for, and, importantly, a path to energy security.</para>
<para>Today much of my electorate of Paterson swelters in 40-degree temperatures. That's right. I know we don't get that in Canberra, but there are many places where the temperature at this time is over 40 degrees. But in spite of the heat I'm sure there are shivers down the spine of many people in my electorate, because almost precisely one year ago this week another heatwave wracked the Hunter. The effect of that was particularly devastating but could have been so much worse. We all know that high temperatures and fossil fuel energy generation are a pretty unhappy marriage—and we're certainly accustomed to those in this place—although I would like to say that I am the recipient of some wonderful roses on this Valentine's Day. The hotter it gets, the more unreliable our coal- and gas-fired generators become. We know that. At the same time, demand peaks as people seek relief from the extreme heat and turn on their air conditioning.</para>
<para>When this perfect storm struck in 2017, the mighty Tomago Aluminium smelter, in my electorate of Paterson, was forced to cut back production so the lights and air conditioners could stay on in New South Wales. Tomago supplies about a quarter of the country's primary aluminium. It draws 12 per cent of the state's power, the equivalent of one million homes. It also directly supports nearly a thousand families in my electorate through jobs, and almost 2,000 when you take the contractors into account. So, as you can appreciate, the fortunes of Tomago Aluminium are closely linked to the fortunes of many of my constituents. When the heatwave hit on 10 February Tomago had no choice but to cut production by 30 per cent. This was no small matter. Curtailing production at an aluminium smelter is dangerous. It's dangerous to the smelter and its workings. It's dangerous for the workers, who are dealing with 900-degree molten aluminium and working on a potline where the mercury stands at 55 degrees Celsius. Yes, they go in with sapling trees to break the seal that forms when you cut down power at an aluminium smelter. If the power is off too long, the potlines freeze and the aluminium solidifies. I will read from the report, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee visited Tomago and heard about the consequences to the plant during peak usage shut downs. The Committee also heard from the Energy Efficiency Council that requiring a very large aluminium smelter to reduce its demand is a very bad idea because it can cause setting of the pots in that industrial facility.</para></quote>
<para>That came from Mr Robert Murray-Leach, the Head of Policy at the Energy Efficiency Council. The committee heard that it is a very bad idea—indeed, it is a very bad idea. Once the potlines freeze it's not just a matter of saying, 'We'll just move out the solid aluminium and start it up again.' That doesn't happen, as we have witnessed in other places across Australia. I've already lost one aluminium smelter in my electorate, not because of a freeze. It happened in Kurri Kurri. Hydro Aluminium was shut down because of worldwide aluminium prices as well as electricity prices. I don't want to see another one go.</para>
<para>Since that day—10 February last year—I have fought to encourage this government to craft and commit to a national energy policy. I have highlighted the plight of Tomago Aluminium and I've worked to help the chief executive officer, Matt Howell, obtain some certainty and security around the provision of energy. I've also worked to get Matt's expertise in front of this committee, that's done some really great work. I am absolutely delighted to say that I know that this interaction between Mr Howell and the committee was of particular use. I refer to recommendations 18 and 19, where the committee says that we need to look at the rules surrounding the energy market in Australia and we need to look at the re-bidding practices of last year and particularly the gaming of the system in New South Wales during 2017.</para>
<para>It's not just about manufacturing, however. The <inline font-style="italic">Powering our future</inline> report refers to findings of the energy council which say that this country's ongoing energy debate and inability to agree on national energy policy has cost us the equivalent of a $50 per tonne carbon price since 2009. That is a mighty expensive dose of paralysis through policy indecision. And it hits every one of us.</para>
<para>I have spoken in parliament before about this and I have begged this government to stop its squabbling and take a good look at the Finkel recommendations. My Labor colleagues and I have repeatedly said that we are open to a bipartisan approach, because Australians deserve better. They do deserve better electricity prices. When you think about the fact that we are an island nation, it is clear that we should be an energy efficient hub. We should be able to what they do in Europe; they draw on power from other countries. We should be able to do that within the states. As this report says, we should be able to use wind power from Tasmania, wave power from Western Australia, and the sunshine from Queensland and New South Wales. We should all be working together across this mighty continent to make sure that energy isn't something that we have a problem with.</para>
<para>Let me tell you, the bill shock that is impacting Australians across our country now is real. People are making terrible decisions. On hot days like it is today in the Hunter—it is over 40 degrees—I know people who are thinking, 'Can I actually afford to turn on the air-conditioner?' I'm not just using hubris. I went for a blood test during the break, and the pathology operator and nurse said: 'Meryl, I live on my own. It's going to be over 45 tomorrow and I'm actually seriously thinking I'm not sure if I can afford to turn on the air-conditioner.' How have we gotten to this in Australia? I'll tell you how: through 10 years of squabbling about energy.</para>
<para>We need to stop that squabble and we need to really look at this report. Again, I say in all seriousness and fairness, four parties came together in a multipartisan way to come up with the recommendations in this report. Please, let's not turn our backs on the people of Australia and, more importantly, on the future generations of Australia who will look back on this epoch in political history, shake their heads and say: 'What were they thinking? Were they thinking? Why weren't they getting on and doing the job that they should have been doing?' Please let us not waste a moment longer in this place when we could be moving towards the exciting advances that are being made in energy.</para>
<para>The member for Newcastle sits in the Deputy Speaker's chair today. The CSIRO, who operates out of her electorate, are doing some magnificent work in photovoltaics. It is important and it is exciting, and we can't stand here and take home the remuneration that we do as politicians without seriously thinking about the hard-earned money of Australians that is being spent so unnecessarily on electricity.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to be able to speak to the <inline font-style="italic">Powering our future</inline> report by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy on modernising Australia's electricity grid. Firstly I'd like to echo the sentiments of my Labor colleague the member for Shortland, Mr Conroy, and commend the committee on the report and for the non-partisan way we worked towards this report. We worked very effectively together. In fact, there were members from four different political parties, and we came to enjoy that process greatly, given that there tends to be quite a lot of partisanship in this place.</para>
<para>I'd also like to acknowledge our chair, the member for Mallee, Andrew Broad, on that front. His chairmanship was a catalyst in ensuring that we worked in a very constructive and non-partisan fashion. In fact, one of our first meetings was all about making sure that we could add something constructive and worthwhile in the policy debate and to make a contribution to that policy in the national interest. I'd also like to thank the secretariat for their wonderful work throughout the whole process.</para>
<para>The energy debate is something that, obviously, we cannot allow petty partisanship to impede. Clearly, energy is something that modern society cannot do without, due to the advances in technology and the vast amount of information that is being exchanged every second. Just as we need energy to power the modern world, Australia cannot afford to leave itself behind by not modernising its electricity grid.</para>
<para>Partisanship is impeding progress in the energy debate that we're currently having—not in our committee, but outside of it. Indeed, the very first recommendation of this report speaks to this problem: that to truly thrive and progress in any industry there must be some relative stability. The toing and froing in the energy debate has led the Energy Council, the peak body for generators, to express that the Australian parliament has been unable to agree or settle on a policy since 2009, and that is shameful. I hope with this report we have made some progress towards eliminating the stalemate or stasis that we're currently in.</para>
<para>A lack of policy certainty leads to a lack of industry and market certainty, which has an adverse impact on investment and innovation. The report states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The policy certainty required relates to a mechanism to achieve emissions reduction in the electricity sector. The electricity sector is capital intensive and a lack of policy certainty has undermined investment in the sector.</para></quote>
<para>This simply cannot continue. An enduring and stable mechanism can fuel investment whilst being able to address the issues that Australia's electricity grid faces, namely those of security, reliability and affordability.</para>
<para>I would also like to make note of recommendation 16, which recommends that the AEMO consider establishing renewable energy zones. In my view, this is absolutely vital if Australia is serious about tackling climate change and reducing its carbon emissions. This recommendation is linked to the first recommendation insofar as the uncertainty around energy policy—particularly around renewable energy—has really inhibited meaningful investment in renewable energy. Serious investment is needed in renewable energy zones to take advantage of some of the most significant solar radiation in the world and of our great wind resources. These are natural resources that Australia has an abundance of, and it would be foolish not to take advantage of those. However, to achieve this there needs to be carefully thought-out planning and sufficient investment in the grid.</para>
<para>Other recommendations worth noting are recommendation 4, which talks about speeding up rule-making, and recommendation 5, which talks about greater parliamentary oversight of the recommendations from the Finkel report. These are recommendations referring to industry demands and responses as regards energy efficiency—vital to reducing sector demand, whilst providing a revenue stream for manufacturers.</para>
<para>I won't go through all the recommendations but I'd like to touch on some of the energy grid security needed. Australia's energy grid requires security around frequency control, ancillary services and inertia responses. The review found that renewable energy can provide all the security services—provided there is adequate planning and sufficient investment. This has been one of the criticisms around renewable energy—that it couldn't adequately provide this security. Our review finds that it can, obviously with the important caveat that there is sufficient investment and planning in place. Renewable energy is relatively new. Those who wish to politicise it have made it a contentious issue. As such, in the renewable energy sector's short life span it's not been called upon to provide these particular services. Once a good and stable regulatory framework is in place, the sector will be able to provide such services.</para>
<para>Lastly, we must understand that the traditional resources—coal, gas and the like—are not the only resources at Australia's disposal. Australia has been referred to as the lucky country. It certainly is in many respects, although I've always argued we're the lucky ones to be Australian—to be blessed to be part of this country. But we are blessed with great natural resources in Australia. And the technology has now advanced to the point where we can harness those new resources, which was not really possible in days gone by, and we can convert those resources into energy.</para>
<para>Australia's riches lie in its vastness, its geographic diversity, and, if we are shrewd and we shrewdly invest in renewable energy, Australia can have multiple and diverse sources of renewable energy scattered across the country powering the grid—solar, wind and wave generated electricity powering Australia. This is not just an investment for the energy grid; the report really looks at an investment for future generations of Australians. Just as this is a reality in other countries, it can be a reality in Australia if we get our act together. On that basis, I commend the report to the House and encourage all people to get a copy and read it.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs</title>
          <page.no>164</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>164</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HAMMOND</name>
    <name.id>80109</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm delighted and feel quite privileged to be able to rise to address this place in relation to this report as a member of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs. At the outset, I would like to give the appropriate thanks to those who were involved in the very challenging work of putting such an impressive report together. It is entitled <inline font-style="italic">The power </inline><inline font-style="italic">of education: f</inline><inline font-style="italic">rom surviving to thriving</inline>.</para>
<para>On that note, I pay tribute to our chair, the member for Durack, who I must say chaired proceedings in an efficient but also a very impressive manner in terms of keeping a large volume of evidence and information moving along; our deputy chair, the effervescent member for Lingiari; and of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for Newcastle. In my view, as very much a newcomer to this role, I was blown away by the depth of knowledge that you brought to the proceedings. I also acknowledge the other committee members and the secretariat, who played an invaluable role in ensuring things kept moving along so smoothly—Ms Brocklehurst, Ms Mazzarella, Ms Milligan and Ms Jones.</para>
<para>My journey to having the privilege of being on this committee started a long way back. It actually started with a seminal moment in one's life, one of those forks in the road that steers one in a direction that one could never possibly anticipate, but in many ways it really was responsible for steering me here at this point in time. That related to the time and place when the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report was released, in 1997-98, and it's apposite that we talk about this now in the context of the 10th anniversary of the apology to the stolen generation, particularly in relation to addressing the Closing the Gap targets.</para>
<para>I will never forget walking into the office of Cedric Wyatt, who has now passed away, sadly. Cedric, for those who don't know, was then the CEO of Aboriginal Affairs in the state of Western Australia and was also the very proud father of Ben Wyatt, who is the current Treasurer of Western Australia as well as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and, I'm very proud to say, a very firm, longstanding friend of mine. We used to knock around together in primary school. I went to Cedric to say, 'I'm interested in doing this paper at uni about this report that I've heard a bit about called <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline>. Is there any chance I could have a look at one?' He gave me a copy of this report. I read it from cover to cover at around the same time that I first saw our then leader Kim Beazley stand up in parliament, having read the document overnight, and being moved to tears about the nature and extent of the trauma suffered by the stolen generations as a result of their forced removal.</para>
<para>What I didn't know then, and I subsequently learned, was Cedric himself was a member of the stolen generation. While he was a close family friend, I had never really appreciated not only the impact that being taken away had had on him personally but, again, that imperceptible level of trauma that filters down from generation to generation and that, in some special way, quite possibly drives Ben to want to effect the positive change that he does to this day.</para>
<para>Analysing that report took me through the law to actually publishing a paper, because at that stage I had a question: what can we do to try and remedy this wrong? I knew instinctively that we had committed an irreparable level of harm on an entire race of people. I thought, 'We must do something to try and repair this damage.' At that stage in my life, I thought perhaps the answer was with the law. That took me to publishing a paper which was about trying to establish whether there was a fiduciary duty involved so that one could seek a remedy from the government, in so far as the establishment of the then inspectors or protectorates of Aboriginal people had a fiduciary relationship over the wards of the state. I fleshed out the fact that there might be a case there, or there might not be.</para>
<para>Ironically, in 1998 many of those arguments were fleshed out in the litigation that became known as the Cubillo and Gunner litigation. It was at that stage where time, effectively, defeated the plaintiffs, not so far as the Limitations Act argument went but an equitable doctrine of laches, as it then applied. At that stage, again, it took me on the path of seeking justice for those who had been wronged, like the stolen generations, through the law. Ironically it took me over to cases that involved representing other Indigenous peoples who had been either dispossessed of land or dispossessed of entitlements, and over to Papua New Guinea to act on behalf of landowners against BHP for the damage done to the Fly River in relation to the Ok Tedi copper and gold mine.</para>
<para>As I was being taken along the Fly River I was told by the landowners that the Fly River—it then had the colour and texture of a milky coffee—only 20 years before was so clear it looked like kerosene, in that you could see the bottom of the river without any trouble at all. The 50,000 land owners along the Fly River effectively had their economy taken away from them because they could no longer rely upon the river to sustain their market based subsistence. It is with some irony that I have the privilege in this place of being assigned responsibilities in the resources sector and I find myself dealing with the BHPs in this part of the world and managing those relationships.</para>
<para>I then went over to represent landowners in Bougainville in the case against Rio Tinto, and again it was the same sort of thing. And at that stage in my life I thought that perhaps the answer to try and seek redress lay in the law, but it was clearly lacking in terms of its ability to deliver a meaningful remedy. That took me into this place in many ways. I had the great privilege of serving on this committee, and hearing the evidence from community leaders all over the country in relation to the ways in which the current system was failing them, and, more importantly, failing Aboriginal children, in so far as not landing the educational outcomes that were intended just to ensure that these kids had a level playing field.</para>
<para>Madam Deputy Chair, you were there, and I suspect you recall as distinctly as I do, Wadeye—which is a community around 500 kilometres west of Darwin, and one of the largest communities in the country—at which a number of questions were asked of the principal. He was working his back side off like, everyone else there, in order to try and ensure that educational outcomes were delivered for these kids. The question was asked of the principal, 'How many kids are in the school?' There were 800 kids enrolled in the school; it was St Joseph's, I think, the only school in the community. Then questions were asked of the principle: 'Forget about the literature, the studies, the peer reviews and all that sort of stuff. In order to get these kids out of the school system with a reasonable degree of literacy and numeracy, how often do they need to be at school?' Well, the evidence was that they need to be at school perhaps 80 per cent of the time. When one thinks about that, that's every single week of your schooling life you're missing a day, so you're only getting to school for four days out of five. That's pretty significant, one thought to oneself—I certainly did.</para>
<para>Then the question was asked of the principal, 'That's all fine. So how many of your kids are hitting that mark so you can send them out?' The principal said it was about 20. One reasonably thought, 'That's about 20 per cent of 800,' so the question was asked, 'Is that 20 per cent?' and the answer was, 'No, that's 20 kids.' So we have a system right now where 20 children out of 800 are actually heading out the other end with just a workable degree of literacy and numeracy. The evidence given at that stage was that one of the fundamental issues was food security. Children in these communities are not getting enough to eat. They are vulnerable to substance abuse and there are all manner of ways in which the opportunities just to get ahead are circumvented by virtue of obstacles or roadblocks in the way.</para>
<para>What was very clear in all of this and what is reflected in the report is that there is no silver bullet to ensuring educational outcomes are achieved for Aboriginal people. But one thing I know is this: what is very clear from my time in the law and my brief time having the privilege to serve in this place is that none of this will change as long as we think we need to fix things by doing things to Aboriginal people. What is very clear from this report about the way forward is that, whether we like it or not, if we are ever going to effect some form of meaningful change for our first-nation people, we need to stop thinking we know the answers. We need to face up to the reality that the Uluru Statement From the Heart, as indelicate and unfortunate as it might be in fitting into our current paradigm of doing things, perhaps is the way to go. It might just be the way to go because that was the recommendation of the first-nation people, and that has to be something we take forward.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the educational opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and <inline font-style="italic">The power of education: from surviving to thriving</inline>. I acknowledge the traditional owners of these lands, the Ngunawal people, and their elders past and present and, in doing so, recommit myself to ending the scourge that is entrenched Aboriginal disadvantage. I also take this opportunity to specifically acknowledge the thorough and thoughtful work of the members of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and the secretariat staff, who put in an inordinate amount of time. I wasn't a member of this committee, but I have a reasonable interest in it given that I am from Western Sydney, where we have the highest urban Aboriginal population rate in the country and some of my high schools have a 20 per cent Aboriginal and first-nation student population. Recognition must go to the member for Hasluck and the member for Lingiari for their ongoing dedication and direction in this committee. It is important that we acknowledge their deep professional and personal connection which has helped shape a report that, while at times might be confronting, will help guide this House in its deliberations and policy direction—and goodness knows we need a lot of that.</para>
<para>Importantly, acknowledgement and thanks must go to everyone who took the time to make submissions and offer their thoughts to help guide the committee. This input is often made with the background of scant resources and, at times, imparting knowledge through traditional contexts, which are not always easy to explain and not always easy to put into words. It is done with passion, with compassion and with understanding. The committee has made a series of recommendations that have the capacity to not only improve our interactions within the confines of education but also increase the capacities of Indigenous communities overall. We know that education is the great leveller and we know that it's a game changer, and in Indigenous communities this couldn't be any more significant. It is important in rural and regional area has but also in urban settings, like in my electorate of Lindsay.</para>
<para>At the outset, I note that the chair has stated it is essential that Indigenous students and their families be able to choose from a range of well-supported options for secondary education, public and independent, within their local region and further afield should they choose. This is a particularly relevant statement for Indigenous students, their families and the teaching staff involved. It came as no surprise to me that the committee raised concerns regarding the lack of reliable data on the students' achievements. It is critical that we improve and that the government improves the methods of data collection, and not just through standardised testing. The data is critical to guide education professionals, community workers and communities themselves. I raise this issue as a member of parliament who, as I said, lives in a region with the highest population of urban settlement of Aboriginal people. It is vital that all of us can identify the issues and develop specific policies that address inequality, effectively helping to close that very stubborn gap.</para>
<para>Addressing cultural safety is vital in maintaining connection to people's communities. There is the recommendation that training in how to teach people for whom English is a second language or dialect be made a compulsory component for teachers whether they are completing their degrees or already working in schools. I note that every time we hear this Prime Minister give an address in relation to first nations people, he does so in traditional language. I would implore him to listen half as much as he speaks in relation to first nations and first nation voices. I specifically call out the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It is to the committee's credit that they recognise that it should be treated as a matter of urgency to make it compulsory to train teachers in teaching people for whom English is a second dialect.</para>
<para>Data retention, collation and availability will also assist educators and policymakers alike. The fact that the committee has acknowledged and raised serious concerns regarding the significant disparity about accessibility and funding for engagement between boys and girls is deeply concerning. We spent some time in Alice Springs late last year, and met the Tangentyere Women's Family Safety Group. We know that the effects of family violence in these communities are incredibly difficult. We know that women are more likely to be affected. The committee has rightly stated that girls are the mothers and carers of the next generation—without being too stereotypical—it's a fact of life; women carry babies and it is our predominant responsibility to care for them. The women are actually our future, and these girls are not getting access to the education. So there is concern regarding the focus on sports based programs. While they can be effective at engaging boys, these programs should not be regarded as the only hook for increasing participation and attendance. Certainly in my electorate we do see that a fair bit too.</para>
<para>I agree with the committee that encouragement and funding equality for girls and the promotion of art, cultural education and gender and culturally specific education programs is a whole-of-community outcome. It won't just affect or impact or make better the lives of first nations people; it's something that will make better the lives of every Australian. The report correctly identifies this as a matter of urgency. I would implore the government to get on with these recommendations and the implementation around them.</para>
<para>I have noted the committee has identified the need for cultural training for teachers and recognises that one size fits all is not the answer. When I was a university student I famously had a university lecturers come in and play the song 'Another brick in the wall', by Pink Floyd, encouraging us as educators not to take the one-size-fits-all approach, and that is still relevant to me now—less than 20 years later, without giving away how old I actually am.</para>
<para>The committee rightfully identifies and clarifies that tailoring the needs of disparate communities often requires a less formative approach that allows educators to tailor programs in specific areas. That's what we would have set out as the Labor government to do with the Gonski funding as well. This has the added advantage of helping address wellbeing and health, and aids that assist teachers as they strive for cultural understanding, better awareness and a better way of integrating that into a very formal curriculum.</para>
<para>It is also significant that the committee's report addresses the urgent need for Indigenous culture to be included in teaching degrees. Support should be provided to teachers in communities with a high number of Indigenous students to ensure they have appropriate skills to learn language, culture and history. And I want to give a shout-out to Kristine MacPhail, the principal at Cambridge Park High School. Every year, she never fails to ensure that Aboriginal students in her school are recognised through her active and energised participation in NAIDOC Week. It's always my great pleasure to go along and have wattleseed pancakes and to participate in the special Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander celebrations of that week. It is an absolute honour to do so and it is a credit to the school for allowing that to happen. Also Caroline Chisholm, my former school, a Catholic school, has an Aboriginal advisory group, which is headed up by their students, by the kids that this impacts, and they are making gains and they are striving in our community.</para>
<para>Sometimes we can falter, though, in our enthusiasm to improve our approach to education, not only educationally but institutionally. If organisations receive funding, they ought to be producing results. While we strive to reach for answers, sometimes we might fall short. I do applaud the committee's recommendation that highlights the Queensland government's findings into direct instruction. To give the children the best start possible despite the hurdles, disparate curriculums sometimes do not meet community expectations. In the search to tailor for specific community needs, we require community accountability. It is hoped that the review into this program provides significant insight, and I urge the government to act on the committee's funding recommendation to expedite any action that is required.</para>
<para>We turn to the need now for flexibility, and the recognition that displacement from your community is difficult and it is fraught. Attending a boarding school affects every child, regardless of their circumstance. It is especially difficult for first nation kids. In this place, we need to imagine a world where English can be at times your second or third language. We need to acknowledge the cultural shock that people from remote and even urban communities will experience when attending boarding schools. The recommendations by this committee to establish dedicated public accommodation as close as practicable to where it is needed will surely assist those children affected by sudden changes. A broad strategy to ensure that cultural, health and wellbeing standards are met is a laudable goal.</para>
<para>You might be surprised that these comments are just as relevant in Western Sydney as they are in rural and regional and remote areas. I acknowledge that education is primarily the responsibility of state governments but, federally, we can ensure that people needing to travel or requiring assistance to further their studies are encouraged and not thwarted. In respect of ABSTUDY funding, it is clear the government has dropped the ball on this. As with Centrelink, procedures regarding the facilitation, certainty and—most importantly—confidence that a child will be able to continue their studies are vital to ensuring that inclusion, not exclusion, is our goal. I commend this report and I commit myself to continuing advocacy for those people who need a voice here.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joint Standing Committee on Migration</title>
          <page.no>168</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>168</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Making a new home in a new country is not easy yet tens of thousands of people do this in Australia every year. I believe Australia can and should do more. I want to thank my fellow Labor members on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration—the deputy chair, the member for Calwell, and the member for Hindmarsh—and those government members who chose to participate at the level that they did. I want to thank the experts, the security agencies, the police and the law enforcement officials who gave evidence. I want to thank the bright young people who welcomed us into their schools and their communities and who told us about their lives and their journeys, how they had made Australia their home, and their experiences and the types of supports they received and they needed. I want to thank the secretariat for the marvellous work they do. I'm constantly amazed and impressed by the professionalism, efficiency and effectiveness of the secretariat—the people who work in this place.</para>
<para>Some of the members of this committee travelled overseas as part of a delegation—approved, of course, by the authorities in this place—to the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Germany. Each of these countries faced different challenges, and it is quite clear that they can learn more from us than we can learn from them. But, we included the ideas that we got from these countries' experiences in this report.</para>
<para>There are many recommendations in this report that the Labor members agreed to: recommendations 1 to 14. But there are those that we can't agree with. There are many great recommendations. For example, the recommendation about Community Hubs Australia and an expansion of that particular program. In my own electorate, we are getting five of them. I'm very happy, because we can see the importance around the country of a place where women, particularly, can come to safe locations to learn English. Often when they come to this country, because of the circumstances in the countries they come from, they don't have educational opportunities. English language is critical in their engagement with the community, not just for women but for men and children as well. English is also critical for employment prospects.</para>
<para>One of the great recommendations that we have here is about a neighbourhood migrant mothers outreach program that we saw in Germany.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Here, here.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the member for Bruce is here. He was with me on that occasion, and the member for Calwell was particularly interested in this. It was about women who had experienced certain challenges in their life meeting with other women and sharing their experiences, and providing that vital support. That was a great program, not just in Germany but in the Netherlands as well. It had been operating in Rotterdam, from memory. It had been commended around the world, even in Australia. We need that type of program here in Australia. That's one of the great recommendations.</para>
<para>There are many other good recommendations here. For example, the idea of a youth mentoring program—a pilot program. The importance of role models was critical. Les Twentyman talked about that to us in evidence he gave. Another one was establishing a sport and active recreation program. We saw the importance of sports like basketball and soccer, or football, as many people call it. I love soccer as well. I used to play it for many years. It's really important to do that.</para>
<para>It's also important for agencies to talk with each other. One of the things that we found was that the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission should get funding for the express purpose of data collection on the visa status of offenders, for example, for inclusion in the national database and for national criminal intelligence systems. It's important that agencies talk to one another and that police talk to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.</para>
<para>We also looked at a justice reinvestment approach in relation to these communities. We commended the work done by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, and the committee also looked at what they had done when I was chair of the Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs in the House of Representatives. The<inline font-style="italic"> Doing time—</inline><inline font-style="italic">t</inline><inline font-style="italic">ime for </inline><inline font-style="italic">d</inline><inline font-style="italic">oing</inline> report also talked about a justice reinvestment process and programs, an approach to Indigenous communities, and how that might work in migrant communities.</para>
<para>But I've got to say that we dissented—the Labor MPs—in relation to this particular report. This committee was hijacked—simply hijacked—by the member for La Trobe, as chair, in an attempt to reflect issues in his own electorate. He went ahead and drew conclusions and made recommendations with minimal or no evidence, based on opinion and anecdote. It was not fact based. Labor's position is always to listen to our security and intelligence agencies, and that's why we do, including listening to Victoria Police. The purpose of this inquiry was to investigate issues relating to migrant settlement outcomes. As the Labor Party, if we're in government we'll always work with state and territory colleagues to examine how Commonwealth support can be provided. We rely on robust evidence, not anecdote and opinion. We dissented from what we saw with this particular committee and its recommendations. Despite minimal or no evidence, the report focused on young humanitarian entrants from Sudanese background in relation to a certain part of Melbourne. That's what the member for La Trobe was clearly doing, regardless of what the police in Victoria, or any other agencies, experts, community or anyone involved in settlement, the legal profession or local communities recommended to him.</para>
<para>The report did not reflect the evidence and ignored the wider Australian migration situation. The focus of the inquiry was to be on humanitarian entrants and youth crime. That's what the member for La Trobe thought. He missed a big opportunity to focus on the settlement outcomes for the majority of Australians. Humanitarian entrants make up less than 10 per cent of Australia's annual migrant intake. The report advocates for flexibility in settlement arrangements.</para>
<para>We were concerned about what we saw. We were concerned about the line of questioning we saw the member for La Trobe undertake. It was clear he was about making sure there should be an extension of section 501 to people under the age of 18. What he really couldn't understand is that we strongly support the cancellation of visas on character ground under section 501 and voted for that in parliament. The immigration minister has many powers to refuse or cancel visas of noncitizens who don't meet the character test, irrespective of age. But he relied on thought bubbles. That's what's happened with the member for La Trobe.</para>
<para>He actually came up with the conclusions without facts to support them. It's very clear from the report that it was based on the opinion of one person or one organisation. He didn't take into consideration the actual Victorian crime statistics, which show that the proportion of incidents committed by alleged offenders under the age of 25 had fallen from half of all incidents in 2007-08 to 40 per cent of all incidents. The number of young people in detention on sentences also was down. Sentences in children's court since 2008-09 were halved, with only a small number receiving sentences of detention. Victoria had the lowest rate of children under justice supervision in Australia. The Crimes Statistics Agency Victoria clearly showed that the vast majority of offenders were Australian born and older than 25 years of age. The facts of the submissions and the evidence given did not support the conclusion of the member for La Trobe, but he insisted, and that's why Labor dissented.</para>
<para>It's important that we look at what happens with respect to those people who may come across section 501 of the Migration Act. The minister has the power now to cancel a visa, but you've got to take into consideration the fact that cancelling a young person's visa could potentially breach Australia's non-refoulement obligations. A person subject to visa refusal or cancellation might be subject to arbitrary immigration detention for prolonged periods, leading to separation of family and increased alienation in the broader migrant community.</para>
<para>In addition to that, the member for La Trobe wanted to establish a hotline, which we dissented from because we thought it should be a hotline across the country. Finally, despite the fact that the British authorities had canned the idea of intervention orders—Theresa May, the British Prime Minister, canned this idea—he insisted we should use them, without any evidence whatsoever and in spite of their being outside the scope of the inquiry. In fact, the intervention order regime is being looked as a term of reference of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.</para>
<para>The member for La Trobe, the chair of this committee, did a great disservice to this committee. We will see how he goes in the future, but this is a real shame. This is a great report as far as recommendations 1 to 14 are concerned, but it should have been great for recommendations 1 to 18.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
    <electorate>Bruce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was the great Victorian Premier Steve Bracks who said that there is nothing more Australian than a migrant, with the exception, of course, of Australia's first peoples. Representing an electorate where more than 50 per cent of people were born in another country, the highest declared percentage of any in this parliament, I can attest to that sentiment. I have 157,000 people in my electorate, yet only about 90,000 or 95,000 people are on the voting roll, in many cases because of these non-citizens—future citizens—who are contributing to our country.</para>
<para>At citizenship ceremonies in the city of Greater Dandenong and the city of Monash, I do my survey of love, which I will mention on this Valentine's Day. We survey the crowd as to who came to Australia for love. Some will have come as refugees or as business or skilled migrants, but there are always a few who put up their hand as having come here for love. I pay tribute to them on this Valentine's Day. These are my opening remarks. I have only two life regrets. One is that I have never lived or worked overseas, because my daughter was born young and I have always been tied to Melbourne. The other is never learning a foreign language to fluency.</para>
<para>With that as context, I was pleased—not as a member of the committee but as someone with an enormous interest in and passion for Australia's well-targeted migration program—to read this report. I was pleased at the outset to see a positive summary of the economic and social benefits of migration. There are many positive outcomes, as the report outlines, from a well-targeted migration program, for the labour market as well as for the public purse and our economic development. Young skilled migrants in particular are incredibly valuable. Their home countries have paid for their health care and their education for two decades, then they come here and pay large sums of money in many cases for their tertiary education, so we have paid nothing for those expensive years of their life and then they may stay and contribute to 40 or 50 years of wage earning, tax paying and economic development. What a return for Australia! Shame on the member for Warringah for his populist nonsense in recent months with his good friend, his dear friend, Senator Hanson, saying, 'If we cut all migration, the world will be better.' This report rebuts that and rebuts it clearly. Of course the migration program should fall or rise according to economic conditions, as it does overall.</para>
<para>I was pleased to see this thoughtful discussion at the outset, but settlement in a foreign country has challenges, and, to realise these benefits, people need support. Without support, people can struggle, and we see many negative impacts and costs to the community in terms of us not realising those social and economic benefits. Successful multiculturalism in this country is no accident. We don't just plonk people in the suburbs—we don't have a set-and-forget mentality—as, I might say, some European countries have done. There are parts of France and there are parts of England where there has not in any way been the same kind of support as there is in Australia, for years, for people from different cultures to settle in, to learn the language, to get involved in the community and to find employment. It takes care, effort and investment.</para>
<para>When I read the report, I thought, 'Oh, this is good. We're dealing in facts here, not assertions. That's kind of old-fashioned, particularly for this government.' But it's a disjointed report. Many of the recommendations, as the previous speaker, the member for Blair, said, are well reasoned and well argued. There are important recommendations about settlement support and language proficiency and employment and integration and so on. The previous speaker said that the 14 recommendations in the first six chapters are pretty sensible—that he'd sign up to them. But the report then gets kind of weird. It feels like someone has stapled the last two chapters, and they got them a bit mixed up at the photocopier. They're the kinds of chapters that are in a law enforcement committee report or a completely different inquiry. They are utterly disjointed. There are pages of minutiae at the outset in the seventh chapter and anecdotes, almost, of crime statistics in Victoria, including analysis by Andrew Bolt, the media commentator. It may be right; I'm not, in any way, saying that I've gone back and checked the figures. But it's a curious approach for a serious, thoughtful parliamentary inquiry to quote, in serious terms, various random media comments that have been made on the issues at hand.</para>
<para>So I draw attention to page 123 and 124 of the ABS report, which includes statistics on offenders between 10 and17 years of age who were formally charged by police between mid-2015 and 2016. It talks about the number of youth offenders having increased by less than one per cent. It then goes on to talk about New South Wales crime—with that Liberal government!—increasing by three per cent, while Victorian crime decreased by four per cent. That's the ABS, so let's take that as reliable.</para>
<para>An honourable member interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That was a Labor government, I know. I know! I thought, 'What has happened? Have I got an error in my photocopier?' I went back and looked at the terms of reference, and it's just not supported, as the previous speaker said, by the evidence that was heard by the inquiry. I would say that a random submission or a factoid or something you read in the newspaper is not sufficient evidence to make serious recommendations. I say this as someone who actually has a lot of time, indeed, a lot of affection—I'm putting it in <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, so everyone will know—for the member for La Trobe, in many regards. He has a good heart. He's a good human being. I disagree with him on many matters, but I do agree with him on many matters. But I decry where the debate has gone in response to some of the issues ventilated in this report, particularly the politics of fear led by the Minister for Home Affairs and for immigration and border protection—whatever cabinet positions he's managed to nab off others this day. In Victoria, my home state and home state to three of the four members—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Tim Wilson</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A great state!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HILL</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A great state, as the member for Goldstein said. Victorians, apparently, are terrified to go out for dinner. The politics of fear is the lowest form of politics. The business model of dividing the community, scaring the crap out of everyone based on picking out statistics, is the lowest form of politics. I've seen this in local governments, and shame on this government, shame on this minister, for running this line. His attacks on African Australians are disgraceful.</para>
<para>There's no point going to the ins and outs of crime statistics. The media reporting is divorced, in many cases, from reality. Some of it is real; there are issues, and they should be dealt with. I say very clearly: crime should be dealt with firmly. Crime should be dealt with firmly. Crime should be dealt with firmly. Hansard, that is not tedious repetition; it is repetition to make a point, so I hope it's in there three times. But it is better to prevent it. Crime should be dealt with firmly, but it is better to prevent it. I do not believe that there is any member in this chamber who disagrees with that. But community safety, in reality, is a mixture of reality and perception. If you scare the crap out of people, you make people feel less safe, even in suburbs where crime has gone down. Even in Victoria, where crime has gone down by six or seven per cent in the last statistics, people are terrified because statistics are being misrepresented. That is a disgrace and anyone involved in that should be ashamed. There's an age-old truism for me: if you have young men in any human society on the planet sitting around, not engaged in education, with no hope for the future, being locked out of the employment market, they will do dumb stuff. That's a fact.</para>
<para>I tell the story of the Sandown Lions soccer club. I went down there two weeks ago. They sent me an email and I actually shocked them because I rang them back at nine in the morning, an hour after I got their email because I was doing my emails. It was quiet, at the end of January. I went down to their training at 7.30 at night in Noble Park. They're a fantastic team; 90 per cent are young South Sudanese guys in their 20s. They're working. The club captain works for the NBN and studied here. There's a teacher, a truck driver and people running their own businesses. They explained to me the vision for the club. They bailed it out a few years ago. It had run out of money. They put their hand in their pockets for five grand. They've got a women's team starting this year. God knows how, but we're going to get them a grant from the Victorian government. We're working with Daniel Andrews; it's in his state electorate. But their dream is to start an under-18s team because they're ashamed of some of the kids with no fathers who are running off the rails and they're trying to do the right thing. So they've gone around to businesses in the area and said, 'Can you give us some sponsorship?' They were very insightful. They said, 'Look, we're not like the Greek community that's been here for decades. We don't have rich businesspeople to give us money and support us, so we need a bit of support.' They got lectures, based on articles in the paper, that they had to improve their attitude, pull up their socks and come back when they'd improved their attitude. I said, 'What—stop being black?' They said, 'Yep, that's pretty much what they meant.' So, if anyone out there listening at home to the Fed Chamber wants to give some sponsorship to this fantastic club, we're helping them build a prospectus and we'll do what we can.</para>
<para>What worries me is the lack of evidence. I actually don't disagree that there are some important issues raised about what to do with young offenders at risk of violent extremism. There may be unpalatable, unpopular methods warranted, but it should go to the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. There is not the evidence in this report to say, 'Send it to COAG; the case is made'—because it's not. Send it to the law enforcement committee if you want the Commonwealth parliament to express a view and send it to COAG. Then the evidence can be gathered. I hope the next speaker will talk about the excellent recommendations 1 to 14, which I applaud. I didn't quite get to those!</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
    <electorate>Calwell</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you to the member for Bruce. In fact, I'm going to take this opportunity to have a second bite at the cherry, as they say, having spoken when we tabled this report last week, and my intention was to talk about some of the recommendations—those 14 recommendations that members of the committee did find common ground on.</para>
<para>It's very important. I'm going to focus on the title of the report, <inline font-style="italic">No one teaches you how to become an Australian</inline>. As I said in the other chamber last week, this is a comment that was made by a young man, Gum Mamur, who works with the Les Twentyman Foundation in Victoria. Gum's story, I think, illustrates very much what the aspirations and focus of this inquiry were to begin with. They were to examine the current settlement services that we have in this country. It's always a good idea to audit our services and see whether they are appropriate, whether they are well targeted and whether they're actually meeting the needs of the people they are servicing. Within that, I will say and put on record that when the chair and I first spoke about this inquiry, I felt that some of the issues that the chair proposed to explore in relation to the South Sudanese gang activity in Victoria were matters that were better placed to be explored by, as my colleagues have already said, a committee such as the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. However, I felt, and other committee members felt, that it was probably a good idea to review the settlement services but to also look at where they are found to be lacking in helping young migrants and young refugees—those who come here at a young age and, indeed, those who are born here from migrant or refugee families—because the experience of a young person as they work their way through the integration process in a country like Australia is very different to that of their parents. I know that for a fact, because in the sixties I was a young person who came to Australia—</para>
<para>An honourable member: Look how you turned out!</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms VAMVAKINOU</name>
    <name.id>00AMT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>And look at me—look how I turned out! I went through that integration process. For young people a lot of that is about identity formation. It's about working out who they are and where they fit into a society that is very diverse. It is about how they manage and find some harmony between their home environment, their cultural inheritance, the expectations of their cultural inheritance and the traditions of their parents. It is about how they balance that in the playground when they go to school and how they work with that as they become adolescents in this country. Many of us felt that the settlement services were not really designed for that sort of work. There is a five-year period in which agencies, very adequately and very well, service new refugees and migrants more broadly.</para>
<para>When Gum Mamur came before the committee in one of our first hearings and said, 'No-one teaches you how to become an Australian,' that resonated with me profoundly, because I think he articulated exactly what a young person actually feels when they are out of kilter and cannot negotiate their way through the process of becoming an Australian. This is why we have called the report <inline font-style="italic">No one teaches you to become an Australian</inline>. I want to thank Les Twentyman for the incredible amount of work he does with young people who he virtually rescues from disengagement and alienation, and Gum was one of those people. Today he is a mentor for young children, especially from the various African countries. He works as a mentor in some of the local schools in Melton and elsewhere and does an amazing job helping young people develop a sense of pride and a sense of purpose. I want to thank Gum for that inspiration.</para>
<para>The recommendations are at the heart of what I believe this report is really about. I think the member for Blair spoke about our dissenting report, and I spoke about it last week, so I won't labour on that, because I'm very keen to look at some of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide additional funding to expand the Community Hubs Network nationally and to establish similar flexible settlement service programs.</para></quote>
<para>I want to single out Dr Sonja Hood, who is the CEO of Community Hubs Australia. I have 14 community hubs in my electorate. They do an enormous amount of work with newly-arrived communities. In particular, I want to speak about the community hubs at St Dominic's in Broadmeadows and the Good Samaritan Primary School in Roxburgh Park. They are receiving a large number of the refugees that have come to Australia from Iraq and Syria over the last couple of years. I have a very close working relationship, especially with Good Samaritan. I want to thank the principal, Paul Sedunary, the vice-principle, Helen Smith, and Baan Sharmu, who is the liaison officer between the school and the community, for allowing the committee to conduct one of its hearings at the school. I want to thank them because the work they do is above and beyond that of teaching the children. School is the place where parents who have come to Australia take their children, and school is almost at the coalface of helping those families orient themselves into the community. All of the difficulties associated with that, in many ways, are first expressed and first discovered at that school level. So the Community Hubs Network is very important and it provides a very good service to the broader settlement services network. I'm hoping that the government will adopt these recommendations, especially in relation to the Community Hubs Network.</para>
<para>The second recommendation talks about developing a neighbourhood migrant mothers outreach program to service the most recently arrived families. The committee's trip overseas saw us go to the United Kingdom, to Sweden, to Germany and to the United States, and we saw this program implemented in Germany. They call it the district mothers program. Basically, they have trained and employed women, who are mothers with children, from the communities that they are receiving their refugees from. Those women actually go into the homes of the newly arrived, and the idea is that they are better placed to connect with the mothers in those families. They help them through and give them the confidence that they need to engage with the services in the broader community. I am particularly interested in this program, because I can see how it would work in my electorate, in amongst the women with their capacity to reach out to other women in their own language, understanding their culture. They would be able to assist them in those very critical first months and years of being in Australia.</para>
<para>The other area that the inquiry looked at was making the delivery of settlement services a lot more flexible. In particular, I have heard from the many refugees that have come into my electorate that the type of English language that is being delivered to them is aimed at assisting them to find employment; however, it doesn't necessarily assist them in learning conversational English so that they can actually engage with their community. So improvements to, and flexibility around the delivery of, the English language program are vital, because everyone knows that the key to engaging with your new community is to be able to communicate with it. The teaching of the English language has been one of the greatest strengths in our settlement program. The member for Bruce is absolutely correct: multiculturalism and migration in this country are not a success just by chance; they are a success because they have been underpinned by incredibly well targeted settlement services.</para>
<para>I have run out of time. I recommend this report to the House, and I encourage the government to adopt recommendations 1 to 14 in particular.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation</title>
          <page.no>173</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>173</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The terms of reference for the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation include and require the committee to inquire into best practices in regional development, considering both Australian and international examples. They also ask us to inquire into decentralisation of Commonwealth entities or functions, such as departments, parts of departments or specific functions within Commonwealth entities. Thirdly, they ask us to look at the sorts of strategies that the Commonwealth can adopt—and presumably other layers government as well—to encourage corporate entities to decentralise their functions to regional Australia. I'd like to make a few initial observations that go to those terms of reference. I'm going to identify what I see as two particular failures that the committee will be looking into.</para>
<para>I should say in relation to the report that its contents are thin and procedural but the subject matter is very, very important. One of the things that we have identified is the confusion of a strategy with a project, and a press release with a plan. And I just want to make it very, very clear, from Labor's perspective, as the shadow minister responsible for regional development and regional services, that we see very clearly that a grant is not a project, that a project is not a strategy and that a strategy is not a plan. Too often, these three things are conflated. Too often, they're all confused for an announcement or a press release, and we need a better approach. We need an approach which builds on the strengths of particular communities and regions, that engages with the thought leaders and participants in commerce and in governance within those regions, and has a long-term strategy not only for particular regions but also for regional development, one that is not tossed and thrown about between and within electoral cycles.</para>
<para>On Labor's side, we see the government is definitely a part of the solution to the challenges we face in regional Australia, but it's not the whole solution. Government does have a role to play, and we have some big levers to pull in human capital development and in ensuring that the infrastructure which will deliver connectivity, particularly broadband infrastructure but also road and rail infrastructure, is invested in. The Commonwealth has an absolutely critical role to play in this regard.</para>
<para>In terms of human capital, we are often debating the role that the Commonwealth plays in investing in school education, in technical and further education, in tertiary education and in the university sector. One level of human capital development that does not get enough attention but is absolutely critical to regional development is investing in leadership and in capacity building in regional communities. We know in those regions that have done this well we get that connection between a project, a strategy and a plan that is organic, that is coming from the regions themselves and is not imposed on them from a state or federal capital. I hope that the inquiry is able to flesh out these ideas and come up with recommendations which are attractive to all sides of politics.</para>
<para>The second issue that I want to focus on in my contribution on this report is the failure of administration. Too often, we have programs which on their face are good, but the administration is bedevilled by incompetence or contradictions at the governmental level. I'd like to cite a few examples. While this inquiry has been underway, we have seen ongoing cuts in Commonwealth Public Service jobs in regional Australia. In Townsville this week alone, the defence department has announced cuts of up to 40 or more jobs in regional areas—40 jobs in Townsville, at the very same time as government representatives from Queensland, New South Wales and other places are ostensibly arguing for the decentralisation of government services. If Townsville was an isolated incident, we would just say, 'Something's gone wrong here that we need to sort out.' But it is not an isolated incident.</para>
<para>In the electorate of Gilmore, I have recently been engaging with Fiona Phillips, Labor's representative at the next election in the seat of Gilmore. She has shed light on propositions to transfer high-quality jobs in the Department of Defence that are currently based in Nowra to Canberra, running in completely the opposite direction to what the government is supposed to be promoting, and that is decentralisation. These are not isolated examples. Australian Public Service figures show the full extent of what some unkind people might describe as hypocrisy in the government's purported campaign for decentralisation.</para>
<para>In the period that I am talking about, in New South Wales alone, since 2014, 760 roles have been cut out of regional New South Wales, a further 180 roles have been cut out of regional Queensland and 320 jobs have been cut out of regional Western Australia. Regional job cuts just keep coming. So the government can have no credibility when it tells Australians that it is on about decentralisation; because it make no sense to move a small number of jobs out of Canberra into the Deputy Prime Minister's electorate in Armidale at the very same time that they are slashing literally hundreds of jobs out of regional Australia. That is what is going on.</para>
<para>Let me give you another example of a program which looks good on the face of it but when you dig down into the administration of that fund you see that it is working against the interests of people in regional Australia. You would have thought that a program which has the title 'National Stronger Regions Fund' and which ostensibly is about addressing disadvantage in regional Australia would have 100 per cent of its focus on providing funds to viable strategies, projects and plans in regional Australia. But we have learnt that, within the $620 million fund, up to 20 per cent of the funds have been siphoned away from viable projects and strategies within regional Australia to some of the wealthiest inner-city seats. Nothing says regional Australia like Kooyong. Nothing says regional Australia like Warringah. Nothing says regional Australia like some of the wealthiest and most metropolitan seats in the country—$3.2 million for the seat of Kooyong; $10 million for the seat of Warringah—when many, many, many fine projects in regional Australia were overlooked. Other disadvantaged regions got nothing. Let's mention the Community Development Fund. This is another program where we have seen rorting—I can't find a more balanced word to use than 'rorting'—of funds.</para>
<para>In the time left I'd like to talk about the Regional Growth Fund. This was announced with great fanfare in the last budget. It's now 270 days since the announcement of the Regional Growth Fund: $272 million to kick-start growth in needy and struggling regions throughout regional Australia. Yet here we are, 270 days after the announcement of that fund and several months since the government promised that the funds would be available to viable projects within regional Australia, and we haven't even got the guidelines.</para>
<para>So we on this side of the House are very, very sceptical indeed when we see the Deputy Prime Minister and the third regional development minister in three months stand up and say, 'We're for regional Australia'. The evidence is the opposite. The evidence shows that there are great announcements, but it all falls down in the administration of this fund. It is either incompetence or distraction or money being siphoned off to fix up Liberal Party mates. This is what is happening with the administration of this fund. I hope that the interim report is able to shine a light on a better way, but the evidence before the House today is not very good. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Regional South Australia, indeed regional Australia, such important places—you know as I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, how important regional Australia is. The member for Whitlam gave us what I would have expected. If I were working in his office I probably could have written his speech notes. He's a member of the committee but we're hearing this mantra a lot in this place about antidecentralisation. The member for Canberra will give a speech shortly very similar to the one she gave in the House recently, bemoaning some sort of disregard that our government might have for the Public Service, democracy and our nation's capital, none of which is true. And I'm happy to tell the member for Canberra, I think I might be a greater champion for Robert Menzies' legacy than perhaps she is.</para>
<para>Let me talk about the member for Whitlam for a moment. He's a member of the committee. The committee at this stage has travelled the breadth of the country. I understand that the member for Whitlam has attended a number of meetings in Canberra. I don't know that the member for Whitlam has been on the road with us doing this work. We need to be on the road because we need to get out to regional communities, This committee has been in Murray Bridge, it's been to Bendigo, it's been to Launceston, and it's been to Orange. It has been out to regional communities.</para>
<para>We need to be on the road because we need to get out to regional communities. This committee has been to Murray Bridge, to Bendigo, to Launceston, to Orange—out to regional communities. When you say the word 'decentralisation' in regional communities you get high fives. When you say the word 'decentralisation' in regional communities, they go: 'It's about time. It's about time some of our tax dollars were allocated to regional communities and regional jobs.'</para>
<para>But the error that those opposite make is thinking that this is just about public sector jobs. That is wrong, so wrong. I listened closely to the member for Canberra's speech that she gave to the House of Representatives not an hour ago, one that she'll repeat shortly. She will talk about public sector jobs. The role of this committee is to look across the spectrum of our economy and to see how we can translocate employment opportunities from large capital centres into vibrant, strong regional communities to make them even more vibrant and stronger. Those opposite want to talk about the public sector jobs, and they want to run a bit of a scare campaign on decentralisation and the anti-Canberra approach of the coalition government. It's rubbish. The person on this committee who probably works the most diligently, the member for Indi, has just joined us in the chamber. She's passionate about this. She's committed to this and she's been driving it exceptionally hard.</para>
<para>We're very privileged as well that the former chair of the committee is now the minister for regional development. Having heard all of those submissions across the country that gave birth to this interim report, he now sits in cabinet. He now holds the regional development portfolio, and he can begin implementing the recommendations that have come to us across the submissions. He can get onto that straightaway.</para>
<para>But those opposite want to talk about this being a bad approach. The reason we're doing this report, the reason we're doing this body of work—correct me if I'm wrong, Member for Indi—is that we are trying to find best practice for how we go about creating an environment where we can create opportunities for both public and private sector jobs in regional communities. Personally, I think that's fantastic. I wonder why a regional office of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority needs to be in Adelaide. I think it should be somewhere on the river.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGowan</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Albury-Wodonga!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, it's a South Australian chapter, if you like. We're not about to take South Australian jobs into Victoria, but, nice try, Member for Indi.</para>
<para class="italic">Ms McGowan interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Well, this is the point: those opposite think this is a binary choice—that it's Canberra or Armidale, Canberra or Mount Gambier, or Canberra or Waikerie. This is not the case. This is about creating an environment where, yes, we can look at the most effective and efficient way to serve our community via our public sector, but, for me, a much more significant body of work here is about encouraging the private sector to take up opportunities in regional Australia.</para>
<para>It takes me five minutes to travel to my electorate office when I'm in Mount Gambier, and that's when I'm walking. If I took a car it would take longer to get in the car than to drive to my office. These are opportunities that present themselves to the private sector. Rent in my home town of Mount Gambier and throughout my electorate, I'm pretty sure, even in industrial settings, would be significantly cheaper than renting similar facilities in capital cities. You don't deal with the congestion issues and you don't deal with the other limitations that come with large capital centres.</para>
<para>So, when you look at this body of work which is being undertaken by the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, don't quickly jump to the conclusion that it's all about taking jobs from Canberra and putting them somewhere in the regions. It might be about taking a job which is in Adelaide but would be much better placed at Murray Bridge, or it might be about identifying a business which is struggling to meet its overheads in Adelaide—because rent and other expenses are eating into its profit margin—and saying: 'Here's an opportunity in regional Australia. Here's a workforce that is ready, willing and able, and, potentially, more stable.'</para>
<para>I have the privilege of having three export abattoirs in my electorate, and from time to time they're approached to relocate, but on each occasion they say, 'No, we like the nature of the country workforce; we like employing people who live in the country because they're more stable, they're harder working in that capacity,' at least in that type of employment. So I would hate to see the work of this committee denigrated in any way when what it is looking at doing is establishing best practice. It is attempting to learn the lessons of previous attempts. This is not the first time a government has said, 'We want to be about decentralisation'—absolutely not. I think the committee is hearing evidence regularly from individuals who say: 'To do this you can't just make a statement. You need to create the environment. You need the appropriate building blocks in place so this can work sustainably and in the future for a long time.' What we don't want is to rush down the road of making announcements. What we want is a report and a body of work which establishes, as I said, learnt experience from the past leading to best practice.</para>
<para>I want to live in vibrant regional communities. I travel frequently to the cities. I struggle when I'm in the city, whether it's Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne or Sydney. There are half the number of farmers in regional Australia than there were a generation ago. Every farmer I know and every farmer you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, is chasing scale. For these communities to survive they'll need to transition into services. They'll need to become more of manufacturing and production hubs, and to do that we need to find ways to encourage the uptake of opportunities in the regions, because, if we don't, the 10th, 11th, 12th member for Barker in this place will be bemoaning the closure of communities in their patch—and in your electorate there'll be the same story, and in other electorates.</para>
<para>It's all very well and good to say, 'But, look, we've got thriving capitals.' I live in the state that has the highest differential between the population of its capital city, with a million and change, versus Mount Gambier, my home town, with a population of 25,000. There's no other state in the world that has such a large differential between capital city and second-largest city. That's unhealthy. The South Australian Liberal Party, which has for a very long time controlled regional South Australia in an electoral sense—it's a very conservative part of the state and indeed the country—has suffered at the hands of a city-centric government, and that's why I say it's unhealthy. It's unhealthy because you create this great chasm, this great divide, and I think if anything marks the difference between Australia in 2018 and perhaps the Australia of 1918, or indeed of 1958, it's that the divide between the city and country is growing. And it is incredibly dangerous, because we will create an environment where we have cities that are thriving and doing well and regional centres that aren't. This report is about redressing that as best we can.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I welcome the interim report of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation and I welcome the fact that there were 21 submissions from Canberra alone—the biggest number of submissions from any town or city. The next closest, in fact, was nine submissions from Melbourne and Sydney respectively. The sheer number of submissions from Canberra shows what Canberrans have always known. Despite the heartfelt speech that the member for Barker just made, I too want thriving regional economies. I too want thriving regional communities. Here in Canberra, we are part of the capital region. We are very proud of the fact that we contribute significantly. Canberra contributes significantly in terms of providing education services, providing health services and providing jobs here in our nation's capital for the capital region. We feel very proud of the contribution we make to the community around us—to Queanbeyan, to Murrumbateman, to Hall, to Yass, going out to Leeton, to Cowra—all around this area.</para>
<para>We feel very proud of the contribution we make, which is why I take offence at what the member for Barker said about this us-versus-them attitude of Canberrans towards regional communities. We want our regional centres to thrive, because it's good for Canberra and it's good for the capital region. So I really do take offence at his suggestion that we want to see their decimation, because that's certainly not the case. Those opposite do want to see the decimation of Canberra, but that's another conversation that I had earlier today, which the member for Swan, opposite, has heard.</para>
<para>When this idea, this thought bubble, was originally floated—from memory it was at the press gallery by the former minister—there was very little detail about what it actually meant. The member for Barker says that the committee has extrapolated and is now looking at private and public sector employment. The impression that we got here in Canberra was that this was all about moving government agencies. That, I'm sure, was the language that the former minister used at that time: government agencies from Canberra to the regions. I don't recall much discussion about the private sector, and how would that be within the government's remit anyway? It was all about moving government agencies from Canberra into the regions. That was the raison d'etre. That was the thought bubble behind this decentralisation process. Naturally, Canberrans went nuts about it, which is why we got all those submissions. Canberrans know what coalition governments think of them as public servants and of Canberra as the nation's capital. They've experienced it. They experienced it under Howard and they're experiencing it now under the Turnbull government. They know that the APVMA move, which was touted as the beginning of the decentralisation process, was blatant and shameless pork barrelling by the member for New England, and they know that the blatant and shameless pork barrelling that was the relocation of the APVMA was the thin edge of the wedge. This government's got form when it comes to Canberra and the national capital. Canberrans knew the APVMA was just the beginning—hence the number of submissions. Those submissions sent a very strong message saying, 'Hands off Canberra. We've had a gutful of what this coalition government has in store for us and what it's done already since it was elected.' Thousands of jobs have gone. There have been cuts to national institutions, next to zero infrastructure investment and now this decentralisation, which is a complete insult to our nation's capital and the capital region.</para>
<para>Australians trust their elected representatives to make well-reasoned and viable financial decisions. The decentralisation that began with APVMA is the perfect example of what not to do when it comes to public policy. The cabinet order made by the Minister for Finance which forced the relocation of the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale reinforced the blatant and shameless pork barrel moving of a regulatory agency to the Deputy Prime Minister's own electorate of New Zealand—sorry, that was bit of a faux pas, wasn't it?—of New England, irrespective of the cost. It ignored the recommendations of the $272,000 taxpayer funded cost-benefit analysis that was commissioned by the Prime Minister, which concluded, 'There were no strategic or other benefits to the move.' It ignored the advice from key industry associations such as CropLife Australia, Animal Medicines Australia and the National Farmers Federation, as well as the Turnbull government's own ACT senator, Senator Seselja. The committee inquiring into the cabinet order found:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… this government policy order is deficient in a number of key areas. This order is opposed by stakeholders, the agricultural sector, and the regulator itself on the basis that it is 'all cost and no benefit'.</para></quote>
<para>It went on:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The lack of clarity regarding the decision-making process and the absence of a transparent selection process leads the committee to conclude that there is only one obvious driver for the decision, and that is political self-interest.</para></quote>
<para>The Senate committee recommended the order be revoked and the APVMA relocation be paused until the authority concluded its review of its business model, but this didn't happen.</para>
<para>In my submission to the select committee, I recommended that any decentralisation policy or decision made by the government commit to a cost-benefit analysis of its proposed decentralisation strategy and makes the outcome of that analysis available to the public, because it was really difficult to get an understanding of the analysis here. I also recommended that the government act in accordance with the outcomes of such analysis. If that had been the case with the analysis on the APVMA relocation, it wouldn't have gone ahead. As a result of the shameless pork-barrel proposal for the relocation of the APVMA to New England, on-time approvals fell to 24 per cent in June last year, which was well below the peak of 82 per cent in September the year before. That agency has been decimated. According to last year's figures, 50 of its 175 staff had left and 20 per cent of the highly specialised staff—with hundreds of years of experience and expertise between them—had gone. As a result of that, what do we have? That freefall in approvals.</para>
<para>In my submission to the select committee, I also recommended that decisions regarding decentralisation should only be subject to an open and transparent public consultation process that takes into account the outcome of a cost-benefit analysis. I recommended that the Turnbull government acknowledge—I wish the member for Barker was in this room—that just 38 per cent of the Commonwealth government's administration is located in Canberra and that further decentralisation has the potential to decimate the ACT. Sixty-two per cent is outside Canberra. How much does the government want to move outside Canberra? There's only 38 per cent of it here. How much does it want to move outside Canberra? And what effect is it going to have on my community and on the community of the capital region—or on the member for Hume's community and the member for Eden-Monaro's community? I recommended in my submission that the government stay true to the vision of Sir Robert Menzies, that self-confessed apostle of Canberra. And I asked and recommended that any decentralisation policy or decision be based on a demonstrated net benefit to the nation and not at the expense of the Canberra community and the Canberra economy and the capital region.</para>
<para>In my submission, I quoted a letter from Heather Henderson, the daughter of the late Sir Robert Menzies. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Why are we taking this retrograde step, scattering our government?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Why are we spending millions to become less efficient?</para></quote>
<para>She also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Recently I heard Barnaby Joyce say "There is a chemistry when people meet face to face".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Exactly so.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Modern communications are brilliant, but real personal contact remains vital.</para></quote>
<para>She confessed she was the daughter of Sir Robert Menzies, the founder of the modern Liberal Party, the person who, despite his scepticism, established and invested in this nation. Decentralisation will unpick that legacy, the Menzies legacy, and denigrate his vision for our nation's capital. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>241590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I note to the Federation Chamber that adjournment is normally set at approximately 7.30, but, with the compliance of those in the room, we'll continue with the member for Indi.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you so much for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. Colleagues, I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee and the secretariat and, in particular, thank Dr McVeigh, the member for Groom, for his leadership and congratulate him on his promotion. I hope we can continue to work together on this really important topic. I'd also like to acknowledge and welcome onto the committee the members for Gippsland, Hinkler and Forrest. I look forward to their contributions.</para>
<para>For those who don't already understand how important the regions are and, consequently, how important this inquiry is, I note that rural Australia is responsible for one-third of total employment in this country and just one-third of our economic output, but about two-thirds of all our exports by value. Regional capitals are home to about one-quarter of all Australians. So tonight we're talking about a really, really significant part of our population.</para>
<para>I've been absolutely delighted to play a role on this committee. I'm glad we've tabled the interim report, and I'm looking forward to the next part of the work, which is the analysis. To date on this committee, we've heard so much that, I have to say, makes me really proud to represent rural and regional Australia. We've heard so much that's positive, useful, creative, innovative and visionary. It's exciting. In fact, it's been wonderful to go and visit our communities and hear the members of those communities who have got skin in the game tell us what they're doing, how much they love their community, how much they're inspired by the work that they do, how they create jobs and how for many of them they're building a nation. As we've travelled around the country, the committee has worked together in a really collegiate fashion. We've shared ideas and we've just had a very stimulating time, I think, working out what to do with the information that we've got.</para>
<para>This report marks the halfway mark. We've collected the data and we've read the submissions. Now we've got to do the analysis. We've got to make sense of what we've heard and make recommendations to the government on what happens next. I'm delighted the committee's working so well. I'm absolutely impressed by the level of excellence of the submissions we've heard.</para>
<para>But tonight I want to bring to the attention of the House that, concurrent with our inquiry, the Productivity Commission has also been undertaking a study of the regions. And I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the things that the Productivity Commission has been studying while we've been doing our report. The Productivity Commission report is entitled<inline font-style="italic"> Transitioning </inline><inline font-style="italic">regional economies</inline>. It was tabled in December 2017, and it provides many rich and useful insights to the transition in the regions that has been taking place because of the mining boom.</para>
<para>But there are four particular areas that they highlight that I'd like to talk about tonight. The Productivity Commission talks about the role of local government, the role of local leadership, the importance of capacity in our local communities and the need for rigorous evaluation of how we spend money. Colleagues, we all understand how important local government is, particularly in our regions and rural areas. Local government holds us together. It's the form of government closest to the people. As we were conducting our hearings, we were hearing so often how much affected they are by Commonwealth government decisions. They've really called on the Commonwealth to do a much better job of not only funding local government but also listening to them and understanding their particular issues. I'm delighted to let the House know that today I've tabled a private member's motion calling on the government to pay a lot more attention to how local government is funded.</para>
<para>The second area I'd like to mention tonight that the Productivity Commission talks about is the importance of local leadership. Again, all of us who work in regions know that if you don't have local leaders, you don't have a vibrant community, but we hear the Productivity Commission express how important it is to the dynamics and to the flexibility. Resilient regions are those that have good local leadership, locally engaged people with strong community ownership. I know the Australian rural leadership program does a fantastic job bringing forth leadership. In my own community, we have the Alpine Valleys Community Leadership project. Right across Victoria, each of our catchments has a community leadership program that is really doing a fantastic job teaching, creating opportunities for leadership, creating mentorship and bringing forth the leadership that's in our communities. Sadly, I know other states don't have these programs. Queensland doesn't have a community leadership program; nor does New South Wales. Western Australia did for a bit. South Australia doesn't.</para>
<para>One of the things that the Productivity Commission talks about, which I know is really important, is that we've got to have a national strategic approach to coordinating and bringing forth leaders in our communities; leaders at all levels; leaders who work on local school councils, hospital boards and church groups; leaders who take a role in the hall committee and the sports community. You're not born a leader; you actually have to grow into the role, be mentored and learn how it works. I think we could do a lot of really productive work through a formal leadership program. So good on the Productivity Commission for talking about that.</para>
<para>The third area to briefly mention is capacity. The Productivity Commission indicates that where you've got regions where people have capacity, you're doing well, and they're not only talking about education capacity, though of course that's important. They're talking about the capacity around skilled workforces, where you can get the labour force you need and you can employ the people—the professionals, the tradies and the community service people—you need. That was one of the things that we found as we travelled around the country. Kalgoorlie, for example, has an average age of 31 and its biggest issue is getting access to skilled people to work. Darwin is the same, and up in the Darling Downs I know it's similar. So there's enormous opportunity to grow that's only limited by the capacity and the skilled workforce we've got. We have so much knowledge—we know so much—and now the real challenge for this committee is to do the analysis to bring the inquiry home and come up with some really strong recommendations that the government and opposition can agree to that will enable us as a country to move forward.</para>
<para>Some of the principles that I hope to see in that final report are that we adopt a strategic approach based on regions' strength, that we look at the three levels of government working closely together with communities and business, and that we value-add to the work that those three levels of government are already doing. Launceston is an excellent example of that, where the City Deals are being played out. The idea of regional deals that enable everybody to work together has had a lot of support. And we need to be really, really clear in our understanding that one size doesn't fit all. When the Commonwealth does a project and it's meant to be for the whole of Australia, we've got to be strong with our voice in saying: 'Have you done a regional impact statement? Do you really understand what the consequences are going to be for the regions of this particular task?' Two areas that are dear to my heart where this hasn't happened are the government changes to child care, with the enormous negative impact that's had on women's ability and families' ability to work, and the changes to higher education. I'm pleading with the minister for higher education to do some really productive work on a regional higher education framework that enables us to grow our universities, not detract from them.</para>
<para>I want to talk about an experience I had a number of years ago when I was chairing the Regional Women's Advisory Council. That council provided policy advice to the government on rural and regional issues. We had the enormous pleasure of working to John Anderson, who was the relevant minister, and John Howard, who was the Prime Minister. The council commissioned a report to look at what made for success in regional Australia. One of the two important principles out of that study was that it's not actually what government does that has the final impact on success; it's how it does it. When government works with community, we get success. I've been so pleased to hear the Prime Minister use that exact phrase when he's been talking about Closing the Gap—'We won't do things to our Indigenous people; we'll do things with our Indigenous people.' It has to be exactly the same with regional Australia. We need to work together in partnership.</para>
<para>In closing, I say to the parliament and to my colleagues here tonight: we've got a lot of work to do. I think we're really keen to get on with it and do the analysis, and, hopefully, this report will sit in the annals of this parliament as one fantastic piece of work that really did make a difference to the future of the country.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:44</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>