2018-02-15 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 15 February 2018

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

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Deputy Prime Minister 1 09:31 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately—The House: (1)notes: (a)the Daily Telegraph reports today that the Deputy Prime Minister rang a benefactor for a place to stay and received a gift of rent-free accommodation worth an estimated $12,000; (b)the Deputy Prime Minister continues to benefit from this gift; (c)the Prime Minister's own Statement of Ministerial Standards clearly states Ministers "must not seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity"; (d)the Prime Minister alone is responsible for enforcing his own Ministerial Standards; (e)this is an open and shut case of a breach of the Ministerial Standards; and (f)that if the Prime Minister will not take action on such a clear and egregious breach of his Ministerial Standards then they are worthless; and (2)therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to immediately sack the Deputy Prime Minister for clearly breaching the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards. If the Prime Minister will not act on a breach as clear as this, his ministerial standards mean nothing. These ministerial standards are promulgated by the Prime Minister. On their face, the Prime Minister makes clear in his foreword that they are documents which provide a guide to ministers as to how to act with the highest standards of integrity and propriety. Let's start with the foreword for this document written by the Prime Minister. The first sentence reads: Ministers and Assistant Ministers are entrusted with the conduct of public business and must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety. Does anyone in Australia, let alone this House, believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has acted with the highest standards of integrity and propriety? The Prime Minister's foreword goes on: They— that's ministers and assistant ministers— are required to act in accordance with the law, their oath of office and their obligations to the Parliament. On this, yesterday and this morning the member for Maranoa, who late last year was promoted in place of his much more experienced colleagues by the Deputy Prime Minister, sought to justify his benefactor's conduct. This is what the member for Maranoa declared about the Deputy Prime Minister: 'If Barnaby Joyce has broken the law, charges should be laid; if they haven't, go away. Put up or shut up.' Now, we are not asserting criminality. Of course everyone in this place—everyone in this country—is expected to abide by the laws of the nation. But surely the Deputy Prime Minister of our country, the second most senior minister in the government of the Commonwealth, is expected to adhere to a somewhat higher standard than merely obeying the law of this country. What an extraordinarily low bar it is for the member for Maranoa, this newly promoted minister, to be setting for the standard of conduct of ministers in this place. It ought to be clear that this Statement of Ministerial Standards is setting a much, much higher standard of conduct for ministers in this place— Ms Catherine King 00AMR As they should! Mr DREYFUS HWG As they should, as my colleague the member for Ballarat reminds me. We expect the Prime Minister's statements of ministerial standards to set a very high standard of conduct. That's why this Statement of Ministerial Standards is actually pretty much the same as the statement of ministerial conduct or the code of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Rudd, the standards of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Gillard, and, I might say, the standards of ministerial conduct adopted by Prime Minister Abbott. This is pretty much the same, and it's to the credit of the current Prime Minister that he has actually followed the high standards adopted by his predecessors. But let's just go to the third point made by the Prime Minister in his foreword to his own statement. He says: In addition to those requirements, it is vital that Ministers and Assistant Ministers conduct themselves in a manner that will ensure public confidence— public confidence— in them and in the government. Again I would ask: does anyone in this House—does anyone in Australia—think that the Deputy Prime Minister is currently conducting himself, or that he has conducted himself, in a manner that ensures public confidence in them and in the government? I would suggest not. If I can go directly to some of principles in the Statement of Ministerial Standards itself, this is what it starts with at principle 1.2: In recognition that public office is a public trust, therefore, the people of Australia are entitled to expect that, as a matter of principle, Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest, as required by these Standards. These are very high-flown words, setting a very high standard. But it is one that this Deputy Prime Minister has woefully failed. If I read on, further down in principle 1.3, we see that the Prime Minister's Statement of Ministerial Standards requires that ministers, by their conduct, ensure: their conduct in office is, in fact and in appearance, in accordance with these Standards; Then, a bit further down, ministers have to ensure: their conduct in a private capacity upholds the laws of Australia, and demonstrates appropriately high standards of personal integrity. The Deputy Prime Minister has dismally failed to uphold the principles of these standards—and that's before I even get to the actual wording of the requirement in these standards as it relates to gifts, which is what this motion relates to. These standards set an actual standard of conduct. They are directed not merely to some pettifogging lawyer's interpretation, as we've heard from the Prime Minister in this House; they are directed to ensuring that people can look at ministers' conduct, can look at the Prime Minister's conduct and can look at the Deputy Prime Minister's conduct and see that they are performing in their office, that they are conducting themselves in their office, as we and as the people of Australia would expect them to. That means disclosing honestly; it means paying attention to the principles that underlie these standards and upholding them. So what do we read about gifts in this Statement of Ministerial Standards? At principle 2.21: Ministers are required to exercise the functions of their public office unaffected by considerations of personal advantage or disadvantage. Then—and it's very good to see the Deputy Prime Minister has arrived—it says: Ministers, in their official capacity, may therefore accept customary official gifts, hospitality, tokens of appreciation, and similar formal gestures in accordance with the relevant guidelines— and here we get to it— but are required not to seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity. What do we know from Mr Greg Maguire, the wealthy New England businessman and National Party donor, who has commented in the paper about his interactions with the Deputy Prime Minister? We know that the Deputy Prime Minister rang him up and asked him for a place to stay. That's what Mr Greg— Mr Joyce E5D I didn't. Mr DREYFUS HWG I hear from the Deputy Prime Minister that he now wants to deny what his rich mate has told the newspapers, so perhaps we'll be hearing from him. But here we have the clearest possible breach. We have the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia ringing up a mate, asking him for free accommodation, getting that free accommodation and then, further, in the Register of Members' Interests, which these standards also require the Deputy Prime Minister to comply with, putting this ridiculous phrase. He said that he's received a 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'. What is that meant to mean? Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can explain it to us now, because he certainly hasn't explained it to us up to this point. What the Register of Members' Interests, which the ministerial standards require this member to actually state and properly disclose, requires is that he disclose gifts valued at more than $300 where they're received from other than official sources. What he chose to do, concealing the— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 09:41 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I second the motion. This is a government which has one rule for itself and another rule for everybody else, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the best example of that. Honourable members, as the honourable member for Isaacs pointed out, would know that the declaration of interests is a very important document. It's designed so that the public can see what potential conflicts those of us who are honoured to be elected may have. If you go to the declarations of interests of the Deputy Prime Minister, there's an entry which says 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises'. You can just see around the country people looking at that and saying, 'Oh, the Deputy Prime Minister's living rent-free in Armidale, is he?' just based on that declaration, because it's as clear as mud! It is as clear as mud what 'post-election residual of six months tenancy on Armidale premises' means in anybody's book. It means nothing. It says nothing. It tells us nothing. Why would the Deputy Prime Minister not want the House and people to know he's living rent-free in Armidale? Maybe it's because it would be slightly embarrassing given the lectures he's given the Australian people about working hard and moving to Armidale, where it's more affordable. It is more affordable for some! It's more affordable if you've got a rich mate. It's more affordable if you can ring up someone and say, 'Have you got anywhere for me to stay tonight?' There's a thing called Airbnb, Deputy Prime Minister—you could have tried that. There's a thing called stayz.com. That works as well. You didn't have to phone a friend. The Deputy Prime Minister chose the phone-a-friend option. He's entitled to do that, but he has to be honest about it. He has to tell this parliament about it. He has to tell the Australian people about it. He was more than happy to tell the Australian people what they should do when it comes to housing affordability. He was more than happy to tell them that they should not seek an Opera House view. Last time I checked, the people in Lindsay, McMahon, Greenway and Chifley didn't have an Opera House view, but they were still struggling with housing affordability and they were still working hard to try to get into the housing market. They didn't actually have an Opera House view. But that's the sort of arrogance we get from this Deputy Prime Minister, saying: 'You're trying to get too much. Your aspirations are too great. How dare you? How dare you want to live in a big city where there's actually work for you to do. Move to Armidale. It's great up here. It's fantastic up here. It's so much more affordable up here.' Well, he was right about that for himself, but he was not right about that for others. That is why this Deputy Prime Minister has been found out. This Deputy Prime Minister has been shown up. He has been shown up as somebody who is not willing to be up-front about his circumstances. He is arrogant in his lecturing of others but is prepared not to be fully transparent about himself. We are all entitled to our views about housing affordability. We are all entitled to our arguments. This side of the House has made the case for action on housing affordability. That side of the House has made the case for inaction. But they have made the case saying that young people want too much and young people shouldn't dare aspire to live in our big cities. Well, that makes this a matter of public interest. This is a Deputy Prime Minister who has been slipping and sliding all week through. He's about to tell us there's nothing to see here because the individual was a close personal friend, so therefore it's none of our business. Maybe he was going to argue that Gina Rinehart is a close personal friend too. Maybe, if there wasn't a TV camera there, we wouldn't have found out about the $40,000, which he then said he was going to spend on his farm. Maybe he was going to spend it on the rent-free accommodation as well—until he was found out. He was found out because there was a TV camera there, but there was no TV camera for the rent-free accommodation. He thought he could get away with it. He thought he wouldn't be found out. He thought he could sneak in a misleading declaration and that nobody would be the wiser. Well, we all make judgements in life. We all make our decisions. We all have to live with the consequences. This Deputy Prime Minister chose not to make a full declaration to the Australian people. He's entitled to make arrangements for his accommodation. That, in many senses, is entirely a matter for him. But, if it's rent free, if he's receiving a benefit, then the ministerial guidelines are crystal clear, as the member for Isaacs made plain to the House. It is crystal clear. This is not a grey area; this is not a matter of nuance; this is a matter of black and white. This is an open-and-shut case, and that case says that this Deputy Prime Minister should resign. (Time expired) 09:47 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his statement. I'm only too happy to reply to this. It is obvious that most people—I don't think I'm unique in this—have been through a marriage break-up. Opposition members interjecting— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will pause. The member for Lindsay will cease interjecting. I'm going to make it perfectly clear: both the member for Isaacs and the member for McMahon will listen too without interjection. The Deputy Prime Minister is entitled to address the House in the same manner. I will deal very quickly with those who are seeking to disrupt the House. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. Mr JOYCE E5D Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, most people would realise at the time of a marriage break-up that it's not unusual for those whom you are close to to offer support. I do pay for a house. I pay for one in Tamworth. I pay for one in Tamworth for Natalie and the girls. I continue to do that and will continue to do that. So the issue that I don't pay for a house in the electorate is not correct. Not for one moment do I suggest that this situation for my family is anything but incredibly difficult, and, as I've said before, I apologise for that. Now, to go through the chronology of this: after it became apparent that, with the deliberations of the High Court, I was no longer a member of parliament and had to stand, I went through the process of being endorsed. It was at that time that Mr Maguire approached me, as did many other friends, to offer support. At the time, in the discussions he said, 'You're living out of a suitcase and this is something that I should try and help you with.' I took him up on the offer, but I offered to pay for it. He said, basically, 'Mates don't pay for things when they're helping other mates out,' and that's precisely what happened. His daughter had just moved out of the apartment. People say it's a luxury apartment. It's not. It's an apartment in Armidale. She'd moved out. He said, 'It's free; no-one's using it, and you're welcome to use it to basically get back up on your feet.' Might I remind the House that, at that point in time, I was not a member of parliament; I was merely, basically, a person who was standing for election. Therefore, at that point in time, I was not bound by the ministerial code of conduct because I was not a minister. Nonetheless, it's quite clear that I did not approach Mr Maguire for assistance; Mr Maguire approached me and offered help. After the election, I disclosed, on my member's interests, that I was living in Armidale in a house that had been provided to me. I believe that I did everything that I believe was fully transparent. In fact, at the time, they said that, 'Because it's from a personal friend, you're not obliged to declare it.' In light of that advice, I said, 'I want to declare it because I want to be fully transparent on this issue.' I might also say that my personal circumstances have been up hill and down dale in this last week. I acknowledge that. I accept that. That is the price of a political life. I might also state that, on issues such as this, in this place, it is without a shadow of a doubt that if we start throwing stones then every person is going to start having some questions asked of them, and that, of course, might be the process of the parliament, as to exactly how that works. But, in due course—like most people; I don't think this is unusual in a marriage break-up—things will no doubt settle down. I look forward to making sure that I find another house. Many of those watching this would know that, unfortunately, about 40 per cent to 50 per cent of marriages break down, so this is not something that is completely out of the ballpark. So I state once more: I did not—I did not—approach Mr Maguire for any help. I did not approach him. What I can also state is that he made the approach to me when I was not a minister; I was not a member of parliament. What I can also state is that I offered to pay for it, but I can also state that basically he said that, as a friend, he would not take any money—that he was quite happy to help me for that period of time. I don't think I can be more succinct than that. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for Isaacs be agreed to.

The House divided. [09:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 70 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Sharkie, RCC Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 73 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 5 BILLS Crimes Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme—Worker Screening) Bill 2018 5

Crimes Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme—Worker Screening) Bill 2018

First Reading 5 Second Reading 6 10:03 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill creates exceptions to the provisions that prevent disclosure of spent, quashed and pardoned conviction for persons who work or seek to work with people with disability in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). This bill aims to help protect and prevent people with disability from harm from the people working closely with them. It will provide transparency for providers, people with a disability and their families. The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australian history. At full scheme, the NDIS will be supporting around 460,000 Australians with disability. At that time, the NDIS will be injecting over $20 billion each year into the Australian economy. This requires a new, nationally consistent approach to quality and safeguards for the disability sector that ensure the NDIS supports and services are of an appropriate standard and are delivered in a way that promotes choice, control and dignity, and upholds basic human rights. The protection of people with disability from violence, abuse and neglect is a key priority for all Australian governments. In December 2016, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) endorsed the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework, setting out a new approach to regulation for the NDIS to protect NDIS participants. The framework is the result of over three years of consultation with people with disability, carers, and providers. A nationally consistent approach to worker screening is an important element of this framework that will help create a safe and trusted workforce in the NDIS, and minimise the risk of harm to people with disability. All Australian governments are working together to deliver a new NDIS Worker Screening Check. The new check is intended to become available in New South Wales and South Australia from July 2018, in Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory from July 2019, and in Western Australia from July 2020. Workers engaged by registered NDIS providers to deliver higher risk supports and services or supports or services that entail more than incidental contact with an NDIS participant would be required to have an NDIS Worker Screening Check clearance. Worker screening will provide employers with an important tool for their recruitment, selection and screening processes and help ensure people chosen to work in the NDIS are safe to work with people with disability. It also provides self-managing NDIS participants and their families important information to help them make informed choices about workers providing their supports. And, importantly, worker screening will deter predatory individuals from seeking work in this sector. The NDIS Worker Screening Check represents a major step forward from the existing fragmented arrangements operating in each state and territory. Worker clearances will be portable across jurisdictions and employers, reducing duplication and complexity for workers and providers moving between, or operating across, jurisdictions. Improved information sharing will mean there is visibility of workers' national criminal history records and consistent decisions across all jurisdictions. Workers who hold an NDIS Worker Screening Check clearance will be subject to ongoing monitoring at a national level for relevant criminal history or commission records. A national approach eliminates the opportunity for people to make multiple attempts at gaining a worker screening clearance. It prevents people with adverse records in one state or territory from attempting to gain a clearance to work in the NDIS in another. This bill is a major step forward in removing legislative barriers to implementing nationally consistent worker screening and realising these benefits. This bill is consistent with arrangements already in place for working with children checks and the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These amendments will assist worker screening units to make a more accurate and informed assessment of the risk that a person may pose to people with disability in the NDIS. Recent inquiries and reports have documented the weaknesses of the current safeguards arrangements for disability services, and found that reports of abuse and neglect perpetrated against people with disability may not be pursued for a variety of reasons. This includes difficulties experienced in securing a conviction where the victim is a person with disability, and the challenges faced by people with disability who are victims of crime. For these reasons, governments have agreed that it is appropriate to consider a person's full criminal history, including spent, quashed and pardoned conviction information, to assess the risk they may pose in working with a person with disability in the NDIS. This bill has been informed by the arrangements already in place for working with children checks, and builds on best practice among states and territories, and learnings from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. This bill strikes a balance between the risk to people with disability with the rights of individual workers to privacy and employment. The exchange of information permitted by the bill is subject to the same stringent safeguards in place for Working with Children Checks. Information will only be disclosed to prescribed worker screening units for the purpose of enabling a more accurate and informed decision about whether a person poses a risk to vulnerable people. The bill requires the minister to be satisfied that certain criteria are met before a person or body can be prescribed to deal with Commonwealth criminal history information about persons who work, or seek to work, with a person with a disability. The minister responsible for prescribing persons or bodies for this purpose will be the Attorney-General. A person or body will not be able to be prescribed unless the minister is satisfied that the screening unit has a legislative basis for doing so and complies with applicable privacy, human rights and records management legislation. Furthermore, the minister must be satisfied that the person or body complies with the principles of natural justice, and has risk assessment frameworks and appropriately skilled staff to assess risks to the safety of a person with a disability. This item acts as an important safeguard against the misuse of criminal history information. In addition to this, based on advice provided by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to the department, the bill contains staged reviews of its operation. The department will also conduct a privacy impact assessment of the measures proposed in the bill. The NDIS Worker Screening Check will be proportionate, risk based and fair. The government is fully committed to delivering a quality NDIS. This is why this government has taken strong, decisive action by establishing a national independent body, the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm. The government has provided $209 million over four years to support the commission. The commission will lead the overall design and broad policy settings for nationally consistent NDIS worker screening. It will also have responsibility for registering NDIS providers, responding to complaints, managing reportable incidents notifications, and providing leadership to reduce and eliminate the use of restrictive practices in the NDIS. The commission will be able to pass on substantiated misconduct and disciplinary findings from its reportable incidents and complaints systems to worker screening units to support NDIS worker screening. Operating as an independent statutory body with integrated functions and powers, the commission will be a fit-for-purpose, evidence-based, responsive regulator. In recognising that NDIS participants are amongst the most vulnerable people in the community and that people with disability have the right to be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse, the implementation of the NDIS worker screening policy will: Reduce the potential for providers to employ workers who pose a high risk of harm to people with disability; Prohibit those persons who pose a high risk or are proven to have harmed vulnerable people from working in the sector; and Deter individuals who pose a high risk of harm from seeking work in the sector. The government will continue to consult with stakeholders to establish nationally consistent expectations for the conduct of providers, the training and screening of their workers and the quality of supports and services that they deliver under the NDIS. This bill represents a significant step forward in protections for people with disability, their families and carers. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018 8

Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 10:14 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill makes a minor technical amendment to the Simplifying Student Payments Act 2017. The Simplifying Student Payments Act supported regional and remote students by amending the rules governing when a person will be regarded as independent for the purposes of youth allowance. It intended to reduce the period young people from regional and remote areas of Australia have to earn the amount required to satisfy the workforce independence provisions from 18 months to 14 months. This measure commenced from 1 January 2018. The reduction to 14 months was an election commitment by the government and part of a package to support regional students' access to education. Students whose family home is in a regional or remote location can access youth allowance on the basis of being independent under concessional workforce participation arrangements. One way in which students can demonstrate they have supported themselves is through a period or periods of employment over 14 months since leaving secondary school, with earnings totalling at least 75 per cent of wage level A of the national training wage. This is $24,836 for the 2017-18 financial year. In addition, to access these arrangements students' parental income must be below $150,000, they must be undertaking full-time study and they must be required to live away from home to study. This measure recognised that regional and remote students face additional costs in pursuing tertiary education and have much lower participation rates in higher education than students from major cities. The reduced period from 18 months to 14 months allows students to qualify for youth allowance four months sooner than under previous arrangements. Students are now able to take a gap year at the end of secondary school and, subject to them satisfying the other qualification requirements for youth allowance, receive payment as independent the following year. Students who are considered independent for youth allowance purposes do not have their rate of payment affected by parental income, as is the case for dependent recipients. Previously, students who qualified for youth allowance under these arrangements may have commenced study prior to qualifying for student payments or have taken two gap years in order to satisfy the 18-month criteria before commencing study and qualifying for payment. The longer students are disengaged from study after completing secondary school, the less likely they will be to commence or complete tertiary study. It is estimated that over the forward estimates approximately 3,700 regional and remote students will qualify for youth allowance as independent under the 14-month period. Approximately 2,500 would become eligible for payment as independent four months earlier than under the previous 18-month period. Approximately 1,200 would become eligible for payment as independent, who otherwise would not have met the independence criteria. This includes students who choose to take a gap year, who may have not undertaken a gap year otherwise. These young people are expected to change their employment and study patterns in order to earn the required amount in 14 months. Despite this measure commencing on 1 January 2018, an unintended consequence of the act meant that a small group of approximately 300 students have not been able to take advantage of the reduced 14-month period. Young people who were receiving youth allowance prior to 1 January 2018 were unintentionally left behind. This group remained under the old 18-month rule. For example, a young person who finished school in 2016 and worked throughout 2017 hoping to qualify as independent and went on youth allowance as a dependent recipient, would have the 18-month period apply to them. For a young person from a regional area who requires the full rate of youth allowance in order to move away from home to study, having the 18-month period apply to them could mean that they have to delay university for an extra year. This bill will correct the unintended consequence of the act and will mean that the 14-month period is available for all students seeking independence for youth allowance under the workforce independence provisions for regional and remote tertiary students. This bill will ensure that the 14-month period is applied consistently to all tertiary students from regional areas. Debate adjourned. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 9

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:20 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill gives effect to measures announced in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which are designed to promote financial independence and self-sufficiency for newly arrived migrants. These measures reflect this government's commitment to both responsible economic management and fairness. They strike the right balance between promoting self-reliance for newly arrived migrants and providing appropriate exemptions for those that may need them. We are fortunate that Australia is a prosperous country with strong social and economic foundations. There is no doubt migrants seeking to settle in Australia are attracted to our way of life, our successful multicultural society and the opportunities our economy offers. However, to maintain this, we need to make fiscally responsible decisions to repair the budget and ensure that spending is kept under control for the benefit of current and future generations. A key part of this is ensuring that our welfare payments system remains fair and sustainable, and provides the best possible encouragement for people to support themselves and contribute socially and economically to this nation. The welfare payments system is already subject to a number of targeting provisions, which include residency requirements designed to ensure that payments are made to people who are residing in Australia and have an established and ongoing connection to Australia. For this reason, waiting periods for new migrants already exist for a number of welfare payments. These waiting periods—known as the newly arrived resident's waiting period—are designed to ensure that people who decide to apply for a permanent visa take steps to provide for their own financial support during their initial settlement period. The changes contained in this bill—to extend these waiting periods and apply them consistently across relevant income support and family payments—will strengthen the residency based nature of our welfare payments system. This will help to ensure that it remains sustainable in the longer term so that we can continue to support those in need now and into the future. A key focus of Australia's migration program is attracting people who have the skills and talent we need to grow Australia's economy, increase productivity and create jobs. Currently, we settle around 186,000 new migrants a year in this country. Almost 69 per cent of these are skilled migrants. This means that the majority of new permanent migrants have come to Australia to work and are well placed to support themselves and their families and contribute to the Australian economy and community when they arrive. The changes in this bill will reinforce expectations that people choosing to become permanent residents of Australia should be able to support themselves and their families for a reasonable period—whether through their existing resources, through work or through support from family members already in Australia—before having the potential to access our generous welfare system. Currently a two-year newly arrived resident's waiting period applies to working age income support payments, including Newstart allowance, youth allowance, carer payment, Austudy, sickness allowance, special benefit and the farm household allowance, as well as concession cards such as the low-income health care card and Commonwealth seniors health care card. This waiting period means that most new permanent skilled and family migrants must have been an Australian resident and in Australia for two years before they can apply for these payments or concession cards. The newly arrived residents waiting period was first introduced in 1993 and extended to a two-year waiting period was introduced in 1997. However, it has not been changed since then and welfare expenditure has grown significantly over this period, placing increasing pressure on the budget. Fiscally responsible decisions are required to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the welfare payments system. This bill will extend the existing waiting period from two years to three years. This will ensure that migrants support themselves for longer when they first settle permanently in Australia, reducing the burden on the welfare payments system. Three years is a reasonable period to expect permanent migrants to support themselves, whether through work, existing resources or family support. After this initial three-year period, migrants will be able to access relevant payments and concession cards, provided they meet all other eligibility requirements. Some income support payments—parenting payment, widow allowance and bereavement allowance—have a two-year qualifying residence period rather than a three-year waiting period while others, such as carer allowance, have no residence or waiting period at all. Under this bill, a three-year newly arrived resident's waiting period will be applied to these payments, consistent with the new rules for working age payments. This will apply consistent rules and expectations across similar payments. The full range of existing exemptions from the waiting period will be maintained, providing important protections for potentially vulnerable migrants. This includes exemptions for humanitarian entrants and their families and exemptions for people who experience a change in circumstances after becoming an Australian resident and are no longer able to support themselves as planned. These exemptions ensure a balance between fair and reasonable expectations that new migrants should support themselves and their families and maintaining a safety net for those who find themselves in need. Currently, no waiting period applies to family payments, such as family tax benefit, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay. This means that these payments are available to new permanent residents immediately on arriving in Australia. Under the changes in this bill, a new three-year Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Period will be applied to family tax benefit. This reflects that many permanent skilled and family visa types also allow migrants to include dependent children in their visa applications. It is reasonable to expect that those migrants who choose to bring their family with them to Australia should support their family as well as themselves. The waiting period will only apply to new permanent migrants from 1 July 2018 who have not yet been resident in Australia for three years. However, where the new migrant is partnered to an Australia citizen or a permanent resident who has already served their waiting period, their partner will still be able to receive family tax benefit. To ensure that low-income families can continue to have access to concessional benefits under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, families serving a waiting period for family tax benefit will be able to claim a low income health care card, provided they meet the income test for this card. A new three-year waiting period will also be applied to parental leave pay and dad and partner pay. It is fair to expect that migrants who choose to have or adopt a new baby after coming to Australia should support themselves and their new baby for a reasonable period of time before being eligible for taxpayer-funded parental leave. The new waiting period reflects these expectations while still ensuring appropriate exemptions are available. Transitional arrangements will also be put in place to ensure that people who may already be pregnant and have planned their leave arrangements are not disadvantaged. New migrants who have a baby born or adopted between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2018, and are otherwise eligible for parental leave pay or dad and partner pay, will still be able to access these payments for that baby. The introduction of a waiting period for family tax benefit and paid parental leave payments will apply consistent rules and expectations across both family and income support payments. Importantly, families subject to a waiting period for family tax benefit or parental leave payments will continue to have access to broader government funded services to support their children's integration and wellbeing, including health care and education services. Migrant families will also continue to have immediate access to childcare subsidies where they are using approved child care and participating in work, study or other approved activities. To support families in challenging and unexpected circumstances, double orphan pension and stillborn baby payment will continue to be available as per current rules. This will ensure that migrants who have experienced the tragedy of stillbirth, or are caring for a child who has lost both their parents, still have access to financial support to help them meet the associated costs. The changes in this bill will only apply to people granted a permanent skilled or family visa on or after commencement of the bill—that is, from 1 July 2018. This will ensure that prospective migrants are aware of the new rules before their visa is granted and are able to make informed decisions, including making arrangements to support themselves during the waiting period. Migrants already granted permanent residence before 1 July 2018 will not be affected. These migrants will continue to be subject to a two-year waiting period for relevant working age payments and will have no waiting periods for family payments. There are a number of exemptions from the existing and new waiting periods. These exemptions are designed to provide safeguards for certain groups of migrants, including potentially vulnerable individuals and families, and people who have had a change of circumstances. Humanitarian entrants and their families will continue to be exempt from waiting periods for all income support payments and will also be exempt from the new waiting periods for family tax benefit, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay. This exemption acknowledges that refugees settling here under the humanitarian program are particularly vulnerable. These migrants generally have no other means of support and are not usually in a position to make plans for their own support prior to applying for a humanitarian visa. Maintaining access to welfare payments will help to promote the successful long term settlement of these humanitarian entrants and their families. While most temporary visa holders do not have access to income support or family payments, there are some exceptions. Holders of certain temporary visas, including Temporary Protection Visas and Safe Haven Enterprise visas, currently have immediate access to family tax benefit, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay as well as special benefit. These temporary visa holders will be exempt from the new waiting periods for family tax benefit, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay and will also continue to be exempt from the existing waiting period for special benefit. This exemption is consistent with the exemption for humanitarian entrants. If these temporary visa holders are later granted a permanent visa, they will continue to be exempt from the waiting period. This will ensure that they do not lose access to the benefits just because they decide to settle in Australia permanently. Most permanent migrants who make arrangements to support themselves during their initial settlement period will be able to be self-reliant for the full three years. However, the government understands that some migrants will experience a change of circumstance which means they may no longer be able to support themselves as they had originally planned. For this reason, there are some exemptions for migrants in this situation. Migrants who become a lone parent after becoming an Australian resident will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for the main principal carer parent payments: parenting payment, Newstart allowance and youth allowance. Parents granted this exemption will also be exempt from the waiting period for family tax benefit. This ensures that parents who no longer have the support—financial and otherwise—of their partner can access support for themselves and their children. Other migrants who experience a substantial change of circumstances after the start of their waiting period, and are in financial hardship, will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for special benefit. This payment provides a safety net for people in hardship who are not otherwise eligible for other payments. Those who receive this exemption for special benefit and have dependent children will also be exempt from the waiting period for family tax benefit. Together, these exemptions provide a comprehensive safety net for migrants who are particularly vulnerable as well as those who are placed in hardship as a result of circumstances beyond their control. In addition to the exemptions for vulnerable migrants, New Zealand citizens on special category visas will also be exempt from the waiting periods for family tax benefit, parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay. These New Zealanders currently have immediate access to these payments. This exemption ensures that they retain access to the same entitlements they can currently access. This recognises the unique arrangements between Australia and New Zealand under our Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement which allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work indefinitely in either country. This government believes it is reasonable to expect that people seeking to come to Australia through the skilled and family visa streams should make arrangements to be financially self-sufficient when they first settle here. We are committed to creating a fair and equitable system that is economically responsible while ensuring safeguards are in place. The changes in this bill strike a balance between promoting self-reliance for newly arrived migrants and providing appropriate exemptions for those in vulnerable circumstances. In line with the government's broader fiscal strategy, these changes will contribute to a sustainable future for an economically strong Australia. It will help keep our generous welfare system sustainable and promote self-sufficiency with newly arrived skilled migrants. Debate adjourned. Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018 12

Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:37 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There is no greater responsibility for any government than to ensure the safety and security of its people. Last year the Australian government announced the most significant reform to Australia's intelligence and security landscape in decades by establishing a new Home Affairs portfolio, creating an Office of National Intelligence (subsuming the existing Office of National Assessments), and transforming the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory agency. The Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018 implements the recommendations of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review and fulfils the government's commitment to establish the Australian Signals Directorate as an independent statutory agency within the Defence portfolio reporting directly to the Minister for Defence. On 7 November 2016, the Prime Minister announced an independent review of the Australian intelligence community. The timing of the review is consistent with the 2011 Independent Review of the Intelligence Community recommendation that periodic review occur every five years. On 18 July 2017, the Prime Minister released the unclassified version of the 2017 Independent Intelligence Review report. The review made 23 recommendations in relation to the structural, legislation and oversight architecture of the intelligence community, including the establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate as an independent statutory agency within the Defence portfolio. The Australian Signals Directorate has a long history which goes back to the Second World War, when Australian Navy, Army and Air Force personnel were brought together to support General MacArthur's south-west Pacific campaign by intercepting and decoding enemy radio signals. After the war, as the wartime signals intelligence units were wound down, government approval for a new peacetime signals intelligence organisation was given on 23 July 1946. The new Defence Signals Bureau opened at Albert Park Barracks, in Melbourne, on 12 November 1947. Its role was to exploit foreign communications and be responsible for communications security in the armed services and government departments. The bureau was renamed the Defence Signals Branch in October 1949, a title it retained until January 1964, when it became the Defence Signals Division. As a result of an inquiry in 1977 into intelligence and security, the Defence Signals Division was renamed the Defence Signals Directorate and made directly responsible to the Secretary of the Department of Defence. In June 1988, the government decided that the Defence Signals Directorate should move to Defence headquarters at Russell Offices in Canberra, to facilitate a closer relationship with Defence, other intelligence agencies and key government departments. Recent years have seen a dramatic expansion of the information security role the signals directorate plays as a result of the explosive growth of the internet and moves to online service delivery by Australian governments. In January 2010, the Defence Signals Directorate established the Cyber Security Operations Centre to develop a comprehensive understanding of ICT security threats to critical Australian systems and coordinate a response to those threats across government and industry. In May 2013, the Defence Signals Directorate was renamed the Australian Signals Directorate to reflect its whole-of-government role in support of Australia's national security. In November 2014, the Cyber Security Operations Centre evolved into the Australian Cyber Security Centre, or the ACSC, which is the next evolution of Australia's cybersecurity capability. The ACSC sees the co-location of all contributing agencies' cybersecurity capabilities, including the Australian Signals Directorate's cybersecurity mission, the centre of emergency response team from the Attorney-General's Department, representatives of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, ASIO, and the Defence Intelligence Organisation. The ACSC is currently the joint responsibility of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Defence. It is clear the Australian Signals Directorate has evolved from a primarily Defence signals collection agency after World War II to become Australia's national signals intelligence authority for collecting intelligence, supporting the military and undertaking cybersecurity, and affects operations through the application of advanced technologies. The Australian Signals Directorate is now a national asset with a national focus, playing a much broader role than defined by its previously exclusive Defence focus. In broad terms, this bill will separate the Australian Signals Directorate from the Department of Defence and establish it as an independent statutory agency under the control of the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate from 1 July 2018. In December 2017, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Mr Mike Burgess as the Director-General designate of the Australian Signals Directorate (the ASD). Mr Burgess is a cybersecurity consultant who was previously the Chief Information Security Officer for Telstra and prior to that, a deputy director of the Australian Signals Directorate. Mr Burgess will bring to the Australian Signals Directorate significant experience in intelligence and information and cybersecurity from both the private and public sectors, particularly as it transitions to a statutory agency within the Defence portfolio. I congratulate him on his appointment and I look forward to his ongoing contributions to our national security. The bill will also amend the Australian Signals Directorate's functions to bring the ACSC into the Australian Signals Directorate, in accordance with recommendation 3(b) of the review. The centre of emergency response team and its functions relating to cyberpolicy and security will also be transferred from the Attorney-General's Department to the Australian Signals Directorate. Specifically, the bill implements the recommendations of the review by: amending the Australian Signals Directorate's functions to include providing material, advice and other assistance to any person on matters relating to the security and the integrity of information which is processed, stored or communicated by electronic or similar means; and cybersecurity, which will allow the ACSC to liaise with industry; amending ASD's functions to include combating cybercrime; providing provisions for the establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate on a statutory basis, and the appointment of the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate to control the Australian Signals Directorate and its staff; providing provisions that the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate must brief the Leader of the Opposition about matters relating to the Australian Signals Directorate; giving the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate powers to employ persons as employees of the Australian Signals Directorate outside the frame of the Public Service Act 1999; amending other legislation as appropriate to replace references to the Director of the Australian Signals Directorate with the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate and to remove references to the Department of Defence. In relation to the employment of staff, the Australian Signals Directorate would operate outside of the Public Service Act framework. This will provide the Australian Signals Directorate with greater flexibility to recognise the skills of its specialised workforce. This structure will reflect the need to retain those individuals with highly sought after skills, such as those with science, technology, engineering and maths qualifications. The Australian Signals Directorate will be required under the bill to adopt the principles of the Public Service Act in relation to employees of the Australian Signals Directorate to the extent the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate considers they are consistent with the effective performance of the functions of the Australian Signals Directorate. The bill also includes an additional function for the Australian Signals Directorate to protect the specialised technologies and capabilities acquired in the performance of its other functions. The Australian Signals Directorate cannot perform its important functions without being able to protect its tools to ensure their ongoing utility and protect Australia's national interests. The bill also includes provisions to amend the Crimes Act to include the Australian Signals Directorate in the assumed identities regime set out in part IAC of the Crimes Act. This part provides for the acquisition and use of assumed identities by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. This allows authorised officers of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to act under false identities, enabling them to undertake obscure sensitive activities that would be undermined if they were to be connected with law enforcement or intelligence agencies and protects the true identity of individual officers. The Australian Signals Directorate relies on the use of assumed identities to perform activities related to its functions in circumstances where the Australian Signals Directorate's operations would be compromised were the activities to be connected to the Australian Signals Directorate. Currently, ASIS and ASIO operate assumed identities on the Australian Signals Directorate's behalf. The inclusion of the Australian Signals Directorate in the assumed identities scheme will increase transparency and accountability for the Australian Signals Directorate officers using assumed identities. While the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate will be able to authorise the use of an assumed identity, the acquisition of evidence of an assumed identity will be authorised and done on the Australian Signals Directorate's behalf by either ASIO or ASIS. The bill also makes a number of transitional provisions to ensure the good governance of the Australian Signals Directorate continues during the implementation of the new arrangements. The establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate as a statutory authority puts the agency on a similar footing to ASIS and ASIO as a national security and intelligence asset. Given the Australian Signals Directorate's increased national responsibilities in relation to cybersecurity and the critical operational support it provides to the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Signals Directorate will now have the appropriate statutory functions to ensure it is well placed to support Australian Defence Force operations and its national responsibility for combating cybercrime, including the provision of advice to the private sector into the future. There is no greater responsibility for any government and parliament than to ensure the safety and security of all Australians—and this bill will help make the Australian Signals Directorate a major part in delivering this responsibility into the future. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018 14

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:50 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018. The bill comprises eight schedules and will implement several new initiatives to deliver a range of services to the veteran community and their families. There are more than 300,000 Australians who have served in our defence forces, in peacetime and in conflict, both in Australia and abroad. Each year more than 5,000 will leave service and move on to the next chapter in their life, some voluntarily, some for reasons not of their choosing. How we help these men and women and their families in the next stage of theirs lives is vital. These veterans have given so much to our country and it is only right we support those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our great nation and our way of life. In 2016 this government made a commitment to ensure current and future veterans and their families have the support that they need. I am proud to be introducing these measures today to deliver these initiatives. These measures will not only assist those who have served our nation but also their husbands, wives, partners, fathers, mothers and children—their families. Schedule 1 of the bill will introduce a range of measures in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 aimed at providing family support to veterans and their families. Family plays an essential role in supporting current and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members and more support is needed for partners and families. Families make a significant contribution to the health and wellbeing of our Australian Defence Force members throughout their careers and through the transition process when they become civilians. The role of family can be particularly important in the treatment and recovery of ill or injured individuals throughout their lifetime. To build on existing support provided in the 2017-18 budget, $7.1 million is being provided over four years to extend the support available to families of veterans. This additional support will include greater access to childcare, additional home care and counselling and will help families to maintain their connections to community and employment and improve social function. It will also recognise partners who have the pressure of having to care for a severely incapacitated veteran in addition to their other home duties such as child rearing and any work or other activities they may undertake. Partners also need support to develop skills to care for a veteran who is incapacitated (both physically and mentally) and to be able to identify when to seek professional help for a veteran who may be at imminent risk of self-harm or harm to others. Amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 are required to deliver key psychosocial interventions, such as greater access to childcare and counselling for veterans with complex needs, and to assist in reducing family pressure, which at times may contribute to veteran suicide. The family support amendments will provide three practical services designed to improve a veteran's health and wellbeing and provide services to the family of a veteran so they can also support the veteran. These services include: increased child care assistance to veterans who receive incapacity payments and have served in recent overseas conflicts and to the partners of veterans who served in a recent conflict and have died (either through the recent conflict or by suicide), extending brief intervention counselling for up to five years post discharge for veterans with a current rehabilitation plan, their partners and immediate family, and child care, home care assistance and counselling for partners and families of veterans who have served in a recent conflict and died, either as a result of the recent conflict or by suicide. This assistance will be provided for two years from the death of the veteran. Schedule 2 of the proposed amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 will create a new veteran payment. The veteran payment will help address concerns raised by the final report of the Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, which suggested the military compensation system may contribute to the risk of veteran suicide. The veteran payment will benefit approximately 830 veterans and 690 partners (a total of 1,520 people) in the 2018-19 financial year. The veteran payment is a new income support payment providing vulnerable veterans with interim financial support until their claims for liability for a mental health condition are determined. It will provide early access to financial support prior to a claim for liability for a mental health condition being determined. Veterans will be required to commence participation in vocational and psychosocial rehabilitation, which would include financial counselling and budgeting, whilst receiving the veteran payment. Partners of veterans will also be eligible for the veteran payment, and veterans with dependent children will be entitled to the maximum rates of family tax benefit part A and family tax benefit B without being subject to the family tax benefit means test while they receive the veteran payment. Schedule 3 will enable selected white card holders to participate in the new Coordinated Veterans' Care Program mental health pilot. The 2017-18 budget allocated $3.6 million for the pilot, which is for veterans with mild to moderate anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder and comorbid physical health problems, in particular musculoskeletal with pain. The pilot will be embedded in the existing Coordinated Veterans' Care Program, which uses a team based model of care, led by a general practitioner and supported by a practice nurse. Under this pilot clients can access a digital coach application on a smart phone or smart device. The digital application is based upon cognitive behavioural therapy principles. Clinical oversight of the pilot will be provided by a health call monitoring facility staffed by registered nurses and supervised by a mental health nurse. The Coordinated Veterans' Care Program is currently available to gold card holders under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. Legislative amendments will ensure selected white card holders will also be able to participate in the pilot, as well as gold card holders who are already eligible. Schedule 4 will amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to align it with the changes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 relating to catastrophic injuries or disease, and ensure that veterans with catastrophic injury or disease receive at least the same entitlements as civilian employees. Currently the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission pays for household and attendant care services above the legislated statutory rate for clients with catastrophic injury or disease, through an exceptional circumstances determination under section 144(c) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 or section 287(2) of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004. These amendments will clarify the legislative basis for payments for household and attendant care services for veterans with a catastrophic injury or disease. Schedule 5 amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 in relation to a claim for qualifying service. The amendments will enable the automation of a qualifying service determination prior to or at the time a veteran engages with the Department of Veterans' Affairs or before the veteran makes an application for any service pension. This removes a step in the process a veteran must currently complete in order to make an application for some service pension. This is the first legislative amendment to support the implementation of the veteran-centric reforms and is part of the broader improvement strategy to ease the transition process for veterans. The veteran-centric reforms aim to put veterans and their needs at the front of departmental processes and systems. Schedule 6 amends the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 by making technical amendments to that act fully ensuring it is a military specific act. References to Comcare and other redundant bodies will be changed to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission or the Commonwealth as required. There are no changes to the eligibility requirements, entitlements or benefits veterans may receive under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. These amendments would give effect to the policy intention of fully removing any obligations or functions of either Comcare or the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission with regard to Defence-related claims under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988. Schedule 7 makes a series of minor amendments to the Specialist Medical Review Council provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to ensure all references are consistent. The amendments will change references to 'the Council' to 'the Review Council'. Schedule 8 contains a number of technical amendments being made to streamline the legislation. For example the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests and British Commonwealth Occupation Force (Treatment) Act 2006 will be amended to extend medical treatment eligibility to Australian Defence Force members who served in Japan after the cessation of hostilities of World War II and before the formation of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force. The Department of Veterans' Affairs reports that there is at least one veteran who, under the current rules, is not entitled to a treatment card (gold card) as he does not satisfy the definition of British Commonwealth Occupation Force participant although he was in Japan as an Australian Defence Force member after the cessation of hostilities and before the formation of British Commonwealth Occupation Force. This amendment will correct such a circumstance and provide this veteran and others like him the medical treatment they deserve. Each of the sets of amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans. That is important. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018 17

Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018

First Reading 17 Second Reading 17 11:02 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements a package of measures to improve the efficiency and equity of Australia's business tax system by strengthening the integrity and operation of the consolidation regime and removing unintended outcomes. The consolidation regime was introduced in 2002 and is a fundamental component of Australia's business tax system. There are approximately 12,000 consolidated taxpayers in Australia, including the majority of our largest businesses. Consolidation allows a wholly-owned corporate group to be treated as a single entity for income tax purposes. A consolidated group generally consists of an Australian resident head company and its wholly owned subsidiaries. This reduces compliance costs for business, removes impediments to the most efficient business structures, and improves the integrity of the tax system. Benefits of tax consolidation for businesses include: allowing intragroup transactions to be ignored; the pooling of losses, franking credits and foreign tax credits; and the removal of impediments to group restructuring. The government's changes, outlined in schedule 1 of this bill, follow recommendations made by the Board of Taxation in its post-implementation reviews of the consolidation regime. In these reviews, the Board of Taxation identified a number of loopholes that create unintended tax outcomes, often arising when an entity joins or leaves a consolidated group. The government is taking action to address these integrity issues in order to improve the fairness of the business tax system, simplify compliance and ensure the ongoing effectiveness of the consolidation rules. In particular, the bill improves the integrity and operation of the consolidation regime by: removing a double tax benefit that can arise when an entity with a deductible liability joins a consolidated group, with effect from 1 July 2016; simplifying the operation of the entry and exit tax cost-setting rules by ensuring that deferred tax liabilities are disregarded, with effect from today; preventing a double benefit from arising when an entity joins or leaves a consolidated group where the entity has securitised an asset, with effect from 13 May 2014 for authorised deposit-taking institutions and 3 May 2016 for other entities; preventing nonresidents churning assets between different consolidated groups to access double deductions, with effect from 14 May 2013; clarifying the interaction between the consolidation regime and the taxation of financial arrangements regime by ensuring that the tax treatment of certain intragroup liabilities and assets between a continuing member of a consolidated group and an existing member of the consolidated group is consistent with the economic substance of the relevant transaction, with effect from 14 May 2013; and closing a loophole that allows consolidated groups to access double deductions by shifting value across entities in the group, with effect from 14 May 2013. These measures were announced in the 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 budgets. In recognising the complex nature of the consolidation rules, we have consulted extensively on these measures over a number of years, including through the Board of Taxation's post-implementation review. The government has listened carefully to stakeholders to ensure that these changes are well designed and fairly balance the need for additional integrity without unduly burdening business with compliance costs. These measures, together, will protect the corporate tax base by strengthening the integrity of the consolidation regime. These measures will also provide greater clarity for businesses and provide a level playing field for businesses outside the consolidation regime. Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 18

Treasury Laws Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 11:07 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill reforms the penalty and offence framework in the Excise Act 1901 (Excise Act) to more effectively combat the illicit tobacco market. With this bill the government is delivering on its 2016-17 budget commitment to address the growing risk of illicit tobacco and criminal activity. Through effective tobacco control policy, Australia has become a world leader in reducing smoking rates. This has improved the health and wellbeing of Australians and reduced the social costs associated with smoking. To continue reducing the prevalence of smoking and to ensure tobacco products are taxed correctly, it is important to support these tobacco control policies with effective tobacco offences that combat the illicit tobacco market. This bill improves the enforcement of illicit tobacco offences by providing officers with access to tiered offences and strengthened penalties. Introducing tiered offences will give prosecutors more flexibility to bring charges against persons who have committed an illicit tobacco offence. The bill also confirms that tobacco offences apply when the origin of the illicit tobacco cannot be established. This addresses an issue where uncertainty about whether illicit tobacco had been produced domestically or imported, has created a barrier to effective enforcement due to the requirement to determine which of the Excise Act or Customs Act was applicable. By providing enforcement agencies appropriate powers and the threat of significant penalties, the government will be able to more effectively stamp out the illicit tobacco market. This will improve the health of Australians by reducing their exposure to tobacco products. It will ensure that tobacco products consumed domestically are fully taxed and comply with Australian regulations, including safety standards. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018 18

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018

First Reading 18 Second Reading 18 11:10 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill to implement a series of reforms to support Australian consumers. Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Australian Consumer Law, contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalties and penalties for criminal offences resulting from breaches of the law. This bill delivers on the 2017-18 budget commitment to strengthen the Australian Consumer Law's penalty regime. At present, the maximum penalties in the Australian Consumer Law are $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for a person other than a body corporate. These current maximum penalties are clearly failing to deter large corporations from breaching the Australian Consumer Law, particularly where the relevant non-compliant conduct may be highly profitable. For example, the $10 million penalty imposed against Coles in 2014 for unconscionable conduct in its dealings with 200 of its suppliers was referred to by Justice Gordon as insufficient for a company with annual revenue in excess of $22 billion. In some cases, the benefits gained from a breach of the Australian Consumer Law can generate profits greater than the value of the penalties imposed. When penalties are low, businesses may be prepared to factor the risk of a low penalty into their pricing structures. This puts consumers and small businesses at risk, with some large corporations viewing penalties simply as a 'cost of doing business' rather than a deterrent to the relevant non-compliant conduct. The Australian Consumer Law Review found that penalties must be sufficiently high that a business, acting rationally and in its own interests, would not be prepared to treat the risk of such a penalty as simply a cost of doing business. This bill, in our view, achieves this outcome. Schedule 1 to this bill increases those penalties for body corporates to the greater of $10 million, or three times the value of the benefit obtained from the offence, if that benefit can be determined, or 10 per cent of the annual turnover, if the value of the benefit cannot be determined in that instance. For persons other than body corporates, the maximum penalty will increase, as I said, from $220,000 to $500,000. The offences that carry the maximum penalty include unconscionable conduct, a range of unfair practices—such as misleading and deceptive conduct—offences related to product safety and offences related to information standards. These increases bring the maximum penalties in the Australian Consumer Law into line with the penalties in the competition provisions of the act that already exist. By increasing these penalties the government is sending a clear and simple message to businesses: if you're considering engaging in conduct that would breach the Australian Consumer Law, think again. This government is therefore backing all Australian consumers, and I can report to the House that these amendments have the strong support of the states and territories, who jointly enforce this law with the Commonwealth. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Australian Consumer Law to provide protection, through a safe harbour, for egg producers who comply with the requirements of the Free Range Egg Labelling Information Standard. This safe harbour will provide certainty to those egg producers who choose to label their eggs as 'free range' that if they have fulfilled the requirements set out in the information standard they will not face prosecution under the misleading or deceptive conduct provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. This certainty will increase confidence in the egg industry, will encourage further investment and will equally give consumers increased confidence that they are getting what they pay for when choosing their eggs. This measure is the result of a decision of consumer affairs ministers from the states, territories and the Commonwealth, who decided that both producers and consumers need more clarity in the area of free range egg labelling. The extensive consultation that was undertaken resulted in an information standard for free range egg labelling that requires the eggs to be laid by hens that had meaningful and regular access to the outdoors and were able to roam and forage. It also requires that the laying hens be subject to a stocking density of 10,000 hens or less per hectare. For the first time, the disclosure of the producer's actual stocking density will also be compulsory on all labels of eggs that claim to be free range. This will allow consumers to easily compare free range egg brands and to make decisions according to their own preferences. The safe harbour will provide an extra layer of protection and certainty for those complying with the relevant information standard. Finally, schedule 3 to this bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to support the role of the Australian Energy Regulator to monitor the wholesale electricity market. It will do so by removing inconsistencies between the treatment of confidential supplier information in the National Electricity Law and the Competition and Consumer Act. Relevantly, in 2016 the Australian Energy Regulator was granted new wholesale market monitoring and reporting functions via an amendment to the National Electricity Law. These functions require the Australian Energy Regulator to monitor and report on the wholesale electricity market to determine whether there are features of the market that undermine its effective functioning. However, parts of this amendment are inconsistent with other parts of the Competition and Consumer Act. As the Competition and Consumer Act is Commonwealth law, it takes precedence over the National Electricity Law. This means that the Australian Energy Regulator cannot fully use these functions until this inconsistency is mended. Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act to fix the inconsistency between it and the National Electricity Law. Therefore, this change will fully enable the National Electricity Law amendment which granted the Australian Energy Regulator these new wholesale market monitoring functions. Ultimately, these functions will help ensure that the Australian Energy Regulator can continue to enforce the energy laws proactively, fairly, and efficiently, therefore fulfilling the commitment of this government to always put consumers first. Full details of all of the measures in schedules 1 to 3 are contained in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Debate adjourned. National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018 20

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018

First Reading 20 Second Reading 20 11:20 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill establishes the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (the NHFIC), a new independent corporate Commonwealth entity which will improve housing outcomes for Australians, particularly vulnerable Australians who need social and affordable housing. The finance corporation, which is modelled on successful initiatives in the United Kingdom, will strengthen efforts to increase the supply of housing by encouraging investment in housing, particularly in social and affordable housing. It will contribute to developing the scale, efficiency and effectiveness of the community housing sector and, importantly, will provide loans, grants and investments that complement, leverage and support Commonwealth, state and territory activities relating to housing. Housing is critical to the social and economic wellbeing of Australians and the economy as a whole. It can impact on employment, education and health outcomes, and it is a significant driver of investment, productivity and economic growth. It's also the main savings vehicle for the majority of Australians. While housing is primarily a state responsibility, the Commonwealth government nonetheless has an important role to play when it comes to addressing housing affordability and securing better outcomes for Australians, particularly the most vulnerable. Commonwealth expenditure for housing in 2016-17 totalled $7.6 billion, comprising $4.4 billion in Commonwealth rental assistance and $3.2 billion in housing and homelessness funding, including through the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. As announced in last year's budget, the government is currently working on a new, improved funding agreement with the states and territories, being the NAHA or the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement. We are seeking to improve the outcomes of this significant funding, given that, despite the Commonwealth providing states and territories more than $9 billion since 2009, three out of four of the benchmarks under the agreement have not been, or are unlikely, to be met. Around 40,000 Australians are currently on waiting lists for community housing, and an additional 148,000 are on public housing waiting lists. This new agreement will ask for more transparency from the states and territories and will make homelessness funding indexed and permanent for the first time. The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement Bill, which establishes the framework for the new agreement, as members will be aware, is currently before the parliament. The initiatives contained in this bill are one part of the government's comprehensive housing affordability plan announced in the 2017-18 budget. This plan will improve outcomes across the housing spectrum. The government's already legislated a number of the elements announced as part of that plan. Last year, for example, we passed legislation to create the First Home Super Saver Scheme, sadly opposed by the opposition, which will provide a tax cut for first home buyers and enable them to save 30 per cent faster through voluntary superannuation contributions. We are also working to identify and dispose of surplus Commonwealth land that is suitable for housing, beginning with Defence land at Maribyrnong in Melbourne. We have established the Australian Government Property Register to make this process transparent and allow the public to propose better uses for surplus Commonwealth land. The finance corporation will deliver another important part of this broad housing affordability plan. It will administer the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility and an affordable housing bond aggregator. These functions will allow the finance corporation both to provide community housing providers with finance and assistance in capacity building and to make loans, investments and grants to improve housing outcomes. All financing and investment decisions will be made by an independent, skills-based board, with the chair and members appointed by the government for terms of up to five years, which will ensure decisions are sound and commercially based. Independence of the board's decision-making will cultivate credibility in financial markets and provide the board with the flexibility to perform its functions effectively and efficiently, and to tailor finance to the needs of recipients, mindful of any risks involved. The experience of the Housing Affordability Fund established by the previous government underlies the importance of this independent decision-making process. The Australian National Audit Office found that there were serious shortcomings in the administration of the Housing Affordability Fund and that some approved projects were not selected on a merit basis, or in accordance with the established guidelines. In line with the practices of other Commonwealth corporate entities recently established, the government will outline its expectations of the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation in an investment mandate. However, the government will not be able to direct the corporation in relation to particular loans, investments or grants, or in relation to any particular project. Providing the particulars of the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's activities in the investment mandate rather than in this bill allows the legislative framework to be flexible and nimble and to adjust, within the scope permitted by the bill, to the needs of community housing providers and other recipients of financial support. The bill specifies the matters that will be covered by the investment mandate, including: decision-making criteria; eligibility; limits on the making of loans, investments and grants; strategies and policies to be followed; and risk and return on investments. The National Housing Infrastructure Facility will help to finance the critical infrastructure that is needed to unlock and accelerate new housing supply, particularly affordable housing. The government anticipates that the infrastructure facility could support the development of 'mixed tenure' projects that combine affordable and private housing and provide broader community benefits, including housing, that enable key workers such as police and nurses to live near their places of work. The government has committed $1 billion to the infrastructure facility in the form of up to $175 million in grants and $825 million in concessional loans and equity investments. The financial assistance available will encourage and complement private sector and state and local government investment and facilitate the delivery of critical housing-related infrastructure. Eligible infrastructure projects will include transport links, power and water infrastructure and site remediation works. Eligible recipients will include local governments; state, territory, and local government-owned corporations and utility providers; and of course registered community housing providers. The Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will need to ensure that it funds projects that satisfy the appropriate regulatory and environmental standards that apply. The Housing Finance and Investment Corporation will be able to reinvest the capital and earnings gained through the infrastructure facility, allowing it to grow over time. It will be able to tailor its provision of finance to best suit the needs of individual projects, with any concessions calibrated to the particular circumstances of the project, and will provide the minimum amount of assistance required to enable a proposal to proceed. The Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's other key function will be to operate a bond aggregator for the community housing sector. The bond aggregator will improve the efficiency of financing for registered community housing providers and build the capacity of the sector. It will offer finance tailored to the needs of providers, funded through the issue of bonds, backed, importantly, by a legislative guarantee, which will provide the best outcome for providers. Community housing providers, as we know, supply subsidised housing for some of Australia's most vulnerable people. The new bond aggregator will give providers greater financial certainty and enable them to improve housing outcomes for their existing clients and build scale to provide services to new clients. There is a clear appetite from institutional investors, such as superannuation funds, for a new asset class of social impact investments which provide longer term fixed cash flows and deliver better outcomes to the community, and we hope to see this reflected in engagement with the bond aggregator. The final design details of both the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and its functions of operating the infrastructure facility and bond aggregator are the result of extensive consultation and the valuable involvement of many stakeholders over, in many cases, a number of years. I'd like to thank in particular the Affordable Housing Working Group, comprised of officials from the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia; and the Affordable Housing Implementation Taskforce; as well as the dedicated officials in my department who have been working on this for some time. Another important feature of the bill is that it provides a legislative guarantee for the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's liabilities. The bill provides for the capacity for the guarantee to be withdrawn in the future if it's no longer needed for new contracts. This of course would be dependent on both the corporation achieving sufficient maturity and scale and the community housing sector taking on a large-scale and more prominent role in sub-market rental housing, including through partnerships with the private sector and, again, institutional investors. To provide certainty to investors it may only be withdrawn by the government on a prospective basis after 1 July 2023 and with at least 60 days notice. The availability of the guarantee will strengthen market confidence and thereby improve the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation's ability to achieve its ultimate purposes. The corporation is intended to be financially self-sustaining in the medium to long term. The profits and funds returned from its investments, as I mentioned, will be available for reinvestment. In time, it may accumulate surplus funds and be in a position to return a dividend to the Commonwealth. Finally, the bill provides for a post-implementation review to be carried out three years after the commencement of the bill to ensure that the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation is delivering its intended benefits. Passage of this bill during the current sitting period will facilitate the necessary preparations to enable the corporation to undertake its infrastructure facility and bond aggregator activities from 1 July 2018. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 22

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

First Reading 22 Second Reading 22 11:33 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill deals with consequential and transitional matters arising from the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill 2018. In particular, it amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to exempt the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) from the requirement to provide a statement setting out the findings and reasons for decisions relating to its activities where requested—for example, by an unsuccessful applicant. This exemption will ensure the efficient administration of the Housing Finance and Investment Corporation and is consistent with the exemption afforded to similar bodies, including the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation. The bill also amends schedule 2 to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the Housing Finance Investment Corporation from the requirements of that act in relation to documents pertaining to its commercial activities. Again, this is similar to the exemption that applies on the commercial activities of the Export Finance Insurance Corporation, as well as NBN Co and other entities, such as the Indigenous Business Australia. Finally, it provides for a transitional provision related to the operations of the Housing Finance Investment Corporation because, while the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill is intended to commence as soon as possible, the government recognises that some time will be required for the Housing Finance Investment Corporation to be staffed—for example, for appointments to be made to the independent, skills based board and a full-time CEO to be engaged—as well as for the Housing Finance Investment Corporation's strategic policies and administrative processes and procedures to be developed. It has always been the government's intention that the Housing Finance Investment Corporation will commence making decisions regarding the making of loans, investments or grants—that is, its core function—from 1 July 2018, and this is reflected in the transitional provision contained in this bill. Passage of the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Bill and this bill during the current sitting will enable the Housing Finance Investment Corporation to undertake its infrastructure facility and bond aggregator activities from 1 July 2018. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 23

Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018

First Reading 23 COMMITTEES 23 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme 23 Report 23 11:37 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the committee's report entitled Transitional Arrangements for the NDIS. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ANDREWS HK5 by leave—Transition to the full National Disability Insurance Scheme started in July 2016 and is expected to be completed by 2020. At full scheme, about 475,000 people will be NDIS participants. The arrangements, time lines and implementation of the transition to the NDIS are set out in the bilateral agreements between the Australian, state and territory governments and vary across jurisdictions. To date, the Australian Capital Territory is the only jurisdiction to have completed full transition to the scheme. Elsewhere, the intake of participants is falling behind schedule. The transition period presents significant challenges, which are explored throughout this report. Delays in processes Firstly, the committee received evidence of delays in accessing the scheme as well as delays in plan approvals, plan activations and access to services. As a result of the delays in the intake of participants against bilateral estimates, there were over 34,500 people in September 2017 who should have already been participants who were yet to access the scheme. The committee heard that the plan review process is too lengthy and can jeopardise participants' abilities to access services. Interface between the NDIS and mainstream services Secondly, the committee received evidence that whilst interactions between the NDIS and mainstream services are guided by the principles agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments, they are subject to interpretation and lack clarity. This is resulting in boundary issues and funding disputes, which can lead to reduced access or no access to services for both NDIS participants and people with disability not eligible for the NDIS. Additionally, the committee found that the current transition of Commonwealth, state and territory programs to the NDIS is contributing to emerging service gaps and the lack of clear delineation of funding responsibility between the NDIS and state and territory services. In particular, the committee received significant evidence of boundary issues in the areas of health, aged care, education, transport, housing and justice. Impediments to deliver services Thirdly, the committee heard that the administrative burdens experienced by service providers, the inadequacy of the NDIS pricing caps and disability workforce shortages are significant barriers to the delivery of NDIS services across all jurisdictions in Australia. Rollout of the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building Program (ILC) Fourthly, the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building program, the ILC, is still in its infancy and has not yet started in all jurisdictions. However, the committee heard that insufficient funding has been allocated to the ILC program during the transition period. The committee is concerned that the current grant funding approach for ILC activities may result in service gaps for some essential services and has the potential to disadvantage some cohorts because of their type of disability or geographical location. Thin market and provider of last resort The transition to a market based system brings new challenges for delivering services in areas of thin markets. The committee found that thin markets will persist for some participants, including for those living in rural and remote areas, people with complex needs, people involved in the criminal justice system, people from CALD backgrounds and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Greater clarity is required on how the NDIA intends to intervene in areas of thin markets. The committee is concerned that provider of last resort arrangements remain unclear and incomplete. Service gaps The committee also heard that the transition to a market-based system combined with the transition of Commonwealth, state and territory programs has resulted in emerging service gaps in important areas, including advocacy, assertive outreach and support coordination. People from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds The committee received evidence that the current NDIS participation rates for people with disability from CALD backgrounds are significantly below that which had been anticipated. The committee is concerned that a comprehensive NDIS CALD strategy is yet to be published and implemented. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are experiencing additional challenges to engage with the NDIS. The committee found that prerollout and preplanning engagement activities are essential and must be prioritised by the National Disability Insurance Agency. The committee is concerned about reports of a lack of cultural competencies among NDIA staff. The committee found that growing the disability workforce in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities needs to be prioritised to ensure supply of services. Conclusion The committee received a wealth of information and evidence throughout the inquiry and thanks all those who participated. As a result, the committee has made 26 recommendations, which aim to ensure that improved and appropriate arrangements can be put in place to provide necessary and reasonable supports for all NDIS participants and fully realise the objectives of the scheme. I thank the committee members and the secretariat for their efforts. In conclusion, may I stress this: this is the fourth report of the joint standing committee in this parliament. Individually and collectively they present a disturbing picture of the operation of the NDIS. Not only are key goals being missed, the experience of the scheme for too many participants and providers alike is inconsistent, haphazard and inadequate. And this is occurring at a time when the rollout is about to be accelerated significantly. There is enormous goodwill, as all members know, and considerable hope that this scheme will improve the lives of the most disabled in our community. While this has been the experience of many, there are a significant number of cases where these aspirations are simply not being met. Therefore, there is an urgent need for remedial action to be taken by the National Disability Insurance Agency. There is also an urgent need for the states and territories to share accurate and timely information and to commit themselves to the provision of ongoing disability services for people not covered by the scheme. The committee will continue to monitor the operation of the scheme, but is most concerned about progress to date. Debate interrupted. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Publications Committee 25 Report 25 11:45 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I rise to present the report from the Publications Committee, sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Report—by leave—agreed to. BILLS 25 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018 25

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018

Second Reading 25 11:46 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise in continuation on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. Yesterday evening I was talking about some of the challenges that we face in the northern capital of Australia, in Darwin, the place that I represent—Darwin and Palmerston. One of the challenges is to do with the population. We have a massive gas project called INPEX, and we've had 9,000 people—many fly-in fly-outs, but also about 3,500 local Territorians—working on that project. This year, that project is going to move out of the construction phase and into the operations phase, which means that we need to retain those people. If we lose those people, it affects our GST. If we lose those people, we won't be able to grow our northern capital. The Chief Minister mentioned in a speech in Darwin this week that we've also seen a decline in the number of professional women living in Darwin. There are about a third less professional women coming into Darwin and an increase of about a third of professional women leaving Darwin. So that fewer blokes and fewer ladies, and certainly no way to build the population. It is a concern for us because, when we had some military units taken from Darwin and sent to Adelaide and to the east coast, our population dropped by about 1,500 people. That affected our GST revenue, which we're dependent on to provide services across the Northern Territory. We dropped something like $2 billion in revenue over the forward estimates. That's huge for our northern economy. We are trying in every way, but I think it's important, as leaders in our northern community, that we don't just outline the problem but that we also come up with solutions. With some local businesspeople and some local entrepreneurs in Darwin, I've been very proud to be part of an initiative called Ideas Fest. We had the first one last year, which looked at supporting young entrepreneurs coming up with new business models. We provided mentors to help them to build their businesses. The next thing we did was to really home in on this issue of making Darwin a more attractive place for women, particularly young professional women, to come and live and work. We ran a women's ideas fest—held in a good establishment in Mitchell Street in Darwin which many, who have visited Darwin, may have gone to to have a good time—and we came up with a really great suite of ideas about how we can make our northern capital a more attractive place for professional women to come and live and work, but also to stay and to meet people, raise families and grow our northern capital. Now we've turned our mind to tourism. The Tourism IdeasFest will be held at the Darwin International Airport on 3 March. The event is obviously sponsored by the airport but also by Tourism Top End and Tourism NT. We're very thankful for their support. The idea of the Tourism IdeasFest is to get ideas from Territorians—not only people in the sector but people outside of the sector who may have had amazing experiences as tourists overseas. We want to see if we can put a Territory spin on those ideas and then attract more and more people to visit and, indeed, put down roots in our northern capital. That's what we want to do: build our northern capital. I congratulate the NT government for their stimulus package for the tourism sector in recent times. I acknowledge that they're doing a lot of work to get the Chinese market happening. Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Come up and visit the north. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I thank the member. I call the member for Gippsland. 11:51 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I rise to highlight ongoing concerns with the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I refer to the recent report of the Australian Automobile Association which found that road trauma costs the Australian economy in the order of $30 billion per year. That's the economic cost, but that doesn't tell anywhere near the story when it comes to the social cost of road trauma. Last year, in total, 1,225 Australians lost their lives on our roads. That was an improvement on 2016, when almost 1,300 died on Australian roads. A disproportionate number were on our regional roads. Tens of thousands of people were injured—the walking wounded who will carry the scars of their road crash for the rest of their lives. I believe that we can do better. I simply don't accept that 1,200 to 1,300 Australians have to die on our roads each year. I believe there's an opportunity, following a very traumatic December across Australia, to capitalise on the renewed community and media focus on road trauma. I think it provides a rare opportunity for the state and federal ministers responsible for road safety to take a more aggressive approach to saving lives and reducing serious injuries. In my time as the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, I attempted to drive a national agenda on road safety, but I must acknowledge that I was often frustrated and disappointed by the timidity of our decision-makers and the public complacency surrounding road trauma. It was as though there was a level of acceptance that, within our bureaucracy and perhaps the wider community, there wasn't much else we could do to improve road safety and we just had to accept that up to 1,300 Australians would die each year and thousands more would be maimed for life. I have noticed, and you would have too, that the media only sparingly reports on road crashes in the modern era. Unless you're a famous person or someone of some notoriety, you'd hardly get a story in a newspaper, unless it was a particularly spectacular crash. An everyday Australian, perhaps crashing into a tree on a country road, would be lucky to receive a couple of paragraphs in a daily newspaper, yet the effects of that crash ripple right through the community, devastating loved ones and traumatising the first responders at the scene. We had a firsthand experience of this in my home town over the Christmas break. The circumstances surrounding the crash are obviously subject to a coronial investigation, but we had the tragic death of three locals: one boy, whom I coached in under-14 football; a girl who was a friend of my family; and a fellow I didn't know very well—nonetheless, three people were killed in the one crash. That crash obviously impacts people who know the family; it shatters families and friends. The toll on emergency service workers is something that I perhaps didn't understand as much as I should have in my role. I had the opportunity to talk to the police officers who've spent hours at the scene, the SES volunteers and the CFA volunteers, and it gives you an understanding of how a crash like this can ripple right through a community, particularly a small country community. Obviously it affects the families themselves, but it goes right through a community. And it happens 1,300 times across a calendar year in Australia—1,300 individuals killed, but hundreds and thousands more impacted by those crashes. I contend that road trauma is a public health crisis in our nation. We need sustained help from the media to keep telling the individual stories to humanise this debate beyond mere statistics and a running count in the newspapers. I refuse to use the word 'toll' because a toll suggests it's a price we have to pay to use our roads. We shouldn't use the word 'toll', because it seems to give a level of acceptance, again, to the fact that there are going to be these crashes and serious injuries and deaths every year. But we need to keep learning from every story. Every time this occurs, we need to make sure everyone understands their own responsibilities on the roads and the risks that are involved in using our roads. Despite my personal and professional frustration with the lack of progress in reducing road trauma in the time I was in the role of minister, there is a lot of research and other activity currently underway at a national level, which we need to continue to promote. While the states have primary responsibility for road safety, over the period of the past 20 months I convened a round table of road trauma experts. I brought senior police together from across the country, and we made road safety a priority item for action at the Transport and Infrastructure Council meeting of state ministers. I'm pleased to report that the federal government commissioned additional research on mobile phone distraction, which we believe is a significant risk in road crashes in Australia at the moment, and also some research into roadside testing for illicit drug use. Illicit drug use in 2015 in Victoria showed up in road deaths at a higher rate than excessive consumption of alcohol. So, while it appears that we have made great progress in encouraging drivers to not drive when they've been drinking, separating illicit drug use and driving is an emerging problem of great significance in the community. Both mobile phone distraction and illicit drug use were suspected to be major contributing factors to the recent spike we saw in road trauma. During my role as minister, I wrote to local governments around Australia and provided them with a statement of expectations on how they should use their annual Roads to Recovery funding to target safety on local roads. While there's been a major investment in freeways and duplication of our National Land Transport Network, it's actually those local roads and smaller arterial roads where a lot of crashes are occurring. I encouraged local government to target some of that money provided by the federal government directly at road safety. I'm also pleased to inform the House that two of Australia's leading road safety experts, Jeremy Woolley and Dr John Crozier, are set to deliver an independent review of the National Road Safety Strategy in the coming weeks, and all of this information—the mobile phone study, the illicit drug use study and the work by these two experts—will be available to the new minister, Barnaby Joyce, as he shapes the latest version of the National Road Safety Action Plan, in partnership with the states. I'm disappointed to report that we are currently not on target to meet the expectation we set for ourselves through the National Road Safety Strategy. The latest progress report indicates that progress towards the target of reducing fatalities by 30 per cent is poor, and we're not meeting the target of reducing serious injuries either. This is a strategy which has bipartisan support. It started in the Rudd government and was continued by the Turnbull government. We need to redouble our efforts if we're going to achieve the targets we set ourselves through the National Road Safety Strategy. As I told the TIC meeting in Hobart last year, 'business as usual' won't be good enough. We need to be more ambitious in our efforts, with measurable actions to reduce trauma further. Through my consultation with industry, we're aware that the Safe System approach is the way to deal with this. It's about safer roads, safer drivers and safer vehicles and it's also about safer speeds. My view is: we need to have a renewed public focus on inappropriate speed in our regional areas, coupled with a major increase in arterial road funding to target high-risk regional corridors which have poor safety features. Through my previous work as a minister, I have publicly spoken about continued investment in black spots, and continued investment in rest areas, duplicating highways and overtaking lanes—all good initiatives—but I believe we need to also develop a roads of strategic importance program to target some of those arterial roads in partnership with the states. Some treatment of networks, rather than individual black spots, will also contribute to reducing road trauma and improving the productivity of our regional communities. I'd also say that point-to-point speed cameras should be activated for light vehicles as well trucks, and states which fail to comply should have some of their funding withheld until they do. Point-to-point speed cameras are a fair way of measuring inappropriate speed. I have some concerns with the way we use single-point speed cameras. I think sometimes they're deployed by states as revenue-raising devices, and in fact they don't change a driver's behaviour because they don't know that they've even been booked until they get the letter in the mail a couple of weeks later, so they may well just keep on speeding for those couple of weeks. Point-to-point speed cameras I think would have greater acceptance amongst the community and would also be a fairer way of catching people who habitually speed rather than speeding at one small point in time. The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator has already started introducing more data-gathering cameras to track the rogue operators in the industry, and the good operators in the heavy vehicle industry support the use of more cameras because they know they're being undercut by operators who are acting outside the law. I believe funding needs to be provided to deliver more of this technology, to punish those offenders and to reward those compliant drivers and compliant business operators who say that right now they're being undercut on price by those who do flout the law. I think there's also an opportunity for the private sector to be involved in the road safety debate. We need to engage with the banking and insurance sectors to make sure they're developing products or incentives for motorists to purchase the safest car they can afford for themselves and their children so that we can capitalise on the safety technology in modern cars. It's a sad fact that, for most of us, the worst car we will ever drive will be our first car and we're at higher risk of having a crash in those first few years of driving. The more we can do to get younger Australians into newer and safer cars, the better they will be, since, if they are unfortunate enough to have a crash, there will be more protection for them, but also the driver-assist technology which is available in modern cars can help them avoid a crash in the first place. So we need to be engaging with the banking and insurance sectors on ways we can incentivise the purchase of safer cars. Finally—without wishing to pre-empt the work of Woolley and Crozier in their review of the National Road Safety Strategy—I would say we need to get the states actually working together to share best practice in road safety across state borders. Despite some improvements over the last few years, there are still too many discrepancies in legislation across each jurisdiction around training, licensing and road laws, and a lack of data-gathering and sharing. I make the point that, when it comes to getting the states actually working together to share the best practice, if all of the other jurisdictions were able to achieve the Victorian fatality rate of four per 100,000 people, 253 lives could be saved nationally, with 78 in New South Wales, 56 in Western Australia, 51 in Queensland and 32 in South Australia. That is quite remarkable. If everyone could achieve the same standard Victoria achieved, we would see 253 lives saved nationally. As to the Northern Territory—and the member for Lingiari is here today and he would share my concerns—the Territory itself has a real challenge, because of the vast distances, and the standard of the roads and the potential for multiple casualties in one crash. We need to keep working with the Territory to get it down to levels more comparable to the other jurisdictions. Finally, I would say that, as road users, we all need to take our share of responsibility for road safety. Our police officers, government departments, ministers and road safety experts can only do so much. The government's $75 billion investment in infrastructure over the next 10 years will help. But every time we get behind the wheel, we need to have a safety-first culture and drive to survive the journey ahead. We all know we shouldn't speed. We know we shouldn't drink and drive. We know we shouldn't check our text messages or get behind the wheel when we're fatigued. But too many of us are still doing one or more of these things and putting lives at risk—putting our own lives at risk, putting our families' lives at risk, putting the lives of the driver and the other people in the car coming towards us at risk. We are still doing too many of these things. We are still speeding. We are still drinking and driving. We're still checking our text messages or getting behind the wheel when we're too tired. It has to stop. In an era where it's convenient to always find someone else to blame, the main answer to reducing road trauma is probably looking straight back at us in the rear-view mirror. 12:05 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari Can I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Gippsland and say I concur with much of what he said. I do just want to make a couple of comments about his observations about Lingiari. They were accurate, but I want to make the point that part of the problem with the roads in the Northern Territory is the failure of successive governments to invest in those roads to sufficient levels. One of the matters I was going to refer to later in my contribution to this debate on the appropriation bills was a question I asked the Deputy Prime Minister earlier in the week. I asked him: 'Why do the budget papers show that, of the $80 million allocated to the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program, less than half has actually been invested upgrading the roads the cattle industry rely on? How much of that money was spent in the Northern Territory, and how many kilometres of roads were addressed?' As the record shows, the Deputy Prime Minister, the minister responsible, was unable to tell us and had no idea what moneys had been allocated or spent on these important beef roads. These roads are important for a range of reasons. They're important for getting cattle to market, obviously. But they're also major access points, particularly for people who live in remote communities and on cattle properties as they travel around. If these roads are in poor condition then, as the member for Gippsland said, they invite accidents. It is therefore very important that we ask the Deputy Prime Minister again: what the hell's going on with the road funding that was previously announced and committed by this government? There are 9,000 kilometres of unsealed roads serving the cattle industry in remote communities in the Northern Territory. Now, if you were kind, and I'm not—in terms of the Deputy Prime Minister, that is; I'm generally a kind person, I hope. But if you were kind, in the context of the Deputy Prime Minister, you would say: 'Well, $80 million allocated to beef roads; that's terrific.' The reality is that $80 million of money allocated to the beef roads might get you an upgrade of around 160 kilometres of road. That's it. It may be slightly more. Let's be generous and say 200 kilometres. Well, 200 kilometres is a long way short of 9,000 kilometres. So there's a major issue around the failure of government to invest in these roads. The previous member also talked about a strategic roads program. I recall, prior to the 1999 election—historical as that is—there was a strategic roads program for the Northern Territory. The member referred to one. Almost the first decision taken by the then incoming Howard government was to scrap that strategic roads program. We've been waiting for 19 months now for the Deputy Prime Minister to give us an update on what's happening with that road funding. The other day I asked, for the benefit of Territorians who travel on those roads, a question about the government's previous commitments to upgrade the Barkly Stock Route and the Tablelands Highway and how many kilometres have been upgraded and sealed. It had no answer. Sadly, that's what we've come to expect from this government. In that context, I also want to comment on the previous members' exhortation about driver safety and driving safely and stopping the carnage on our roads. I want to thank the current Labor government in the Northern Territory and the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, for abandoning the stupidity of no speed limits on open roads for sections of the Northern Territory on the Stuart Highway. What an invitation to stupidity by the then Giles government. I think—and I know that the people of the Northern Territory think—that the Turnbull government is not thinking of them when it makes decisions about funding allocations across the board, whether it's in education, housing or GST funding. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Hastie, in your case, the Western Australians seem to have pilfered a heap of money out of the pockets of the Commonwealth based on GST revenue. By the way, I should say this, the member opposite, the Attorney-General—thank you for being in the House—might want to explain how Western Australia squandered all the money they earned from the mining boom while he was in the important position, I think, of Treasurer of the Western Australian government. Explain to us why we now have to go back and remediate the stupidity of decisions that were made by him and his government. The point is I don't want to be too critical of Western Australians—they're wonderful people—but I do want to be critical of the government because amending the GST formula in the way in which it's been proposed will come at a dramatic cost for the people of the Northern Territory. It ought to be clear that giving $3.6 billion of additional GST revenue to the Western Australian government has a direct impact on allocations to others and will cut millions out of the GST revenue into the Northern Territory, which we cannot afford. We have a small tax base and a disproportionate responsibility for closing the gap for Aboriginal people. Almost a third of the Northern Territory's population are Aboriginal people and they have greater needs than almost any other group in the population nationwide. I know that there are Aboriginal populations in Western Australia who also have needs that are similar, in many cases, to those in the Northern Territory. But the point that needs to be made here is that, if you don't understand and appreciate the importance of that principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation and the need to make sure that investments are made to raise the standards for people who live in very remote communities—their education, health and other things—then you're not taking the job seriously and I think you're doing the nation a grave disservice. We know that that's what the people of the Northern Territory currently believe, and I think they're right. It's not only in the field of GST administration that there is a problem; it's also in education. In 2018, when the school year began, approximately 45,000 Northern Territory students returned to schools across the territory. Despite its protestations, the Turnbull government is cutting $17 billion from Australian schools over the next 10 years. In the Northern Territory, we will lose $71 million of federal government funding over the next two years. In Lingiari, my electorate, which of course covers most of the Northern Territory—I'm not sure what the percentage is, but my electorate is 1.34 million square kilometres and the electorate of Solomon is less than 300 square miles, so work it out—the bottom line is that the cost to Lingiari schools is $37.3 million. That's just not fair. That means cutting teachers from every school, and the most disadvantaged schools in Australia are in these remote parts of the Territory which are part of my electorate. In any allocation on needs based funding you would say the neediest schools in Australia, not just in the Northern Territory, are these remote community schools. So it is really sad that this government hasn't taken this job seriously. Of course, in higher education we get the same story. The Turnbull government proposal to cap the amount it will contribute to universities for students' enrolments at 2017 levels for the next two years means an effective cut from the Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory of $5.5 million. This is a small regional university, important in providing opportunities, important in educating the next group of leaders to our country and important in educating those people who will be manipulating the levers of the economy. We know that this will have a grave impact upon our community, yet for some reason, the Prime Minister and the government haven't twigged to the impact of these proposed cuts on regional Australia and, in my case in particular, the Northern Territory. Then, of course, there's housing. This week, we saw the sorry tale of the federal government saying to the Northern Territory government that despite an agreement by the minister responsible for Indigenous affairs in this country, Senator Scullion, of accepting a proposition that they would co-fund housing in the Northern Territory of $1.1 billion over the next decade—because that's what the Northern Territory government would contribute, so it would be an equivalent contribution from the Commonwealth—we now learn that despite that agreement by the senator, he's been overturned because of a cabinet decision, apparently, which has decided the Commonwealth will actually move out of funding these remote area housing schemes, and that in the transition process they've offered the Northern Territory government two years' funding, a proportion of the $1.1 billion. That will have a dramatically negative impact upon the community I live in and upon the most needy of Australians. We talk in this place about the importance of health care, and we've had glorious speeches given this week about closing the gap. If you want to close the gap in this country, and you understand the needs of remote Australia, as I do—but apparently the Prime Minister and his cabinet don't—then the first thing you would understand is the need to invest in housing. Overcrowded and poor housing means we're going to get a continuation of the chronic diseases which impact on these communities and shorten the lives of Aboriginal people. We have the highest incidence of rheumatic heart disease in the world in my communities, and the highest incidence of diabetes and renal failure, which are mostly preventable diseases and largely attributable to lifestyle. Some are directly attributable to the conditions in which people live, and housing is crucial as a prevention strategy in making sure those diseases are removed. You cannot accept the proposition that somehow or other the decisions now taken by this government are for the good of the nation, let alone for the good of the Northern Territory or the people who live in it. This is having and will have a dramatic impact, and I say to the Commonwealth government that they ought to be actually thinking, themselves, about what's in the long-term best interests of the nation and understand where the priorities for expenditure should be. I know my good friend sitting on my left understands these priorities because we talk about it all the time. It is important that we do the right thing, and the Commonwealth needs to live up to the expectations that are now upon it as a result of the verbal agreement reached between Minister Scullion and the Northern Territory government—but apparently not. Apparently now, we have the Prime Minister walking away from that agreement just as he walked away from the breakfast the other morning here. His intemperate behaviour this week is mind-boggling. To stand in this chamber, as he has done twice now this week, and try and suggest that a proposal emanating out of the Uluru Statement of the Heartaround the question of a voicemeans there would be a third chamber of the parliament is asinine, ridiculous and deliberately misleading. He is clearly trying to suggest that somehow or other Aboriginal people are wanting to do something which they do not want to do. They have made it very clear that they are after an advisory body. We have plenty of examples, by the way—and the Prime Minister might want to be alive to this—of organisations in this country, Commonwealth institutions, that only have Aboriginal people voting in them. Just look at the statutory land councils in the Northern Territory; they are bound to have elections, and the only people who can vote in those elections are Aboriginal people within the areas in which they live, as traditional owners. So let's not have this garbage coming from the government that somehow or other it's perverse or stupid to have an Aboriginal-only elected body. We've had one previously which worked quite well, and that was ATSIC. There were difficulties in the end. It never should have been scrapped. But there we had an example of a Commonwealth constructed body that only Aboriginal people could vote for and participate in. Let's not have any more of this damned nonsense coming from the government, particularly this Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues, about what the intention has been around a voice and a statement from the heart. This country deserves better than we're currently getting from this Prime Minister, and the Northern Territory most particularly does. (Time expired) 12:20 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about the good story this government is delivering for the Australian people, and it's a pleasure to speak on this appropriation bill. And I thank the member for Lingiari for his contribution. I know he's a passionate advocate for Indigenous people in his home state of the Northern Territory, and we've had many a discussion about those matters. But this coalition government does have a good story to tell. And whilst we know that there are going to be distractions on a daily basis, at the end of the day this government has succeeded in ensuring that there is the confidence in our economy and in the future of our economy, to the extent that we saw 400,000 jobs created in our economy over calendar year 2017—jobs growth at a rate of some 2.8 per cent. For the last few years that has been the focus of this government. It is about building that economic confidence to ensure that the business community and those who employ people in this economy have the confidence to do so. Under the coalition government some 950,000 jobs have been created in the economy overall, and the participation rate is at its highest in almost seven years. This is thanks to the investment this government makes in the economy. But, importantly, it is also thanks to the investment our business people make every single day, for that investment comes off the back of a confidence that is generated by having a government that is looking to do the right thing and create the right conditions for business to flourish and prosper. That is what this government has been doing over the past few years. It has been aimed at driving investment by business into the economy. It appears that those on the other side don't understand that very well. They don't understand that, by business investing in growing and by us as a government giving them the confidence to do so, that creates jobs and creates opportunity for Australian people. Jobs create confidence for individuals personally and help improve their family life. Jobs allow them to begin to accumulate wealth, pay off their mortgage—a whole range of things. That is what flows through the economy, by ensuring that people have jobs and opportunity. In my electorate of Forde I have more than 15,000 small to medium businesses that employ thousands of people. These businesses have benefited directly from decisions made by this government in terms of cutting taxes for small to medium business—the instant asset write-off provisions. These things have given these businesses the confidence to grow and employ people. If they didn't have confidence in the economy in the future, they wouldn't make those necessary investments. But, through the confidence generated, we have seen over 1,000 jobs created a day—and many of those, pleasingly, are in my electorate of Forde. We see that business confidence is now at one of the highest levels seen under this government and almost double the long-run average. It's only with a strong economy that we can provide the vital government services and the infrastructure investment that Australia needs. The member opposite, in his contribution, talked about the need for investment in housing, roads and infrastructure in his home state of the Northern Territory. He would appreciate the steps that this government has taken to ensure there is confidence in the economy and economic growth, because that actually provides the revenue for government to provide those services—not only revenue for the Commonwealth government but also revenue for the state governments. It seems that those opposite lack the capacity to put those two things together. I'm proud to say that the government is delivering some $75 billion in infrastructure funding, which again would not be possible without strong economic growth and the improving budget position we are developing. Many of these projects fall in and around my electorate of Forde. Improving important infrastructure is extremely important to the constituents of my electorate. This includes the Brisbane-to-Melbourne inland rail, stage 1 of the M1 upgrade and many other safety improvements to M1 exits and also the Mount Lindesay Highway. We see with infrastructure upgrades—particularly the M1, which is the main highway between Brisbane and the Gold Coast—the importance for commuters, transport businesses and self-employed tradespeople who travel the road every day. There is nothing worse for them than being stuck in traffic jams. It impacts on their productivity and the capacity for them to get work done in a timely manner. They would be able to get more work if they were able to move around. Also, the government is improving the support for government services that Australians rely on every day. These include services like Medicare, schools and hospitals. Promises don't pay for service funding. Those opposite don't actually have the money for the stuff they're promising. It's all in the never-never. The member for Lingiari, in his contribution, talked about school funding. I'd like to remind the member, even though he's left the chamber, that the money doesn't actually exist. They've never said where they're going to get it from; likewise with their hospital funding promises. But this government has funded what it said it was going to fund. We're delivering record funding for Australian schools over the next 10 years—nearly $250 billion worth. The government has nearly doubled the Commonwealth's investment in schools as a result. Our needs based funding helps schools and teachers to assist every student to achieve their individual potential, including through one-on-one student support, specialist teachers or targeted intervention programs. The government has guaranteed Medicare, thereby ensuring that our health system continues to be one of the best in the world, where every Australian has access to the best doctors, nurses, hospitals and medicines. In the budget, we committed an additional $145.5 million to our primary healthcare networks, which continue great work with our local communities in helping them to access vital services. This is on top of our nearly $24 billion investment in Medicare. So, while we've seen those opposite cry crocodile tears and cry wolf with false campaigns over Medicare cuts, the important thing for everyday Australian people is that this government is actually getting on with the job of protecting Medicare, guaranteeing it and making sure it remains available to all Australians. It is where the rubber hits the road—actually doing what you say you're going to do. We know we have one of the best health systems in the country, as I said earlier. We are seeking—and we've put the money on the table—to ensure it continues to be so. One of the issues that's been raised in Queensland of late is hospital funding. Last week's COAG meeting brought together the nation's leaders to focus on delivering these vital services. The government is working with the states to deliver a substantial and generous offer for hospital funding. It will add some $31 billion of Commonwealth support to public hospitals. Once again we see those opposite have nothing to offer. They just whinge, complain, carp and carry on. But it is this government that is actually getting on with the job. We are not only promising to do stuff but actually funding it and delivering it. This guaranteed record funding will support vital services that we need. The best part is that all our funding offers are costed and accounted for. They're not funding figures that have been plucked out of thin air, as those opposite are wont to do, with no way to pay for it. As I've touched on, we've seen the enterprise tax plan that is delivering the confidence for businesses to grow, develop and invest. Their tax rates have come down, so there is an incentive for them to invest and grow because they're paying less tax at a headline figure. But, in reality, if the businesses grow and develop, even though the tax rate has fallen there is the benefit that, through that growth and development, they will actually pay more tax in total. That's what we want to see, because that will allow us to continue to provide the services that I touched on just previously. We've also seen the terrific work that the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment has done with our various trade agreements. I see the former Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment is here, the member for Hinkler, who was also involved in these trade agreements. We know—and the member for Hinkler with the agricultural sector that he has in his electorate knows—how important these trade agreements are to Australian businesses and Australian farmers. Last week I had the pleasure of moving a motion in the House about the positive impact of our economic agreement with Japan, which has been in place for 60 years. I also spoke about the TPP 11 agreement. These agreements have created significant business opportunities for Australian businesses, particularly businesses in my electorate, as I've touched on previously. The existing free trade agreements have already created new jobs and new opportunities in my electorate of Forde, particularly in areas of manufacturing, exports and services. We see businesses like Oji Paper, Frosty Boy and many others taking advantage of these economic opportunities that have been created by these agreements. The Trans-Pacific Partnership will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in the trade zone. For Australia, that means, with these new trade agreements, we will have access to countries such as Canada and Mexico and greater access to countries such as Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. More recently, we saw earlier this week an agreement signed with Peru, which gives us another new market to access. It is through this government actually taking the time to work out a proper economic plan for the country that we are seeing these terrific results. They are reflected in an improved budget position. They are reflected in improved job outcomes for Australian people. At the end of the day, the best way for people to maintain and build their self-worth and to build their personal family wealth is for them to be gainfully employed. It is through that gainful employment that they build relationships and friendships, with people in the workplace and in the broader community. It provides them with the opportunity for their kids to play in the local sporting club. It provides the opportunity for them to get involved in community organisations. But, importantly, it creates long-term financial stability for their families and allows them to afford to buy a house, to afford to buy a car. All those things allow them to improve the quality and standard of their lifestyle, and that's something we all aspire to: to leave a better future for our kids than we had. That is what this government is doing every single day: working to build that confidence and hope for the future that is allowing that to occur. I commend these appropriation bills to the House. 12:35 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon It's a pleasure for me to stand here today to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-18, because it really is about priorities and choices. The government has made their choices—the things they think Australians want. And they've set forward in the appropriations and in their budget their priorities—the things they think Australians need. When I look at what these choices and priorities are, I know that Australians do not share those choices and priorities. A $65 billion tax cut for big business is not something people in my electorate of Braddon in north-west and west-coast Tasmania see as a priority. They don't see that the big banks getting a tax cut is something they would be champing for, because it's not going to have any impact on them at all. The things that are going to have an impact on the people in my electorate are things like health. The member for Forde said earlier that we on this side of the House have been whingeing about all these things—about health and education spending. Well, we're not whinging at all, when we're actually talking about the stories of people who are suffering under these cuts to the budget in areas like health and education. Yesterday in the Federation Chamber I took the opportunity to speak about a lady in my electorate, in my home town of Devonport—Karen. Karen is like many people in my electorate. They're on fixed incomes, they have health issues and they have to travel long distances—hundreds and hundreds of kilometres—to access specialists. Because of this government's Medicare freeze, Karen is now paying more and more out-of-pocket expenses when she goes to see her doctor. I know that the Prime Minister has a lot of loose change. To him, $36 is nothing. But when you're on a fixed income, it's a lot of money. When you have to travel from Devonport to Hobart to see a specialist and you're on a fixed income and you're $100 out of pocket, that is a lot of money. Karen is thankful that she's living in the country that we have, but she is struggling. She's struggling to pay for electricity. She's struggling to put petrol in the car. The Prime Minister had an opportunity to drop his Medicare freeze at the start of this year but chose not to do so. I think it's about time that we, as Australians, use a very strong voice to tell the Prime Minister about exactly how the Medicare freeze is impacting on us as individuals. It means Karen has to pay more to see her specialists. And from the relatively short period of time that I've been here, I think that this government—day in, day out—is completely out of touch with Australians, because the freeze won't be lifted until 2020. The Prime Minister has been promising—even before the election—that not one Australian would pay more to see their GP, and that is completely untrue, because we know from statistics, even in my electorate, that the cost to see your GP is increasing and increasing. Nationally, the Prime Minister is cutting $2.2 billion out of Medicare over the next four years, on top of the savings that have already been banked up from the time of that horror budget of 2014. This is not 'Mediscare', as those opposite would like to claim. This is the real impact that is hurting people all over regional Australia in particular, and people in my electorate. But it's not just the cost of going to see a GP; it's the attitude that the Prime Minister has to the general health care of Australians, and the impact that has had on our hospitals. Already this government has cut more than $1 billion from Tasmanian hospitals. That's in addition to the $210 million cut to Tasmanian hospitals by the Liberal Premier of Tasmania. We are paying an appalling price for these cuts. At the coalface, the effects are enormous. We're seeing ambulance ramping like never before at our major hospitals. Emergency departments are overcrowded, with waiting times way beyond the acceptable time of 30 minutes. We're seeing that beds are not funded. If the beds are not funded, you can't get in there and get the treatment that you need. We're seeing patients getting shipped from hospital to hospital because of a shortage of beds. There's a story of a man in my electorate who almost lost his foot because the hardworking staff at these local hospitals were under extreme pressure and lacked resources. That's a huge cost to an individual—to nearly lose your foot because you could not get adequate treatment, because there just aren't the resources in that hospital to take care of you. And there's the story of a young woman from my electorate who had to travel interstate, at her family's own cost, for critical surgery to save her sight because she could not get the care she needed in Tasmania. That's not because the care's not there; it's because she couldn't get in, because there weren't the resources for her to see the specialist in time. She nearly lost her sight. If this weren't enough, the Prime Minister now wants to lock in further cuts to our hospitals for the next seven years. It was pleasing, despite Tasmania being in caretaker mode, that the Tasmanian representative, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, did not take up this offer for our state. This government's total health expenditure continues to reduce as a percentage of the total Commonwealth budget, and it's decreasing even further than when the leadership was under the member for Warringah. The fact is that this Prime Minister doesn't think our public hospitals deserve to be properly funded. This is not us whingeing; this is the true picture of what these cuts do to the people in our communities, and it's about time we talked about it more. Yet it is the priority of this government to underfund our health system. In Tasmania we've seen considerable underfunding of infrastructure. Over the next four years, there's going to be a 65 per cent reduction in infrastructure funding for Tasmania. There has not been one new project commenced in Tasmania by this coalition government—over nearly five years, not one project. There was $100 million cut from the Midland Highway. There's been no investment in major regional roads, which are carrying increased freight and tourist numbers. We're seeing this tourism boom, but there's no infrastructure spending to assist with it. Despite repeated calls from the community in my electorate for the Bass Highway to be repaired, it's nothing but deaf ears from Canberra. I have tried to work, in a very bipartisan way, with the Tasmanian Liberal senators to try to get some funding for this critical piece of infrastructure, but there is nothing to be heard. I have to note the response of the new minister for infrastructure, the Deputy Prime Minister, to a question—I think it was on Tuesday—from our shadow minister for infrastructure, the member for Grayndler, who asked him about the decrease in infrastructure spending for Tasmania. The only thing the Deputy Prime Minister could talk about was that he visited a piece of irrigation infrastructure in Tasmania—I think it was in the Southern Midlands—last year as agriculture minister. Every piece of water and irrigation infrastructure in Tasmania was a Labor project, at state level and federally! But then the minister went on to talk about the Inland Rail. I've actually thought, particularly in the last week and a half, that the only project the Deputy Prime Minister, as the new infrastructure minister, seems to know in his portfolio is the Inland Rail, because that's all he could talk about. He actually said it would benefit Tasmania. Now, he would get some credibility from me if he then said, 'We'll build a rail bridge over Bass Strait.' But that's not going to happen, is it? He could not talk about one infrastructure project that he or this government has put in place to benefit Tasmania. I could go on about the NBN. There will probably be many on this side talking about the NBN. My electorate is predominantly fibre to the node. It hardly works at my house, let alone support the businesses in the central towns of Devonport and Burnie, which are really struggling with an inferior piece of critical infrastructure. Then we can go to the priorities of the government and its corporate tax cuts. The member for Forde before said, 'We hear the Labor Party whingeing about health and education, but they don't know how they're going to pay for it.' Well, I can tell you how we're going to pay for it, and that is to not give big business a massive tax cut. But this tax cut is not just for the corporate end of town; it is for the banks. I want to run through something that I found quite astounding. It happened in November last year. The National Australia Bank pays tax. It pays about $2½ billion of tax. I think in 2016 it had a net profit of $5.3 billion. It announced in November that it would cut 6,000 jobs. Can those opposite honestly tell me that if you give the NAB or any other bank a tax cut that they're going to employ more people? I mean, how ridiculous is this! This is why the Australian public do not believe that this government's tax cut to big business is going to trickle down and, all of a sudden, create all these jobs. It's just going to benefit shareholders and the back pockets of those CEOs. Let's go to some of these CEOs. We had a report the other day that the Prime Minister was derided on the ABC about big companies in Australia not paying any tax. One in five companies are not paying tax, and one of those is Qantas. We all enjoy Qantas. I have to fly Qantas a lot to get here. But Qantas has been tax free for 10 years. It hasn't had to pay any tax. It is planning a $3 billion investment for 2018-19. Great! Excellent! But you look at what's happening at the top of that company: the CEO's salary in 2016 was $12.9 million. Now it is $24.6 million. Now let's look at the workers. We've got a company not paying any tax, ready to invest lots of money, paying its CEO millions and millions and millions of dollars, but the workers at Qantas have not had an average pay rise that has exceeded inflation. Can those opposite honestly tell me that Qantas, if we give it a tax cut—if it does start paying tax, which, even though it's profitable, will be, I think, in about two years time or whenever it decides to do that—is going to pass that tax cut onto its workers? I don't think so. The banks won't do it, and the big companies will not do it. So what do we do here? What are the priorities? Certainly for me they are health and education. I think most people on this side have been talking about that. But one very topical issue that has not got any attention in budgets, from this government or at a state level, is biosecurity. Unfortunately, and sadly, the farmers in my electorate have been hit by fruit fly. We've had a million-dollar cut to Biosecurity Tasmania by the Tasmanian Liberals; we've got no checks on things coming through our ports. This is how these things happen. It happens because the resources are not there to prepare Tasmania for an incursion. What's even more interesting is that the state minister for agriculture and the Deputy Premier of the state, in his own question time brief of May 2015, confirmed that the federal government cut biosecurity funding to Tasmania. This government has put Tasmania at risk of getting incursions of fruit fly. It will devastate our economy. This exposes the failure of this government to protect Tasmanian farmers and our primary industries. This is a state Liberal minister's question time brief. He and his own bureaucracy are blaming the federal government for underfunding biosecurity in Tasmania. Now we have fruit fly. This will just completely destroy our local economy and our farms. This QTB really hangs the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who would have been agriculture minister at the time, out to dry. It's an absolute failing of this government. This QTB says that we are now in a fruit fly emergency. What is happening now? Fruit is being dumped. We are locked out of markets. Products need chemical fumigation. These are things we are now experiencing at a huge cost to not only Tasmania's state budget but farmers as well. Not only that, we got another kick in the teeth from this government, with 1,900 apprenticeships having been lost in Tasmania since the Liberal Party was elected. In my electorate, we've suffered the loss of 704 apprentices, so we're not even trying to give a pathway to people in our communities before they leave school and unfortunately, sadly, find they're out of work. The Commonwealth government and the state Liberal government have had four years to tackle this—four years to fix TAFE; four years to invest in infrastructure and projects in Tasmania to build apprenticeships and give people training—and they have failed year on year. Why we would give them another chance is beyond me. These are the priorities of my electorate that have been kicked, hammered and thrown away by this government. They don't care about health, they don't care about education and they don't care about the agricultural sector in Tasmania. They certainly don't care about the priorities of the people of Tasmania and the people of my electorate. They would be very pleased to give corporate tax cuts to the big end of town, which will not have any impact on the people in my electorate at all. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 I thank the honourable member. The question is that these bills be now read a second time. I give the call to the honourable member for Hinkler. 12:51 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the unexpected opportunity. I'm sure there'll be more speakers in the House in the very near future. I rise to make some comments on Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018. This gives me the opportunity to discuss the implementation of the cashless debit card. We know that, in the Senate, an amended piece of legislation was passed this week which, in my view, has let down the people of my electorate. We have been in an absolute battle to get the cashless debit card into our electorate for some seven or eight months. Unfortunately, with the politics of the Senate, the reversal of the position of the Labor Party and the position of the crossbench, the extension will go into the Goldfields. I certainly think that is much needed, but the reality is that we need to trial the cashless debit card in other places, particularly in larger locations. In my view, the benefits are enormous. It's not just me; we've been talking to the community over the last seven or eight months and there have been dozens and dozens of meetings. Some of the criticism from those opposite has been around consultation. They claim that there hasn't been sufficient consultation, but I have yet to see anyone from that side stand up and say what it is they want that would meet their requirements. We sent out over 32,000 direct mail pieces and 5½ thousand emails. We made over 500 direct phone calls from my office to determine whether there was interest and support for the cashless debit card. Then the very professional people from the Public Service rolled out through the Department of Social Services to do their work on the ground, talking in particular to frontline service providers. What those frontline service providers said to them and to us is that it is supported. The reason is straightforward. I must admit, to me the position was a surprise, in terms of the cohort we were looking at. They were concerned about children in the electorate—in particular, that they were not being provided the basics of life. I think the cashless debit card can fill this very particular policy difficulty. I understand that there are those who are idealistically opposed, and I accept that, but the reality is: what is the alternative? The alternative is that we do nothing. If we do nothing, there will be no change—no change for the people I represent, no change for the kids who are going to school hungry and no change for the people who are finding it difficult in their current circumstances, whether it's with drugs or alcohol or gambling. The reality is that this works. What we see from those opposite is their position to do nothing. Their position is to stop what we're trying to do. I accept that there will be those who are idealistically opposed, but, if we do not make change and we do not make tough policy decisions, we are letting down a generation of kids in my electorate. It is for them that we are here. We must ensure that they have opportunities. This is not just a one-sided argument. We are looking at a change in policy which affects what people can purchase. Let's be very factual: it only limits the ability to buy drugs, gambling products and takeaway alcohol with cash. It is a visa debit card. It works at every EFTPOS machine, like any other card, unless of course we turn it off for a particular product. What difference does it make to someone who might be under the age of 30 who uses a card every day? I'm sure you've seen them, Deputy Speaker Hastie. They go out, they use a card and they very rarely use cash. I think it makes very little change to the way they live their lives and what it is they do. The reality is that it stops money being poured down the pokies, it stops the purchase of takeaway alcohol and without cash you cannot buy illicit substances. That is one side of the equation. In the middle, we have a requirement for more drug and alcohol support. There was a commitment, if the cashless debit was rolled out in my electorate, to provide another $1 million for that support into my electorate. That's on top of the services which we already have. That $1 million is absolutely critical when we look at policies like the cashless debit card. The next point is around jobs and the economy. If you do not have work, then clearly there is a claim that there is nowhere to go. We continue to build the economy and we continue to invest money into the electorate, but the reality is that we do need to do more. What are we doing right now? We have Regional Jobs and Investment Packages—some $20 million committed at the 2016 election, which is available for organisations to apply for, particularly for large infrastructure investments in private organisations. This is a different policy to our position on many, many other types of funds which we use in the electorates. I'm aware of a number of applications. They will add hundreds of jobs into our electorate—not five or 10 jobs, but hundreds of jobs. What I know as someone who comes from business—someone who has actually worked in the workforce for many, many years, has run their own business, has had farms, has had small businesses, has had consulting firms and has had registered training organisations—is that it's business that provides jobs. Government can set the structures to help make them successful, but it is business that provides jobs in our economy. And they are going pretty well at the moment, but it's rocks and diamonds. We have to make sure that we spread the love across the entire nation. Those opportunities are there right now. Let's look at some of the things which have happened with the Building Better Regions Fund, for example. We funded a project which will be run by an organisation called Pacific Tug at the Bundaberg port. This investment will allow the project to be brought forward. It will create over 100 positions. The proposal from Pacific Tug is that they will provide a maintenance base for that fleet, particularly for barges into the Pacific, and of course to all of those ships under a particular weight limit that run up and down the east coast. The expectation is that they will build a 1,200 tonne ship lift that will provide the capacity into their hardstand to do maintenance on ships up to that weight level. That includes some defence products—and I'm sure you're interested in defence, Mr Deputy Speaker Hastie. I believe you have a very strong background in and a very strong understanding of defence. I think the ability for those ships to stop in a small port in a regional centre like Bundaberg to be restocked and refitted and have their maintenance done and providing all of the things that you need to ensure that those defence assets continue to work for Australia and continue to be absolutely functional while also adding to our economy is in the best interests of all of us. Pacific Tug continues to move forward. I was down there last week. We're looking at other opportunities around the Bundaberg port. I will say something which I'm sure those opposite will be very surprised at: I congratulate the state Labor government on naming the Bundaberg port area as a state development area. An SDA provides opportunities for people looking to invest, and it is a real economic driver for our region right now. In my view, the potential is there for a container port in one of the last remaining positions on the east coast where we can invest in a large infrastructure facility, because that land is available. There is over 4,000 acres available around the Bundaberg port. We can build that container facility, we can build for something into the future, we can provide that infrastructure which is necessary to build our economy and, of course, we can provide jobs which are desperately needed in what is a pretty tough area for this nation. The Bundaberg port is just one location where we can actually build our economy locally. One of the others, of course, is around a proposal for a level 5 training hospital. It's something I've spoken about before. Just last week there was a memorandum of understanding signed between the Bundaberg Regional Council, one of the private health providers and the Central Queensland University for a medical precinct opposite the Bundaberg Airport. As we all know, and I'm sure everyone in this chamber has heard before, unfortunately there was a very terrible incident at the Bundaberg Base Hospital involving Dr Jayant Patel some 10 years ago. Now, that has clearly been a very difficult period of time for those people who worked there, but they've worked through it. One of the greatest things that we could provide into that region would be a level 5 training hospital—one with the capacity to attract specialists in many fields; one which will allow the service of a population of some 280,000 people from Rockhampton to Gympie. They could be serviced and get much better benefit for their health from a level 5 training hospital based in Bundaberg. In the southern end of the electorate, around Hervey Bay, there are tourism opportunities to burn—whether you want to see the whales, whether you want to travel to Fraser Island or whether you just want to come and relax in what is one of the safest locations in Australia on the east coast, because it's protected by the Fraser Coast. One of the things the local council is working on right now is a fishing hall of fame and a museum for HMAS Tobruk. For those who might not know, HMAS Tobruk is being sunk. It'll be scuttled in late June this year around 15 nautical miles off the coast at Woodgate Beach. That will add to our tourism infrastructure. That will provide more opportunities for people to come to our electorate to see this fabulous piece of diving infrastructure. But we need something for the land based tourists as well—for those who might not dive, for family members—and I think that museum will be a unique opportunity for the Fraser Coast Regional Council and of course all the tourism operators on the Fraser Coast. Given that we have more people lined up to talk on the appropriation bill, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak and commend the bill to the House. 13:01 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Almost two years ago the Australian electorate voted for a Turnbull government, and what have we ever got in return? Nothing. Well, actually, no; I'll rethink this—it may even remind some of a movie—because it's not entirely true. What has the Turnbull government ever done for us? Longer Centrelink wait times. Following massive cuts to frontline Centrelink staff by this government, I have received calls from my constituents on nearly a daily basis, often multiple times, complaining that they have spent upwards of 20 minutes, sometimes closer to an hour, waiting to speak to a DHS member on staff. And the experience in-centre is not much different. Last year senior staff from the Department of Human Services told a Senate estimates hearing that an average time to speak to an operator is 14 minutes and 10 seconds, firmly within their target of 16 minutes. But why is this so different from the experience of so many of my constituents? Well, that's because in the 2015-16 financial year over 42 per cent of calls were blocked. This means that the lines were engaged, so the calls never made it through in the first place. Of those who were lucky enough to make it onto the 'hold' queue, 18 per cent were abandoned, and the caller hung up before the issue was fixed. The crazy thing about all of this is that if you did hang up then of course the department would count the call as—wait for it!—'resolved', regardless of whether it really was or not. And if your call was transferred to another line, the clock would start again, because Centrelink considered the initial inquiry to be, again, 'resolved'. So, it's entirely possible that with a few line transfers you could be on the phone for up to an hour and the phone call would still apparently be well within the department's target. It's also important to remember that the 14-minute figure I mentioned earlier is just an average. There are plenty of people spending much longer than that stuck on hold, In fact, the average speed to answer youth and employment lines were both over 25 minutes, and for disability phone lines it was close to a 24-minute wait time. So, yes, the Turnbull government gave us that. Come to think of it, they also gave us the robo-debt disaster. All right, I'll grant you that Centrelink queues and robo-debt are two things that the government has done. But how could I forget the national 'fraudband' network disaster? The NBN is slow. It is unreliable and in some cases life-threatening. Just this week I received an email from John, who lives in the suburb of Mount Nasura in the electorate of Burt—a giant mobile blackspot, another one of the things this government has done for us. He has recently been connected to the NBN, so when there was a power outage on his street he had no way to contact anyone. If his entire street connects to the NBN and his entire street live in a mobile blackspot, then it becomes a very dangerous situation should there be another power outage. I should also point out that this is a highly bushfire-prone area. In his email John says, 'My wife is a type 1 diabetic, and it raised the question: if I am out and we have another power failure, will she be left vulnerable? What is going on with this NBN?' We also get plenty of constituents who contact us to voice their concerns about the inequality of the government's NBN rollout. Labor had a plan to give all premises, all residents, fibre to the premises, putting everyone on an even playing field. Now Australians are subject to the game of NBN roulette. They might be lucky and have fibre to the premises or maybe even fibre to the kerb. But, in a significant number of cases, they have fibre to the node. This can be slow and unreliable, particularly in older areas, like mine, where the copper wires have not been replaced for some time—and I am talking decades. We are talking close to centuries. Even worse, you might find yourself in a service class zero home with no internet access, no phone access and no end in sight. For a lot of my constituents, the NBN is so far off that they haven't even had to think about these issues yet. In doing this, the government has created a digital divide. They don't care if you are trying to run a business from home—for all of their talk of small business—or if you telework or if your kids are at school and need access to a stable internet connection, and they really don't seem to care that there are a huge number of people with medical issues who need access to a working phone line in order to feel safe or indeed to be safe. So, yes, obviously the government has given us the NBN. The NBN goes without saying. But, apart from the long Centrelink wait times, robo-debt, mobile blackspots and the NBN, what has the Turnbull government done for us? Oh, it's given big businesses a tax cut, it's made cuts to Medicare and it's failed to provide a solution to WA's unfair GST distribution. Yes, the government has done all of that. So I guess the government has actually done quite a bit since its election. But what has the Labor Party ever done for us? Well, we blocked the government's citizenship changes. Before this legislation was even close to being law, the Department of Immigration website was advising citizenship applicants that they would have to comply with a whole new set of criteria, including an additional four-year wait and a university-level English test. When Sandra and her kids moved from the UK to the suburb of Gosnells in 2009, they, of course—expectedly almost—fell in love with the Perth hills, the local bushlands, the friendly people and the not-too-far-away gorgeous beaches. They knew they wanted to become citizens and they knew they'd have a lengthy wait ahead of them. After three years of falling in love with Australia and complying with the strict travel requirements imposed on citizenship applicants, they were disappointed and angered to hear that the government wanted to add another four years to their wait. This meant an eight-year wait all up. Sandra was also incredibly nervous about sitting an English test with the bar set at university level. Sandra worked in aged care and was good at her job, but she never went to uni and the idea of having to sit an exam absolutely terrified her. If someone from England is nervous about sitting an English test then imagine the impact on those who have come from a non-English speaking background. As anyone who was forced to learn a second language at school will know, it is hard work, it is difficult and it requires a high level of intelligence to become bilingual. Of course we should be encouraging new migrants to learn conversational English, but setting the bar at university level is, quite frankly, elitist and it's out of touch. It sets a double standard. So I was so proud to be able to tell people like Sandra in my electorate, who love Australia and are committed to becoming citizens, that, despite what had been advertised on the department's website, they would no longer have to worry about such a ridiculous requirement that had not actually ever—thanks to the work of Labor—become law. So the Labor Party blocked the government's proposed citizenship changes. But what else have we done? Well, we've put forward a plan for Western Australia to help it with the problems that it is suffering because of its inadequate distribution of GST, by committing to a $1.6 billion fair go fund for Western Australia. But when we sit down and think, 'What has Labor done for us?' it is much like Monty Python famously set out. I know those on the other side often scratch their head and think, 'What has Labor done for us?' I am sure there might be one person opposite who will think, not only about the sewerage system that Labor governments ensured was delivered into the suburbs of Western Sydney way back in the days of Whitlam, and say: 'Hang on; what else has Labor done?' Ms Ryan 249224 Education. Mr KEOGH 249147 Yes, education. Thank you, Member for Lalor. Imagine that—Labor has properly funded, and has plans to again properly fund, education. What else has Labor done? What has Labor ever done for us? Now that I think about, in addition to sewerage and education, Labor has properly delivered roads. The government often talks NorthLink in Western Australia. Well, guess what? It's a Labor project. What else has Labor ever done for us? Health. Ms Templeman 181810 Medicare. Mr KEOGH 249147 Medicare! Labor delivered Medicare—under constant threat by the Liberal Party, but Labor delivered Medicare. What else has Labor done for us? Well, Labor has done many things. Labor put forward an actual plan for NBN. Labor has put forward actual plans to try and help with housing affordability. Labor has put forward all of these plans even while we're in opposition. Meanwhile, all this government has delivered while it has been in power is a litany of failure. People come into my electorate office or they phone—when their phones are working—to complain about the things that this government is doing. But Labor has a true track record of delivery. Those on the other side may scratch their heads and think, 'What has Labor ever done for us?' But it is surprising the things that do not occur to them—things like standing up for people's working conditions in their workplaces, making sure that they have safe workplaces, making sure they have things like penalty rates and are able to look after their families, ensuring their kids can get a good public education and that their schools are properly funded, and ensuring that is there is a properly functioning health system in this country that is accessible to all people and is not being consistently undermined by those opposite. Many times we hear—sometimes in the media and sometimes from people in our communities who may accost us in the streets—people say, 'I don't know what the difference is between the major parties.' If there is anything that is truer and clearer, it is that there are fundamental differences between our parties. The people opposite like to talk about being there, for instance, for small business, as I mentioned before. If there is one way—this is so crystal clear—in which this government is failing small business it is in its failure to deliver a properly-functioning, 21st-century broadband network for this country. But, at the same time, it is also failing small business because, instead of helping small business grow by making sure that Australians are in a position to buy the goods and services that those small businesses sell, this government is taking the money out of the hip pockets of ordinary working Australians on a regular basis, whether through not protecting their penalty rates or through increasing the Medicare levy that will be paid by ordinary Australians. At a time when there is economic fragility around the world, what does this government do? It takes money out of their pockets. And—wait for it—what has this government done for us? Big corporate tax cuts are what it proposes. Their priorities are writ clear every time they open their mouths or introduce legislation into this House. Their priorities are not about ordinary working Australians. The thing that this government has done for us is zilch. The thing that this government has done for ordinary working Australians is nada. It is and always will be only Labor that delivers for ordinary Australians to make sure that ordinary Australians have what they need in their hip pocket to provide for their families, that they get a good education, that they have a health system that will look after them and that there is a properly functioning welfare system to pick them up when they fall down. That is the fundamental difference between the two major parties and the two major groups in Australian politics today, and it is a record of which I am proud, it is a record of which everyone on this side of the chamber is proud and, quite frankly, it's a record that those on the other side should be ashamed of. 13:13 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I would like to follow on from the last contribution with just a quick note to say: it is the Labor Party that gives us all these amazing things for our community; it's just that they don't pay for any of them! I would like to use this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018 to firstly congratulate our Treasurer and the key financial ministers on their commitment to getting the Australian books back under control. For six years, under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, we saw revenue dry up and spending blow out. As a business, the Australian government—the Australian nation—had been losing $100 million each and every day. So, right through the Gillard-Rudd time, from the time we had to save the nation by spending all the money in the bank, we started losing $100 million a day—$100 million yesterday; $100 million today; $100 million tomorrow—and we kept that mentality up for the six years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Say we had transferred that philosophy over to any business; there would be members of parliament on both sides of this chamber who would acknowledge that you simply cannot run a business by spending $100 million a day more than you are making without very quickly running that business into a state where you're going to threaten the very viability of that business. In the same way, if we had kept losing $100 million a day as a nation, we would have put the financial viability and the future of our nation at risk. The ability for us as Australians to pay for an amazing health system, to pay for an amazing education system—an education system that for the first time is going to be truly needs based, is going to be truly equitable across the states, across the sectors, and where the federal government and the state government are finally going to work out who's responsible for what and to what extent—can happen only if we get our books in order. We can pay for these record levels of hospital funding, these record levels of education funding and these record levels of investment in infrastructure projects, and have the most generous welfare and pension system in the world, only if we get our books in order. We just cannot keep losing $100 million a day, which is the Labor way. The Labor way of running the government is to simply put it on the credit card and let somebody else down the track pay for it. We can't do that. Under Scott Morrison and his team, we have been able to arrest this slide into oblivion, from $100 million a day in 2016-17. That $34 billion lost at the end of the year has been reduced back to $23 billion this financial year, and it will be reduced further next year, getting to the stage where the projected surplus for this nation in 2021 is going to be in the vicinity of $10 billion. We're finally going to have an economic management team that's going to bring this country back to being able to live within its means while maintaining the most generous welfare system in the world, the most generous and most advanced infrastructure spend. We're going to have a world-class health system, a world-class education system—record funding in both of those major portfolios of health and education. But at least we are now going to be able to pay for it, and this is something that is incredibly important for our nation. Whilst economic management is critical to being able to deliver to the Australian people, one area that is critical to the people of Murray is that of water policy. Last night in the Senate we saw the most horrible betrayal of irrigation and farming communities ever witnessed. The Labor Party decided to abandon irrigation districts and communities by siding with the Greens to vote down the recommendations within the Northern Basin Review. Now, this review was handed down more than 12 months ago, in November 2016. Over that period of 13, 14, or 15 months there have been no negative comments from the Labor Party. This was an independent review conducted by the authority itself. The extent of the review was to look at how the community is handling the fact that they have given up so much prime agricultural water to be delivered for environmental flows. What has happened to those communities in the time since that water has left the district? The review said that the pain, the hurt and the detriment enforced upon these communities—Dirranbandi, St George, Goondiwindi—had been extreme and had gone too far and that a correction was necessary. The correction was about taking the 390 gigalitres that had been identified, which was going to be taken out of active agricultural production and was going to be put into environmental flows. The independent review recommended that the 390 gigalitres be changed to 320—a correction of 70 gigalitres, to be actually put back into productive agriculture for those communities, which was said to be worth about another 200 jobs for those communities. There are some 700,000 people who live in the region that we call the Northern Basin region. This review was about a correction that was going to see 70 gigalitres returned back to productive agriculture. So, whilst nothing had been said by the Labor Party for 12 months—nothing untoward, no negative comments about this at all—on the eve of the South Australian election it seems that Penny Wong and her fellow South Australian senators have been able to take Tony Burke and belt him over the ears and into submission, where he is now going to go along with this betrayal of irrigation communities. This is not just going to be pain inflicted on the northern areas of the Murray-Darling Basin. This will now actually impact all of South Australia, all of Victoria and all of New South Wales because we have the key states looking at this betrayal from the federal Labor Party, and the fact that they have now sided with the Greens, to take this water out of active agricultural production. They're taking this water away and they're putting it back down as environmental flows. The people of the Goulburn-Murray region are looking at these actions from the Labor Party and saying that we cannot even trust them to abide by an independent review of the basin so far. This is an incredible injustice—and, while I'm talking about justice, I cannot let Senator Derryn Hinch from Victoria go unchallenged with his unwitting acceptance of this disallowance. I was in the Senate last night watching Senator Hinch not realising at the time that his vote was going to be crucial but, as it turned out, his vote was crucial. Firstly, he sat against the Labor Party and the Greens, then he moved over to support the Labor and the Greens, and looking at him, he had no idea what he was voting on. My understanding is that people from the Goulburn Valley have actually sat Senator Hinch down and told him about the importance of trying to support the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in its entirety. However, his vote was crucial. The disallowance motion was supported 32-30. Senator Hinch's vote was critical in allowing the Labor Party and the Greens to scuttle the independent review. What does this mean for the future of the Murray-Darling Basin? This is the plan that the member for Watson, Tony Burke, had a key role in designing and writing. He had a key role, as the minister at the time, when this plan was handed down, and has been integral in his previous utterances that he wanted to see this plan rolled out in its entirety. The review of the Northern Basin was actually written into the plan. If he wants this plan to be carried out in its entirety, he's got to support what it says. He can't be like the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition, who says one thing in one forum and then something totally different in another forum. We expect the opposition water spokesperson to be true to his word and to resist some of the pressure that's coming because of the looming South Australian election. Senator Wong and other senators from South Australia just exert pressure on their water spokesperson, and he buckles at the knees. For the communities of the Murray-Darling Basin—one of the most productive areas of agriculture in the basin is, in fact, the Goulburn-Murray region that I represent—there's now a whole raft of uncertainty. Whilst we had the plan and we had the states committed to the plan, we had certainty. There was a whole range of unpopular motions within the plan that we had to try and work our way through, negotiate and compromise but, at least, we had certainty. Now that we have the Labor Party betraying all of the irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin, we have the state of New South Wales with Niall Blair, the water minister, threatening to walk away because he had laid this threat down to Tony Burke previously. He made sure that the Labor Party were 100 per cent certain about what was likely to happen if the Labor Party voted in support of the Greens in a disallowance motion on the Northern Basin Review. Not only have we got Niall Blair from New South Wales threatening to walk away; we've also got the Labor minister from Victoria slamming her federal colleagues in Canberra. We have a Labor minister in Victoria who cannot believe the hypocrisy; she cannot believe the betrayal of her own colleagues in Canberra. Tony Burke and all the other Victorians in the Labor Party are happy to go along and damage every irrigation community in Victoria, and certainly the ones that are attached to the Murray-Darling Basin. Now that we have uncertainty, if the state of New South Wales walks away and if Daniel Andrews and his water minister cannot get through to the Labor people in Canberra and they walk away, the only course of action left for the federal minister is to enable buybacks. We have seen the damage caused to communities through buybacks because they happen indiscriminately, they happen without strategy and they happen without planning. You have isolated water assets throughout the regions and you have no areas that are dedicated to highly intensive agriculture. You have the patchwork effect of some irrigators who are still committed to their farming. You have higher prices, and it is left to the water authorities to somehow make an ineffective system more effective and therefore more affordable. The betrayal by the Labor Party, which has effectively come out of nowhere, hangs fairly and squarely on the heads of the leaders. The opposition leader is also from Victoria. I know he doesn't get into the regions at all, I know he doesn't understand irrigation and I know he doesn't understand that water creates wealth. The wealth that is created by the water then swims around in the community. People buy cars, farming equipment, clothes or a new kitchen and they travel overseas. When the water that creates the wealth then swims around in the community, everybody gets a drink. But the Labor Party say one thing in one forum and then go to another forum and say something else. They stay silent for 12 months and, on the eve of a South Australian election, they are belted into submission. It is just so pathetic that they put politics before people and they would take this opportunity to effectively turn their backs in one of the greatest betrayals of agriculture you're ever going to see. They've had 12 months to suggest that maybe this review needs more work, but they have been totally happy with the independence of the review. They've been more than happy with the theory, the data, the structure and the authenticity of the review. There has not been one question about the integrity of the data. There has not been one question about whether it is the right thing to do to return the water back to productive agriculture. It was a fait accompli—it was the right thing to do to support the Northern Basin Review. And then, on the eve of the South Australian election, we had the greatest backflip of all time. The Labor Party here in Canberra got their senators to turn their backs and abandon every irrigation community on the Murray-Darling Basin. What this shows is that there is nothing of substance to the Labor Party. All they are concerned about is: 'How do we play the politics? How do we play games with people's lives? And, if we can play a big game with the lives of people in irrigation, maybe we could help get a South Australian government re-elected. We'd be happy to sacrifice those lives and those communities so we can win an election in South Australia.' 13:28 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I was in the chamber for the member for Burt's impersonation of Monty Python's: 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' I have to say that his version was better. I can't understand why the galleries weren't full to witness his impersonation. From its bushland to its beaches, Mackellar is truly a remarkable place which I'm proud to call home. On the Northern Beaches, we do not wait around for others to fix our problems. We come together as a community and act. I've stood in this place countless times to highlight and congratulate the many community groups, organisations and individuals who dedicate their time, energy and resources to Mackellar. A Liberal government's message has always been: we will always support the people who put others first. If you get together and make your community a better place, we have your back. I'm proud to stand here today to offer a status report to my community on the Northern Beaches on what has been achieved so far. With your help, I've worked tirelessly to make sure that you get your fair share. Many of you come to me discontent about the desolate state of the athletics track in Narrabeen. Thousands of you signed my petition, giving weight to our campaign to secure funding for its refurbishment. I was immensely pleased that the New South Wales Liberal government committed $1.2 million to fixing this problem. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Mackellar will be given an opportunity at that time to conclude his contribution. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 41 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Murray-Darling Basin 41 13:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last year, the ABC's Four Corners program exposed credible allegations of serious water theft from the northern reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin. The alleged theft occurred under the watch of eastern state authorities. How they could ever occur is beyond my understanding. Any water stolen from the basin comes at the expense of every other irrigator. Regrettably, the Prime Minister refused to back a judicial inquiry into the thefts. Now, downstream irrigators, including those in South Australia, are effectively being asked to wear the water theft by accepting a 70-gigalitre cut in environmental water returns to the basin. South Australians should not be expected to wear cuts without allegations of water theft being thoroughly investigated, and that can only occur through a judicial inquiry. Disappointingly, the South Australian federal members for Sturt, Boothby, Barker and Grey, unlike Labor MPs, have failed to stand up for South Australia to protect South Australia's Murray River water flows. Once again, South Australian Liberals have shown that when their state needs them the most, they go to water. Cockscomb Veterans Bush Retreat 41 13:31 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Tucked away in a tranquil pocket of forest in my electorate of Capricornia lies a little gem of the region, a hideaway for veterans who need to get away from it all or need someone to lean on. Cockscomb Veterans Bush Retreat provides a unique and incredibly valuable resource to Central Queensland's extensive veteran community. The idea for this retreat came from a group of local Vietnam veterans, and was made possible by the generosity of local psychologist Bruce Acutt. Through his work and amazing generosity, Bruce developed incredibly strong relationships within the veteran community, and his gift of a parcel of land would see the start of Cockscomb's development. Bruce not only donated the land but also worked tirelessly with the vets to physically build what has become a truly special place. Bruce is held in the highest esteem by the veteran community, particularly among Vietnam vets, and his death last year at the age of just 65 has left them without a very dear friend. The veterans of Cockscomb will this weekend unveil their newest infrastructure, a retired military shed, and I'm proud to have helped deliver it. This new structure will be unveiled as the Bruce Acutt Centre, a final salute to Bruce's immense benevolence and mateship. I look forward to helping open this new shed and humbly salute the late Bruce Acutt. Macquarie Electorate: Hope Walk 41 13:33 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie This Saturday I will be joining members of my community in Hope Walk Hawkesbury. Suicide Prevention and Support Network Western Sydney is holding the Hope Walk to raise awareness about suicide and to help break the silence that can surround it. This is the first official event to be held in the Hawkesbury but builds on the small walk organised by Richmond resident Diane Russell last year, which I attended. Diane was seeking a support group following the tragic loss of her son, Jason, to suicide in 2015. I have such admiration for women who, having had a crisis, do everything they can to spare others from similar trauma. It's through Diane's persistent advocacy and concern for others that she's become the Hawkesbury coordinator for Suicide Prevention and Support Network Western Sydney, which covers not only the Hawkesbury but also Penrith and the Blue Mountains. The walk on Saturday begins at 9.15, leaving from the Richmond tennis courts on Windsor Street, Richmond, and finishing at the Hawkesbury Visitor Information Centre, Clarendon, opposite the RAAF base. All community members are welcome to attend. Be part of it. Come to the beginning or come to the end. Be there to show your support. The Hope Walk is such a positive way to show support for those who've lost a loved one to suicide and to support those in our community who are trying to change things. Asquith Doctors Medical Centre 41 13:34 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The launch of a new bulk-billing clinic in my electorate is another win for the people of Berowra. Last month, I was delighted to officially open Asquith Doctors Medical Centre, headed up by local general practitioner Dr Mehdi Samari. The centre is Dr Samari's second practice, following the success of his Mt Kuring-Gai clinic. The support on display at the opening event is testament to the high esteem that many of Dr Samari's patients hold him in. Patients in attendance included Fred and Barbara Novak, who drove the publicity surrounding the event to show support for a doctor who supported them. Mehdi Samari is a dedicated doctor, bulk-billing his patients to provide affordable and accessible health care. It's because of coalition policies that GP bulk-billing rates in Berowra have never been higher. When Labor left government in 2013, Berowra's bulk-billing rate for GP visits was at 83.1 per cent. Under the Turnbull government, I'm pleased to say that 86.6 per cent of all GP visits in Berowra are now bulk -billed. At the launch, Dr Samari told me that he had many patients who needed to see him multiple times a week. If not for bulk-billing, the weekly cost of such visits for patients with chronic conditions would run into hundreds of dollars. I'm proud of all of the good doctors in my electorate for the excellent work that they do, and I'm also proud of the Turnbull government's record of achievement in delivering bulk-billing for Australia and for Berowra. Polson, Ernest 'Barry' 42 13:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley One of the great honours in this place is being able to honour the things that have been done by average Australians, who gave so much of themselves to help fellow Australians, for no other reason than it was the right thing to do. Ernest 'Barry' Polsen was one of those people. He devoted himself to helping working Australians, especially in our postal and telecommunications industries, over many, many years. He worked for many years in the old Postmaster-General's outfit, which came to be known as Australia Post and Telecom and then Telstra. He started as an instructor and then committed himself to the union movement, principally through the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union. He worked for many years within that union and had made a reputation as someone who, when he was in your corner, was truly in your corner and did everything he could to help. His friend and long-time colleague Laurie Chalker remarked that Barry was: … a man of integrity with a genuine passion for our cause. He was feared by management, not for his demeanour, but for his high level of knowledge of the industry and his ability to deliver the very best outcomes for our members. It was with great sadness that I learned that Barry, who was someone I had enormous respect for and who helped me so early on in my career, had passed away on the weekend. He is survived by his wife, Helen. He was a dad to many and a grandad to many. May he rest in peace. Thank you for a great contribution. Murray-Darling Basin 42 13:37 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Last night, the Senate passed a disallowance motion which drives a stake through the heart of the bipartisan Murray-Darling Basin Plan, a plan designed to give effect to a healthy, working catchment, looking after both the people and the rivers. This political exercise, engineered by Labor to shore up votes in South Australia's state election and the Victorian by-election, has crippled the confidence of my communities. They have watched as politicians in Canberra and Adelaide have trashed years of effort, compromise, adjustment and change for base political advantage. Almost all of the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys are in my electorate of Farrer. We have worked hard, given up much and prepared for a future with less water, and once again we confront uncertain times ahead. It gives me no joy to say this on behalf of the people I represent, but, as I foreshadowed last week, I have called Niall Blair, the New South Wales water minister, and urged him to withdraw New South Wales from the Basin Plan. Trust has gone; confidence has gone. For over a decade, we did what we were asked to do. We gave up productive water for genuine environmental priorities. We watched a Labor buyback drain life from our farming towns. Line by line, farm by farm, family by family, we worked it through. In return, we have been punished by Labor, playing politics with all of our lives. Today we say: enough is enough. Welcome to the Top End! 42 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the Welcome to the Top End! expo hosted by the Defence Community Organisation in Darwin. Our kids had a heap of fun. There were lots and lots of community organisations and government organisations there, and I met a lot of people, which was great. The idea of this event is to welcome new defence families to the Top End, and the Defence Community Organisation did a fantastic job. I wish to place on the record my thanks to Minister Payne, the defence minister, for allowing me to have a stall there, in what is, and should always remain, an apolitical event. The Defence Community Organisation provides a range of services to defence personnel. We all know that defence families and veterans face a unique set of circumstances, and to have a coming together of everyone—and there were 100 stalls, maybe, at this exhibition—provides the opportunity for new families and current families to get connected to different parts of our community. I also wish to place on the record my support of the Territory Labor government's pledge to invest in critical infrastructure in the Top End, supporting defence activity, including $100 million for the Darwin ship lift and marine industry facility. (Time expired) Country Women's Association of Australia 42 13:40 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am very proud to speak about one of the truly great regional organisations, the Country Women's Association. Two years after the CWA formed in New South Wales and Queensland, the first branch was established in WA. It was formed to improve the welfare and conditions of people living in the country, to foster friendship and to understand and encourage cooperation and community effort. The association has been home to many great stories over its 93-year history, and it has fostered thousands of lifetime friendships. It is women getting together to support each other, their families and their local communities. Service to the country is one of the CWA's core objectives, and, in 2016, after bushfires, they raised nearly $70,000 for towns such as Yarloop in my electorate. The CWA raises money for motor neurone disease as well. We've got branches in the South West, including Augusta, Bunbury, Burekup, Busselton, Capel, Eaton, Leschenault, Margaret River, Nannup, Rosa Brook and Rosa Glen—over 390 members in my South West. They work so hard for their communities. They are renowned as top cooks, and anybody who has the CWA cookbook knows what a legendary book that is and how it supports so many good chefs. I commend the amazing work of the thousands of women who make up the CWA—every member. Tasmanian Government 43 13:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Many of my constituents are very concerned about the proposal for a cable car on kunanyi/Mount Wellington, and I share their concerns—not least because I'm unconvinced that a cable car will stack up against strict social, environmental and economic criteria. But not only is the cable car proposal deeply flawed; the state government is being dishonest and tricky in the way they've tried to ram it through. Indeed, on Tuesday, we learned that the Minister for State Growth gave the green light for significant survey and construction work to begin on the mountain, just days before the state election was called. He quietly gave approval for these controversial works, didn't tell anybody and hoped like hell no-one would notice. When the Premier was asked about the issue on Tuesday he said he wasn't aware of the matter, which is patently ridiculous. Surely the Premier would know about such a significant and controversial decision. So he needs to come clean about what he knows and to tell the community as soon as possible. If he genuinely didn't know then it shows that his government it out of control. Not everyone shares my views on the cable car, and I respect that. But everyone should be concerned when politicians abandon proper process and keep Tasmanians in the dark. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union 43 13:43 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher It was a great day yesterday in that the CFMEU, that lawless organisation, had two great decisions handed down against them, one by the High Court and one by the Federal Court. An honourable member: How did they go? Mr WALLACE 265967 They went appallingly—that's how they went. So no longer will CFMEU officials who continue to break the law be able to have their fines that are imposed by courts paid for them by the CFMEU. This is all about accountability. If we break the law then we are held to account by the law, but, up until yesterday, CFMEU officials were able to break the law and the CFMEU would come along and write the cheque for them. There was no accountability. This is all about ensuring that CFMEU officials are held accountable, just like every other member of the community. In the second decision brought down by the Federal Court just yesterday there were two $500,000 fines, taking the number of fines imposed on the CFMEU to $13 million. The CFMEU was the first organisation in this country to receive $10 million in fines. They have now received $13 million in fines for breaking the law. They must be held accountable. They're no different from you and me. Qantas 43 13:45 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Today Qantas cancelled five flights from Canberra to Sydney and delayed one. It cancelled the 7.15 am, cancelled the 9.15 am, cancelled the 11.10 am, cancelled the 1.00 pm, delayed the 1.30 pm and cancelled the 4.45 pm. These are the flights from Canberra to Sydney. You do wonder what flight actually left Canberra today for Sydney, given the fact that it seems like all day there have been flights cancelled or delayed. Qantas doesn't seem to think that Canberrans are travelling to Sydney for a reason—that we just go out to the airport and sit there because we really love doing that. They don't think that we are travelling to Sydney for business meetings, doctors' appointments, funerals, anniversaries, birthdays, weddings, concerts or sporting events. And what is the minister doing about this? Absolutely nothing! The inaction is breathtaking. According to the minister, he is 'monitoring the situation'—monitoring the situation that goes from bad to worse, monitoring the situation of monthly cancellation rates up to seven times the national average, monitoring the situation that is leaving thousands and thousands of people left stranded out at Canberra Airport or left stranded at Sydney Airport. The Turnbull government's inaction again underscores the complete and utter disdain for Canberra by this government. (Time expired) Political Correctness 44 13:46 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax We Australians aren't a sentimental lot. We don't sit around all day talking about our identity, our culture or our way of life, but we do need to start talking about these things because they are put at risk by political correctness and an overreach of political correctness. If you look at how last year finished, we had the Queensland bureaucracy suggesting children should not send Christmas cards to each other because it might offend. We had major retail outlets changing the branding of the Christmas tree to the 'big white forest tree'. And then of course this year begins and what do we see? We see gender now causing offence. At the Commonwealth Games you're not allowed to use the words 'ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls'; it might cause offence. The Queensland licences need to be stripped from saying whether one is a male or female; it might cause offence. And then of course there is Australia Day. We see left-wing councils instructing staff not to use those two seemingly offensive words, 'Australia Day'. Are you serious? What is next? Is it trying to take the cross off the hot cross bun at Easter? At the end of the day, we need to ensure that we protect our culture, we protect our way of life and we call it out when people try to challenge it. Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs 44 13:48 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to bring to the attention of the House something strange that's going on in the ministry. There's no-one in this chamber who would be surprised that I have a bit of an axe to grind with the member for Dickson, the Minister for Home Affairs, about some of the things that he threw across the border from Sydney on 2GB but hasn't managed to come across the border into Victoria to say to the people whom he has offended. More interestingly, in December last year, the member for Aston, Alan Tudge, became the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. One would think he might have a few things to say about that, but I go to citizenship ceremonies in my electorate all the time and council are asked to invite the now Minister for Home Affairs to attend those ceremonies. We do three a month in my electorate. They are asked to read his apology and a letter from him. We do this all year, but we have never seen the member for Dickson in our electorate. We apologise for him not attending three times a month. So I'm taking the opportunity today to invite the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs to the electorate of Lalor so that they can say what they want to say in other states. Say them in Melbourne; say them in Lalor. (Time expired) Freedom 44 13:49 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I rise today to talk about freedom. Yesterday's submissions to the Ruddock religious freedom review closed and today I want to re-affirm the Queensland Liberal National Party's commitment to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association as core building blocks of a robust and fair Australian society. The Labor Party demonstrated that they do not trust the Australian people with free speech, free expression and free association, by voting against reasonable human rights protections in this chamber during debate on the same-sex marriage bill, passed in December last year. They believe big government intervention is the solution to everything, whereas we, the coalition, do not believe expanding government into every area of people's lives is the answer. We believe government's job is to serve, not control, the Australian people. All Australians have the right to pursue a life they have reason to value. Living in accordance with your conscience is not only for a lucky few identify groups. Labor believes government by an elite group, denying even their own MPs a conscience vote, is superior to a smaller government for, by and of the people. We live in a magnificent country blessed with freedom. I don't know what the Ruddock review will recommend, but the question people in my electorate want to know is: will Labor and some of the Greens and the crossbench stand for liberty and support religious protections as I have outlined now in the future? (Time expired) Newcastle Electorate: NOVA for Women and Children 44 13:51 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I rise to say a big congratulations to Kelly Hansen and her fabulous team at NOVA for Women and Children in Newcastle. They were awarded the 2018 Newcastle Community Group of the Year during the Australia Day ceremonies in Newcastle City Hall this year—and you could not find a more worthy recipient of the Community Group of the Year Award. NOVA for Women and Children is a service that works tirelessly to support women and kids who are at risk of homelessness or are escaping family and domestic violence. They are well known in my community for their very staunch advocacy on behalf of those women and their endless capacity to bring people together in the community. Last year they opened a new refuge in Newcastle called Trisha's House, which was really borne from the generosity of the local community and, of course, the drive and enthusiasm of NOVA for Women and Children. This is exactly the kind of frontline organisation you would expect this government to support. Instead, every time you cut community legal centres, every time you don't fulfil your community housing agreements and every time you make it difficult for women to access services and financial support, you hurt groups like NOVA. (Time expired) Flynn Electorate: Springsure Doin' it for Dolly Charity Rodeo 45 13:52 Mr O'DOWD ( 139441 Flynn ) ( ): I rise to salute the organisers of the Springsure Doin' it for Dolly Charity Rodeo. The Doin' it for Dolly rodeo happened at Springsure last Saturday night. Springsure is a town 70 kilometres south of Emerald that is known for its cattle, coal, grain and chickpeas. The population is about 1,100. The crowd and competitors came from all over Australia. The Springsure Showgrounds turned a shade of blue, and over 5,000 spectators and 290 competitors took to their seats and their saddles. The event raised more than $100,000 for Dolly's Dream Foundation. The event was organised by a Springsure couple. They didn't know Dolly, but they knew what it was for families to suffer such a blow. Shannon Bleakley and Dan Roberts were the main organisers, but they had hundreds of community-minded volunteers and generous businesses, organisations and community groups who supported them. Shannon and Dan didn't know Dolly Everett or her family, but they knew that people would support the cause of Dolly's Dream Foundation. The Springsure event was significant given that Dolly's mother hailed from Springsure, and family members came from close-lying areas were there to witness the event. (Time expired) Broadband 45 13:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam While the Hatfields and the McCoys were slogging it out last week in National Party back rooms to work out who was going to be the next Deputy Prime Minister of this country, the small businesses in their electorates were struggling with substandard broadband from a second-rate NBN. As the member for Flynn was testing the numbers, the IT firm Reckon released the results of its NBN survey and the results are astounding. Eighty-three per cent of small businesses in their electorates lack confidence in the National Broadband Network and a whopping 54 per cent think that they are going to get left behind as the digital economy develops. They remember the Prime Minister running through their electorates, encouraging them to be enthusiastic about innovation at the very time he was robbing them of the essential tools to innovate. They want their MPs to focus on these issues, not themselves. They are very critical of the government's bungled Mobile Black Spot Program, where one-fifth of the towers didn't fill in a mobile phone black spot. They are concerned that over $500 million in regional grants funding is locked up because you guys opposite can't make a decision. It's time for the Prime Minister to step in, stop this farce, sack the Deputy PM and get on with the job. (Time expired) Penola Bypass 45 13:56 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker People in this place on both sides of the chamber would be sick of me banging on about the need to complete the Penola bypass. The Penola bypass is known as 'the half-built road to nowhere'. It is an absolute embarrassment to the state Labor government in South Australia, which refuse to accept federal government funding to complete this vital piece of infrastructure. The federal government has put $9 million on the table to complete this state road, but the state government won't touch it. Why? It's because they say there are GST implications. I have news for them. Those same GST implications operate across many infrastructure projects—in fact, all state road projects. One example would be the $95 million that the state government will accept from the federal government to complete the Oaklands crossing in Adelaide. They are happy to accept that money but not happy to accept the money to complete the Penola bypass. What does that tell you? It tells you—and this is clear—that the state Labor government only care about marginal seats in the city. They don't care about the Penola bypass because they know they won't win any votes out there. Shame on the state Labor government. I commend the state Liberal Party for their interest on this project. Not only did opposition leader Steven Marshall come and visit the bypass to see for himself a half-built road to nowhere; he committed to completing the project. Well done to the local candidate Nick McBride, who is a passionate community advocate who knows that we can't afford a road to nowhere— (Time expired) Fall of Singapore: 76th Anniversary 45 13:57 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Today marks the 76th anniversary of the greatest military tragedy in Australia's history, the fall of Singapore. In the fall of Singapore, 5,000 Australians lost their lives fighting and 15,000 Australians went into captivity and faced the horrors of Changi and the Thai-Burma railroad, where thousands lost their lives. It was a tragedy that exposed the lack of preparation in Australia, a lack of preparation caused by the Liberal Party when they were in government, by the appeasement of Robert Gordon Menzies, a man who was pro-appeasement before World War II and, incredibly, pro-appeasement in World War II. He wrote, 'I feel quite confident that Hitler has no desire for a first-class war,' and 'Nobody really cares a damn about Poland as such,' 11 days after Hitler invaded Poland. They were defeatists as well. They were the party of the 'Brisbane line'. They were the party that refused to fully mobilise Australia. This was all laid bare when Singapore fell. Labor will never be lectured on defence by those opposite—the party of the fall of Singapore, the party of the Vietnam War, where 500 Australians lost their lives, and the party that brought us into the second Gulf war based on a lie. The Liberal Party are a bunch of hypocrites on defence and we will never be lectured to by them. (Time expired) Greensill, Mr Alexander David 'Lex', CBE 46 13:59 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Today I want to congratulate Bundaberg's Lex Greensill, who was invested as a Commander of the British Empire at Buckingham Palace last week for his services to the economy. He was named in the 2017 Queen's Birthday honours list and invested by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. This is a story of success—success which was earned. As someone who came from humble beginnings in my hometown of Bundaberg and who grew up on his parents' cane and sweet potato farm, he saw firsthand the impact of late payments on small business, when his father's sugar cane farm experienced the pressure of being a small company supplying large nationals. From those beginnings, ideas were built. In the following years, he successfully led the supply chain finance businesses for Morgan Stanley and Citi before he and a team of seasoned specialists founded Greensill Capital in 2011. He was appointed a senior adviser to the UK Prime Minister, where he advised Downing Street and the White House on the successful launch of their supply chain finance initiatives. He is also a senior adviser to Her Majesty's government on supply chain finance. He is also a graduate of the public high school Kepnock State High School in Bundaberg, which just happens to be where I graduated from. This man is a reflection of the motto of that high school, which says that success is earned. I congratulate the Greensill family wholeheartedly, and particularly Lex for his success; it's a unique honour. I say to all of those kids out there: this is what you can achieve if you work hard and give it your best effort. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 46 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Deputy Prime Minister will be taking leave from Monday, 19 February, to Sunday, 25 February. Accordingly, he will not be able to be Acting Prime Minister while I'm overseas on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday of next week. The foreign minister has an extensive program committed in the United Kingdom, Hungary and Slovenia next week. For that reason, I will ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, to be acting Prime Minister while I'm overseas. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 46 14:02 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's economic policies are creating jobs, supporting small and family-owned business and reducing the burden on families, including those in my electorate of Forde? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. He is part of a government that is delivering the economic leadership, the confidence and the certainty that is growing the economy and creating jobs. As today's labour force data shows, the policies of my government are helping to create more jobs and better jobs. Some 16,000 jobs were added in January; 403,000 jobs were added for the year. Unemployment remains relatively low, but not low enough, at 5½ per cent. We've now delivered 16 consecutive months of jobs growth, the longest uninterrupted run of jobs growth in our history. Sixteen months is a long time. Month after month, we are adding more jobs. It hasn't happened by luck; it's the result of policy after policy and measure after measure designed to grow and strengthen our economy. Of course, as we all know—at least on this side of the House—a strong economy is the foundation for business and for the confidence that enables firms to invest and to hire. It produces the revenue that enables governments to deliver the vital services our people demand and deserve. It enables us to put life-saving drugs on the PBS; it enables us to be able to afford that. It enables us to keep Australians safe. Nine out of 10 Australians work for private businesses, so surely it's in the interest of all of us to support the companies and firms that employ the overwhelming majority of our fellow country men and women. If we want more jobs, better jobs and jobs with higher wages then surely we want to back the businesses that are actually creating those jobs. You'd think that the opposition would agree. After all, their leader—we won't forget this in a hurry—went to the Press Club last year and said that 2017 was going to be all about jobs, jobs, jobs. We thought we might get competing policies. We thought he might come up and say, 'Here on the opposition benches we've got some better ideas to create jobs.' He didn't even argue for one. He doesn't have one policy, one idea that would create one job or one dollar of investment. All he wants to do is raise tax on family owned businesses and on individuals and push power prices up higher with uncosted, unplanned renewable energy policies. He has no plan for growth. He has no plan for jobs. He has no plan for investment. And the man who said that last year would be the year for jobs, jobs, jobs—well, there were plenty of jobs, but they were delivered by the policies of the government he opposes. Deputy Prime Minister 47 14:05 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question's to the Prime Minister. Doesn't the Prime Minister's announcement just before question time about the arrangements for who'll be acting Prime Minister confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot do his job? Or are we simply meant to believe that it's all a big coincidence? 14:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Deputy Prime Minister is on leave next week, as I've said. Economy 47 14:06 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the latest job figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today? How is the coalition's economic plan helping to drive more and better-paid jobs for Australians, including in my electorate of Bonner? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bonner for his question. He is proud to be part of a government that has now, with today's January figures, overseen the longest run in consecutive jobs growth in recorded Australian economic history—some 40 years. That is 492,000 jobs created in those 16 consecutive months of jobs growth. It's part of the 971,500 jobs that have been created from the day this government got elected back in 2013. Over 403,000 jobs were created in the last 12 months—again, over 1,100 jobs created every single day, on average. The member for Bonner will be particularly interested to know that 118,000 of those jobs were in Queensland, which had the highest rate of through-the-year growth—five per cent growth in jobs—and 73 per cent of those jobs were full-time. And on female labour force participation: I know that the Minister for Women will be thrilled to know, and as an economic minister as well, that it is at record highs. But there's more to do. We know that there's more to do, and we know that by lowering taxes we enable businesses to grow, to create more jobs and pay their workers more. We know that if they've got to pay the government more they can't pay their workers more. Labor used to believe this. It was Julia Gillard who said, as I reminded the House yesterday, that if you cut company taxes it will increase wages. Labor continues to stand in the way of Australian workers and a pay rise by opposing our tax policies. We know who we are when it comes to economic policy. We know what we're about. We're sticking to our plan, because we know it is creating the jobs and growth that we promised Australians at the last election when they gave an endorsement for our national economic plan. But Labor have lost their way. They've lost their economic compass. They have no clue how to create jobs in this economy, or any economy, and none more starkly than the shadow Treasurer, who used to write about how he supported company taxes, and then he derided them as trickle-down economics. Then yesterday he trickled up again, and he's supportive of company taxes—just not now. We also learnt yesterday of the shadow Treasurer's keen interest in videos. Perhaps a video he's familiar with is the film Zoolander, in which Derek Zoolander looks into that puddle and says, 'Who am I?' 'I don't know', Zoolander answers himself, 'I guess I have a lot of things to ponder.' The Australian people can't afford the shadow Treasurer's Zoolander economics and the wibble-wobbling he'd put on economic policy in this country. Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith will cease interjecting. Ministerial Standards 47 14:09 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. The ministerial standards require ministers to not to mislead the parliament. Four times the Deputy Prime Minister told the parliament that he did not approach Mr Greg Maguire to ask him for a place to stay. Since then, the Daily Telegraph and The Australian have both publicly confirmed that Mr Maguire told them it was the Deputy Prime Minister who phoned Mr Maguire. Has the Deputy Prime Minister already misled the parliament four times today, in breach of the ministerial standards? 14:10 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question, and I stand by my statement of this morning. I did not ring Mr Maguire and ask him for a place for free. I did not. Honourable members interjecting— Mr Conroy 249127 Oh, that's different. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Shortland will cease interjecting. I've said to members repeatedly, they expect me to listen to the answers to rule on points of order. I'll have no tolerance for interjections. I need to hear the answer and, I tell you what, those interjecting don't need to be here. Mr JOYCE E5D Mr Maguire approached me. He made an offer. I offered to pay for it. He said that I didn't have to worry about it, because I was a mate. If you just think about it logically— An opposition member: Not your strong point. Mr JOYCE E5D you would hardly ring someone up, ask for something for free, then offer to pay for it and then get it for free, and that's because it didn't happen. It is as per the statement. Victoria: Railways 48 14:11 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. This week you met with the Victorian Minister for Public Transport and Minister for Major Projects, and I hope you discussed the north-east Victorian rail line, which is maintained by the ARTC. Can you give us an update on the scope of works for the $100 million upgrade? When will the scope of works be released for public consultation, and when will work commence? Can you tell the community of north-east Victoria when we can expect completion of the track works that will allow operation of the new trains? 14:12 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for her question and note that we have had a meeting with the Victorian minister. We did it this week. We are working on the line that you've stated. We are spending $100 million on that line. We will look to start the consultations in around about the middle of this year. It is vitally important, that being part of the link not only for a commuter network but also on what we need to do on the Inland Rail. It's incredibly important that we get the agreement in place so that we can deal with any land acquisitions requirements and, working with the minister for Victoria, we look forward to a vast improvement as part of this coalition's investment in infrastructure, especially investment in rail infrastructure. We are very proud of our $10 billion rail infrastructure package and also the near $10 billion that we'll be spending on the Inland Rail. Business 48 14:13 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on action the government is taking to put in place policies which support Australian businesses so they can grow and create more and better-paid jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any alternative approach? 14:13 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for her question. She, like all of the members on this side, understands the importance of creating the right policy settings to encourage businesses to make sure that they invest to boost jobs, and we do that by encouraging enterprise. It is for this reason we are fighting so hard for our enterprise tax plan, because we know that our enterprise tax plan will mean that business has the opportunity to grow, to invest and to create more jobs. We've already got a good track record. We have delivered tax cuts for small and medium sized companies with a turnover of up to $50 million, and we are committed to a tax rate for all companies of 25 per cent. This approach creates an environment that is conducive to job growth and, as the Treasurer has rightly pointed out, the ABS released great data today which says that we have had the longest run of monthly jobs growth ever recorded and that female participation in the workforce is at its highest level on record. But those opposite, sadly, do not agree with this approach. As the member for Rankin has made very clear, Labor would rather jack up taxes on businesses that have a turnover of between $2 million and $50 million. These are businesses who have already received a tax cut, have already invested in their business and have already created jobs. The Leader of the Opposition continues to be guilty of gross hypocrisy on this issue. When in government he was for company tax cuts, but when in opposition he is apparently against them. Speaking of hypocrites, I noted with interest the comments of the shadow Treasurer in his op-ed in the Fairfax papers this week. He declared: … a government that has the courage to seek a mandate also has the moral authority to proceed with its plans. I think that is one of the most sensible things that I've heard from the member for McMahon, particularly after having read his book. But, sadly, of course, the member for McMahon has not been consistent on this point. Let me remind him that the Turnbull government took its enterprise tax plan to the 2016 election. I've got the policy document here, and I will read from it: This 27.5 per cent rate will be gradually extended to all companies, before falling to 27 per cent on 1 July 2024, 26 per cent on 1 July 2025, and 25 per cent on 1 July 2026. So, in his own words, we have the moral authority to proceed with our plan. They should get out of the way of Australian workers and Australian businesses. They should support enterprise, they should support prosperity and they should support the government. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 49 14:16 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any taxpayer money going to businesses owned by Mr Greg Maguire? Did the Deputy Prime Minister, his office or any departments or agencies under his administration have any involvement in organising, facilitating or approving such payments? 14:17 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question. I'm not aware of any, but I'll take the question on notice. Economy 49 14:17 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation. Will the minister update the House on how the coalition government's policy settings have resulted in the longest consecutive period of jobs growth in Australia's history and given businesses the confidence they need to grow? How does this compare to alternative approaches? 14:17 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. Today is a really significant day in the economy of Australia, because today the labour force statistics indicate that we've had 16 consecutive months of growth in net terms in jobs in Australia—the longest consecutive period of jobs growth since those statistics have been kept. It is a real red-letter day for the economy. That is the sort of issue that the Australian public is interested in. The first responsibility of any government is to take care of the economy. The member for Brisbane must be particularly pleased, because Queensland has accounted for a quarter of the 403,000 new jobs that have been created in the last 12 months—really important for the Queensland economy. So, once again, the statistics are proving that the Abbott and Turnbull governments' policies over the last four years are having exactly the impact that we wanted to drive in Australia: more jobs, more investment, more growth in the economy, records being broken like today's and records like last year's, with 403,000 new jobs—the highest number in history. The levers of policy that we've been pulling on this side of the House are having exactly the impact that you would expect from a coalition government. We are the true inheritors of the Howard-Costello legacy of good economic management. Mr Pasin interjecting— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Wakefield and Barker are warned. Mr PYNE 9V5 There was a time when the Labor Party wanted to have economic credibility—during the Hawke-Keating period, when they wanted to put behind them the hideousness of the Whitlam era. Well, they have certainly turned their back on that. They've taken a sharp left turn. And there is absolutely no doubt in the minds of the public in Australia that if they want a political party, a coalition like the Liberal and National parties, to look after the economy, the only way of doing so is to vote for the Liberal and National parties at elections. Defence industry is doing its part. Because of the Turnbull government's commitment to the biggest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history, we are seeing new jobs being created right across the country, not just with Raytheon and BAE in Bennelong, where there were 50 jobs created in recent times, but with companies like: Kinexus—27 new jobs in Mawson Lakes; Saab—going from 350 to 650 jobs in South Australia; Lockheed Martin—taking on 200 more people in South Australia; Boeing—165 more people as part of the Wedgetail project, mostly in Brisbane; Northrop Grumman—increasing its workforce to 1,000 in Western Sydney; and, in shipbuilding, Henderson—400 new jobs associated with the offshore patrol vessels, largely in the member for Canning's electorate. So everywhere in Australia, we are seeing this good news being rolled out. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 49 14:21 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and I'll refer to his previous answer. Answers to questions on notice from Senate estimates make clear that an agency under the Deputy Prime Minister's administration made a payment of more than $5,000 of taxpayers' money to a business owned by the Deputy Prime Minister's close friend, Mr Greg Maguire. Is it the position of the Deputy Prime Minister that he was unaware of this payment? 14:21 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question and, I have to admit, I was unaware of that $5,000 payment. Border Security 50 14:21 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of taking a consistent approach to combatting people smuggling. Is the minister— Mr Husic interjecting— Mr Hammond interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moore will resume his seat. The members for Chifley and Perth will leave under 94(a). They're preventing me hearing the question but I've solved that problem. The member can begin his question again. Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of taking a strong and consistent approach to combatting people smuggling? Is the minister aware of any threats to Australia's borders? 14:22 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. All Australians know that the people-smuggling scourge is an issue not just within our region but right across the world. People have seen the images of young children drowning on the Mediterranean. They have seen the reports of 1,200 people who drowned when vessels went to the bottom of the ocean trying to traverse from Indonesian to Christmas Island or to Australia at the peak of Labor's unravelling of our border protection policies. The officers from my department and from the Royal Australian Navy were pulling 1,000 people a week off boats and putting them into detention. Tragically, not only did 1,200 people drown at sea but 8,000 children ended up in detention and the 50,000 people who came on 800 boats were just the start. Fortunately, through some tough decisions that we've had to take, we've been able to stop this scourge, but the problem has not gone away. So if the question is: what is the threat to border protection and border security in this country? It's not just the people smugglers who haven't gone away, who are prepared to get back into this evil business tomorrow; it's also a weak leader in the Leader of the Opposition, who is standing up at the moment delivering messages which are being heard by people smugglers that the Labor Party, if elected at the next election, would be prepared to undo the measures we have put in place which have stopped those drownings at sea, which allowed us to get every child out of detention and now take the people off Manus and Nauru that Labor put onto those two islands. I was amazed when I saw some reports yesterday from a Labor branch that reported comments by the Leader of the Opposition when he was down there campaigning for the Batman by-election. I thought it was a joke but it is not. This is how the reports of the Leader of the Opposition's comments went: 'Bill Shorten promises Nauru and Manus detention centres will be closed under a Labor government.' It was reconfirmed by people at the meeting, yet that is the complete opposite of the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made during the course of the last election campaign and every day since. The people smugglers can sniff out weakness and a lack of leadership from many miles away. They saw it in Julia Gillard, and they saw it in Kevin Rudd. Now this Leader of the Opposition promises to be a complete image of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard. It would be a disaster for our country. There's been a lot written about the past of the Leader of the Opposition. There've been many people in the Leader of the Opposition's life who have had that trust broken, including workers. We've seen all sorts of examples in this place where he's ripped off workers in favour of big companies. He stands condemned on this as well. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 50 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:26 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the house that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Bangladesh Public Accounts Committee together with His Excellency the High Commissioner of Bangladesh to Australia. On behalf of the House, I extend to you a very warm welcome. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Prime Minister 51 14:26 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answer. How can the Deputy Prime Minister claim he was unaware of the payment of more than $5,000 of taxpayers' money to a business owned by Mr Greg Maguire when the payment was made for an event at the Quality Hotel Powerhouse in Armidale and the Deputy Prime Minister personally attended in front of more than 80 witnesses? How can the Deputy Prime Minister claim he didn't know when more than 80 people saw him there? 14:26 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question, and it would not be surprising that in a multibillion dollar department that I'm not aware of a $5,000 payment. Infrastructure 51 14:27 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn It's good to be asking a question. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's infrastructure investment in northern Australia is securing jobs and the economic future of regional Australian families? Is he aware of any threats to these economic opportunities in regional Australia? 14:27 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for his question. I note the massive expenditure that is happening in Queensland. There is $6.7 billion for the Bruce Highway upgrade package over 10 years, $2.6 billion more than Labor's 10-year commitment. It includes 45 new projects Labor never funded: the $600 million North Australian Road Programme, NARP; and the hundred million dollar beef roads program. Mr Champion HW9 So you're right across those details then! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield has been warned. He will leave the House under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr JOYCE E5D There are 37 projects upgrading 480 kilometres of roads in northern Australia, generating hundreds of jobs, none of which would have happened under Labor. I'm happy to announce that we're getting very close to the conclusion of the funding for Rookwood Weir. We've been waiting for a long time for the Queensland Labor government to come on board with this project. The Capricorn Highway duplication between Rockhampton and Gracemere is to commence construction midyear. There will be five kilometres of duplication construction of a two-lane bridge over Scrubby Creek, and four intersection upgrades and cross-drainage works to mitigate flooding. Currently, 17,000 cars a day use this highway. It's critical infrastructure to help the resource industry and the agricultural industry. There are so many parts of the Northern Australia Roads Program that will assist the electorates of the members for Flynn, Dawson and Capricornia. All this is part of the connectivity of the mighty beef industry in the area, the coal industry and the other minerals industries. We see the Flinders Highway, Charters Towers to Richmond, culvert upgrades; the Kennedy Developmental Road; and the Lynd-Hughenden section, something that has been asked for a long period of time. I note the member for Flynn's advocacy in trying to get the road upgraded. There are the Great Northern Highway upgrade from Maggie Creek to Wyndham, which is about to commence, and the Great Northern Highway Bow River Bridge and approaches, which is about to commence. We are a government that believes in the tactile things that people actually vote for, whether they're mobile phone towers, whether they're bridges, whether it's the inland rail, whether it's sealing roads, whether it's making sure that people's lives are better. We fight for it and we deliver on it. We stand behind the beef industry, which is so vitally important. We stand behind the live cattle trade. It will be interesting, in the seat of Batman, to see what Labor's position is on the live cattle trade. That'll be an interesting discussion for them to have down there. Of course, they'll have a much different conversation at a latter stage when the seat of Longman no doubt becomes vacant. I say to the member for Flynn, the member for Capricornia and the member for Dawson—and I know there is Senator Canavan in the other place—that we are making a massive investment in this part of the world, which was so readily forgotten by the Australian Labor Party. Deputy Prime Minister 51 14:30 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House whether he or his office played any role in selecting his close friend's business to receive more than $5,000 in taxpayers' money or is the House meant to believe that it was just an extraordinary coincidence that an agency under his administration chose a venue owned by his close friend out of all the venues in Armidale? 14:31 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question. I know he's making much of this. We've said we'll take it on notice because I was unaware, and we will get back to you. Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 52 14:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Would the minister outline to the House how the coalition government's Regional Jobs and Investment Packages for the North Coast of New South Wales are unlocking job opportunities for hardworking Australians in my electorate of Page? How does this compare with alternative approaches? 14:31 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I thank the member for his question. I acknowledge his tireless efforts, work and his relentless advocacy for the communities in the electorate of Page. The families and businesses of the Northern Rivers are lucky to have such a hardworking local member delivering for them. The coalition government's North Coast Regional Jobs and Investment Packages are a major shot in the arm for his local economy. The government will invest $25 million in 23 job-creating projects across the North Coast of New South Wales. All up, more than 500 new direct jobs will be generated through the construction phase. A further 500 ongoing jobs will be available to locals as a result of this coalition government investment. This includes $6.5 million for the Northern Rivers Rail Trail to boost new and revived tourism opportunities following the then state Labor government's decision to shut down the Casino-to-Murwillumbah rail service back in 2004 despite very widespread community opposition at the time. The coalition's policies are delivering real results for regional Australia, as this investment exemplifies, with more than 100,000 jobs created in regional areas in the last year. This is part of 16 months of continuous jobs growth across Australia—the longest unbroken run since 1978—with 42,000 of those jobs created in regional New South Wales. That's the equivalent of the entire populations of Lismore, Grafton and Kyogle—all major centres in the Page electorate—getting a job in the last 12 months. The record of those opposite couldn't be more different. Labor is a party of job snobs. If you work in the mines or the energy-intensive manufacturing sector or in the livestock industries, you are looked down upon by the modern Labor Party. Your jobs mean nothing to them. Incredibly, the Labor spokesman for regional development, the member for Whitlam, celebrated Labor's overnight ban on live cattle exports back in 2011. He was popping the champagne cork, celebrating with inner-city activists while regional jobs and communities were destroyed. 'I welcome the decision by the minister to suspend live exports,' he said to the Southern Highland News in June 2011. The Labor Party has a complete disregard for the livestock industries, the coal industry and the thousands of jobs they create in my home state of Queensland. That's a lot of regional jobs that would be seriously at risk if Labor and the Greens were ever re-elected. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 52 14:35 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister—and I refer to his previous answers. In addition to the over $5,000 of taxpayers' money, did Mr Maguire's business receive any more taxpayers' money because any of the more than 80 attendees were booked to stay at the hotel that was selected by the government to host the event? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, for the Deputy Prime Minister to be able to be questioned about this particular matter it needs to have been in his portfolio at the time he was a minister, and the member for Isaacs has not clarified whether he's talking about a grant under the department of agriculture or the department of transport and infrastructure. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business—you can address the point of order. Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. The question refers specifically to the previous answers of the Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House will be quiet. I'm going to hear the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW It's referring specifically to that. It's referring also to the document from a question on notice in the Senate. None of that has been disputed. But the relevance of it to the standing orders is, quite specifically, the following on from an earlier answer, where the Deputy Prime Minister said he had no idea this payment had been made. Given that he was present at the event, it's a legitimate line of inquiry. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House? Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the answer that the Deputy Prime Minister gave was that he would take it on notice. In other words, he's prepared to go away and find out what the grant is about. Yet the member for Isaacs is pursuing a line of questioning after it's been clearly stated that he'd take it on notice. It might not even be in the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio, and, under standing orders, it would therefore be out of order. The SPEAKER 00APG I've heard from both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. I'll make two points. With respect to the last point the Leader of the House made, whilst he makes that point, there's nothing in the standing orders to prevent repetitive questioning—there's really not—unless it's absolutely identical. Secondly, as we've seen before in this House, once a statement's been made, questions are asked about the statement and questions are then asked about previous answers. I think that opens the door for the question to be in order. But, of course, it's quite within the standing orders as well, as the Deputy Prime Minister's done, to give whatever answer he sees fit, or to take the question on notice. It's quite within the standing orders. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 14:37 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs for his question. As I said, I will take the question, which he referred to previously and then there again, on notice. As to where people stay after a function, I honestly would have no idea, so I won't be able to answer that part of the question. Energy 53 14:38 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a national energy policy that encourages investment and creates a reliable and affordable system for families and businesses, particularly in my state of Victoria? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:38 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for McMillan for his question. I know that he's fighting hard to lower the power bills of people across his electorate and to ensure job security for the workers in his electorate, including those who work in the Latrobe Valley supporting the power industry. It was the Andrews Labor government, supported by those opposite, who abandoned those workers in the Latrobe Valley when they tripled the coal royalties on the businesses there, and it's been left to the coalition to stand up for the blue-collar workers in the Latrobe Valley. Today in the parliament we're fortunate to have in the House the executive director of the International Energy Agency, Dr Fatih Birol—and you are warmly welcomed to the Australian parliament, Dr Birol. Today, Dr Birol provided a report to the Turnbull government on the Australian energy market, and we welcome the IEA's support for the government's attempt to change the mandate of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to allow more investment in carbon capture and storage, which would not only help the environment but create more jobs. But, unfortunately, the Labor Party is standing in our way. I welcome the comments by the head of the International Energy Agency that the states should lift their mindless bans and moratoriums on gas development in their states, including in Victoria, which is sitting on 40 years worth of supply, and the Northern Territory, which is sitting on 200 years worth of supply. And I welcome the support from the head of the International Energy Agency, an authoritative voice on international energy matters, who said that our National Energy Guarantee is a promising opportunity, is a golden opportunity and is an opportunity not to be missed. I'm asked: are there any alternative approaches? We know that when the Labor Party were last in government power prices doubled, and we know that we haven't heard an energy question from them in 118 days—and do you know why? Because they don't stand for anything. When they were in government they were talking up CCCS. The member for Corio said it was critically important. The member for McMahon said, 'We need to make it work.' When it comes to gas development, they said they support the Finkel recommendation to lift the bans, but have they picked up the phone to Daniel Andrews to ask him to lift their bans? When it comes to the National Energy Guarantee, the Leader of the Opposition said we need a national solution—a bipartisan approach—and, when we have the report from the experts, because it's not his idea he refuses to get behind it. When it comes to the Labor Party on energy policy, don't look at what they say; look at what they do. Only the coalition will deliver more affordable, reliable power. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 53 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:41 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd like to inform the House that we also have joining us in the gallery this afternoon His Excellency Orhan Tavli, Governor of Canakkale, and Ismail Kasdemir, President of the Gallipoli Historical Park Directorate in Turkey. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you and to your colleagues who are here with you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 54 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Prime Minister 54 14:42 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Isn't it the case that, because of the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Maguire had at least $5,000 of taxpayers' money in his pocket when he gave the Deputy Prime Minister free accommodation? The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister can address the question. I don't like the description that's in it because it implies that the recipient received money not in a business way, and we dealt with that before in other contexts. I really don't like that. An honourable member: He could rephrase it. The SPEAKER 00APG In fact, that's right—I think it should be rephrased. Or I can rule it out of order. I call the member for Isaacs. Mr DREYFUS HWG I'll ask the whole question again, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Isn't it the case that, because of the decisions of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Maguire had received at least $5,000 of taxpayers' money when he gave the Deputy Prime Minister free accommodation? The SPEAKER 00APG Before I call the Leader of the House, now that I've heard the question again, the bit that grated with me is not the major problem, which was why I did want to hear it again and pause. That is an imputation of an improper motive, and I think that's very clearly out of order under the standing orders. Small Business 54 14:44 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister please update the House on action the coalition government is taking to develop and implement policies that create a strong foundation to allow small businesses to flourish and create more and better paid jobs for hardworking Australians? Is the minister aware of any risks to the economy's positivity? 14:44 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Petrie for his question. I acknowledge that he is yet another on this side of the chamber who, in coming to serve, has turned his back on his own small business. But it's not just a small business; it's a small family business. In his absence, his wife, Louise, has taken up the challenge and is running that business. The member for Petrie assures me that it is our good economic policy—the Turnbull coalition's good economic policy—that is resulting in Louise's far superior performance to his. The outcomes of those policies are clear to see in today's jobs figures. For the first time ever in our history there have been 16 consecutive months of growth in jobs. For 15 of those 16 months there has been growth in full-time jobs. That's because we have a plan and we're implementing our plan. I'm asked: are there any risks to that plan? The risk is clear. It's the election of a Labor government. The risk is Sally McManus, because she is writing Labor Party policy. In 'McManus-stan'—that alternate universe where the superior leader, Sally McManus, that puppet master, is pulling the strings of her two favourite marionettes, the member for Gorton and the Leader of the Opposition, hard every day—policy positions that she's taking become formal policy positions of the opposition. What are the things they are espousing? They're espousing untruths. Their whole policy platform is based on untruths, such as, in regard to casualisation: 'The casual workforce is rising.' No, it's not. It's been at 25 per cent for over two decades. The Fair Work Commission last year said: The level of casual employment has not significantly changed since the enactment of the FW Act … Labor wants you to believe that we have a problem with labour hiring and independent contracting. Both have been steady for the last decade. Labor wants you to believe that we have a problem with enterprise bargaining. Last year, of the EBAs terminated in this country, three per cent were contested and 97 per cent were not contested. Labor wants to tell the Australian public they can solve minimum wage growth stagnation with a 28 per cent increase. That will decimate the economy, send small and family business out of work and leave hundreds of thousands of Australians unemployed. There is a clear and distinct choice: the plan that we are delivering upon or the plan of the trade unions on the other side. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 55 14:47 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. Clause 3.2 of the ministerial standards states: … Ministers are required to ensure that official decisions made by them as Ministers are unaffected by bias or irrelevant consideration, such as considerations of private advantage … How can the Deputy Prime Minister be satisfied that he has complied with this ministerial standard? 14:48 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Isaacs. I've been advised just then that it was for a function in Armidale. Obviously decisions in the vicinity of $5,000 don't generally go across the minister's table. I am unaware of any decision that I would have ever made to be part of that decision. Anything beyond that, I'll take on notice. Murray-Darling Basin 55 14:48 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister, could you advise the House of the very serious implications of last night's vote in the Senate for the future of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan? Are you aware of any risks to the delivery of the Basin Plan? 14:49 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the honourable member for his question. He knows very well that last night the Australian Labor Party betrayed the two million Australians who live in the Murray-Darling Basin. He knows so well that last night the Australian Labor Party tried to sell out the livelihoods of those people in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan for the careers of Ged Kearney and Jay Weatherill. This is nothing more than a cheap political stunt. But don't take my word for it, take the word of Fiona Simson, the National Farmers Federation president. In her media release last night she said: … Labor's actions were at best short-sighted, reckless and politically-motivated and at worst, a sign of contempt for regional Australia and potentially negatively transformative for our nation. No wonder people despair of politics and politicians. Never has there been an issue more deserving of political bipartisanship than the MDBA plan, which encompasses the health of our regional communities, our agriculture sector and our environment. But there's more, from Steve Whan of the National Irrigators Council and former New South Wales ALP agriculture minister: This is outrageous politics and the environment and rural communities are the victims. This was their plan. This was their review. They had 14 months in which to say they had a problem with the plan, but not once did we get a whimper from the ALP. They have put this plan at risk, because I can't implement this plan without the help of the states, and the states even this morning have come out, with Niall Blair, the New South Wales water minister saying on ABC News Breakfast: 'We can't continue on with a plan that has been absolutely thrown on the scrap heap because of political interest.' Then there's Lisa Neville, Victoria's ALP Minister for Water: We said if these motions get disallowed the plan is over. It's not walking away, the plan is over. Make no mistake, these are real Australians' lives that we are playing with. They are hurting from this. We are playing with our fellow Australians and they expect more from us. They expect us to lead and to take this nation with us. I only have to look at Twitter this morning and see Sam O'Toole, a St George business owner, say: I felt when I woke up this morning like I was going in front of the firing squad & they’ve just fired at the St George & Dirranbandi communities. The Labor Party is nothing more than a cold, callous political machine and the lives of those two million Australians stand at the feet of the Australian Labor Party. Deputy Prime Minister 55 14:52 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, and I refer to his previous answers. In his statement to the House today the Deputy Prime Minister said: … basically, 'Mates don't pay for things when they're helping other mates out … As a cabinet minister, the Deputy Prime Minister is in the privileged position of administering government agencies. How many times has the Deputy Prime Minister used taxpayers' money to help his mate out? Mr Pyne interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, that question's in order. No, the Deputy Prime Minister can— Mr Watts 193430 It is outrageous! The SPEAKER 00APG And the member for Gellibrand can leave under the 94(a). The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. 14:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I thank the honourable member for Grayndler for his question. Obviously, the idea that at this point of time I could determine (a) who my mates are, (b) what payments have been made and (c) be able to deliver it now is absolutely and patently absurd. South Australian: Health Care 56 14:53 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on the Turnbull government's record investment in South Australia's hospitals? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches that will weaken the South Australian healthcare system? 14:53 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Boothby, who has been a great champion, not only for South Australia's hospitals but also for women's health in South Australia and around the country. She has led the push for a national plan, the first national plan, on endometriosis—along with the member for Forrest and, to give credit, the member for Canberra on the other side—and has also argued for stronger Commonwealth funding compared with what has occurred with state funding in South Australia for their hospitals. As a consequence, we have out-increased South Australia by four to one during our time in government, compared with what they have spent. We have increased Commonwealth funding to South Australia by 26 per cent as opposed to an increase of six per cent in South Australia's funding under SA Labor to South Australia's own hospitals. That is the sign of a government which is a hospital fraud and a 'medifraud'. What we have seen there in particular is that in the last full financial year they decreased hospital funding by $7 million. As a consequence of this and their electricity policies, there are real threats to South Australia's hospitals. We've seen that Flinders Medical Centre suffered a blackout. We've seen that the Royal Adelaide Hospital couldn't keep the lights on. We've seen that, in hospitals in Mount Gambier and elsewhere within regional South Australia, the lights were off, and that the Royal Adelaide Hospital was not only $640 million over budget but was 17 months late. What we've now seen, though, is that the patient care and patient treatment which is occurring includes some catastrophic failures. Only yesterday, the Adelaide Advertiser reported: 'SA Health apologises for making man wait at Royal Adelaide Hospital five days for emergency cheekbone surgery'. Indeed, the gentleman in question had to wait for emergency facial surgery, after an increase in demand, for five days. He was told he would be rushed in for surgery on Thursday but did not go under the knife until Tuesday evening. As a consequence, the gentleman told the Advertiser that he had lodged a complaint on Monday, and, three hours after he told the hospital that he had discussed his case with the Advertiser, finally they treated him. So they didn't respond to his pain; they didn't respond to the fact that he'd been forced to fast not for one or two or three or four days but for five days; they only responded to the fact that it was now about to make the media. So what we see is a South Australian government and Labor Party which are absolutely emblematic of that side's approach to health. They don't care about patients. They don't deliver for patients. They don't care about the outcomes. All they care about is the media. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 56 14:56 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Deputy Prime Minister stood beside the Prime Minister in Toowoomba and boasted about how cheap it was to live in Armidale, had the Deputy Prime Minister advised the Prime Minister, in accordance with the ministerial standards, that he was living in a rent-free home, or was the Prime Minister completely unaware of this? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I don't know—I don't recall the Deputy Prime Minister advising me of that. However, he did, of course, provide advice in the normal way, and early in—when was it? February? I'm just checking. It was quite recently. I just want to be clear. He filed a member's interest statement. One of the obligations is to do that, under the ministerial standards. He's done that. And he disclosed that he had free accommodation in Armidale. An opposition member interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 I think you'll find he did. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Well, I don't— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr TURNBULL 885 I hesitate to get into a debate here. Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 No. He has— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. The member for Greenway. Mr TURNBULL 885 Look: in clause 11 of his statement, he states, 'Post— Mr Joyce E5D 12 February. Mr TURNBULL 885 12 February, is it? Right. 'Post-election residual of six-month tenancy of Armidale premises.' Prior to that, I was not aware that he had rent-free accommodation in Armidale. Cybersecurity 57 14:58 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity. Will the minister update the House on the progress the coalition government has made in strengthening our nation's cybersecurity? How does this compare to other approaches that could be in our government at a different time? 14:59 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Thank you to the honourable member, who has been a relentless advocate for protecting Australians online in whatever they might do. She knows, as we do on this side of the House, that no government has done more than this one to protect Australians online. We know that with rapidly evolving technology Australians are facing risks in their homes, on their phones, in their schoolyards, in their workplaces, in businesses small and large and from an ever-increasing range of threats: threats from government, threats from criminal networks, threats from activists and threats from cyberbullies. Just in the last few months we've seen extraordinary attacks on small businesses and large in this country through ransomware, where code is dropped onto the systems of businesses. They are shut down until they hand over money to criminals. That's why, in anticipation of this and in response to it, in April 2016 the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services announced the government's Cyber Security Strategy. Never has there been such a coordinated, coherent response to this issue. It included $36 million to our law enforcement and criminal intelligence agencies to attack cybercrime—to make sure cybercriminals are held to account and that they can't live in a fog of excuses. It makes sure that we are forming global networks to solve global problems with global solutions against local attacks. And, of course, it has a strong focus on forming partnerships across the private and public sectors to ensure we can detect, deter and respond to these attacks. There are risks to this strategy. The biggest risk, as in so many other areas, is a government that can't make ends meet. If we want evidence of this we need look back no further than May 2012, that fateful night when the member for Lilley announced the four surpluses that were never to be delivered. Hidden in that budget was a cut of $1.2 billion to critical IT projects, including projects that were protecting Australians against cyberthreats. As a government that makes ends meet, the coalition can be trusted to deliver a strong and coordinated cybersecurity strategy for this nation. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Deputy Prime Minister 57 15:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I would just add to that answer about the Deputy Prime Minister's statement. It appears from the Register of Members' Interests that his disclosure, which included the reference to the premises in Armidale, was received on 15 January 2018. It appears to have been signed by the Deputy Prime Minister on 3 January but, for reasons perhaps which the Clerk could advise, it wasn't posted on the website until 12 February. So that has dealt with that comprehensively, I hope. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Prime Minister 57 15:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. All this week the Prime Minister has expressed confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister. Given it's been confirmed this week that the Deputy Prime Minister personally oversaw the reallocation of staff where he had a conflict of interest, breached the ministerial standards by asking for rent-free accommodation, repeatedly misled the House and allowed agencies to use taxpayers' money to pay his close business mate, when will the Prime Minister do as is required under his own ministerial standards and sack the Deputy Prime Minister? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on indulgence. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, there are two assertions made in that question which are clearly factually untrue, and they should not be allowed to stand as a question. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce will leave the chamber under 94(a). The member for Bruce then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG Could the Leader of the House rewind a bit? I didn't hear it, thanks to the bellowing of the member for Bruce. Mr Pyne 9V5 Fair enough, Mr Speaker. There is a great deal of licence given to questions, but questions also have to contain some truthfulness. There are two assertions made in that question which have already been dealt with and are clearly untrue. The first of them is that the Deputy Prime Minister asked for free accommodation. He's made it perfectly clear that that was not the case. The second one is that he intervened to provide funds for a business person, for a grant which he would never have been asked to meet as a decision-maker. I don't believe that question should be allowed to stand. The opposition should be allowed to rephrase it if necessary, but as a question it breaches section 100 of the standing orders. The SPEAKER 00APG I have listened to the Leader of the House and heard his point. I wanted to hear it carefully, which is why I asked him to repeat part of it when I had to deal with an interjecting member. His point about whether something's factually accurate or not is not a requirement of the standing orders. You may well argue it is something to be considered, but it would be something impossible to judge in question time. My approach on that is allowing the capacity for an answer, if a question does have factual inaccuracies in it, to deal with and expose them for the House to consider. The concern I have is with imputations of improper motives. That question did go close, but they were assertions and it was to the Prime Minister. The previous question from the member for Grayndler I almost ruled out of order. Actually, on reflection, the last part probably should have been for the same reason as with the member for Isaacs, which is that it is highly disorderly to impute an improper motive for the reason why a minister might be acting in the way they have or their department's acted in the way it has. I have listened very carefully to that. I sympathise with the position of the Leader of the House, but I am going to allow the question because I'm just not in a position to judge factual accuracy in question time. Assertions can be made. As far as the Leader of the House is concerned, they might be ridiculous assertions. They might be factually incorrect assertions. But for me to just rule them out actually prevents those being answered, so I'm going to call the Prime Minister. 15:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Honourable members have heard the comments of the Leader of the House. In terms of the ministerial standards, I have received absolutely unequivocal assurances from the Deputy Prime Minister that he has fully complied with all parliamentary disclosure requirements and with the Statement of Ministerial Standards. He has given me unequivocal assurances that he has been scrupulous in ensuring the legitimacy and accuracy of any claim for entitlement to ministerial, parliamentary or travel allowance. If the honourable members opposite wish to assert that he has breached a clause in the ministerial standards then they should identify the clause. We will now deal with the matter relating to Mr Maguire. The ministerial standards say at 2.21: Ministers, in their official capacity, may therefore accept customary official gifts, hospitality, tokens of appreciation, and similar formal gestures in accordance with the relevant guidelines, but must not seek or encourage any form of gift in their personal capacity. The Deputy Prime Minister has given his response to that. He's made it clear. His account is that he did not encourage or solicit the gift. Unless honourable members opposite are able to present a case that his statements are false then he has not breached that particular ministerial standard which I just quoted from. Employment 58 15:08 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Will the minister update the House on action the coalition government is taking to ensure that Australians have the best opportunity of getting a job and maintaining it? Is the minister aware of any alternatives that fail to support this approach? 15:08 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and for his tireless advocacy for the people of Dandenong, Berwick, Beaconsfield, Narre Warren and other suburbs which he looks after. The key priority of the Turnbull government is to ensure that all Australians have the best opportunity to get a job. The first step towards that is to grow the economy so that there are as many jobs as possible for Australians to acquire. We've got a great track record on that front, as we've heard just today. The second step is to ensure that Australians have the opportunity of taking those jobs and only taking in overseas workers when absolutely necessary. Consequently, we've reformed the 457 visa program to achieve that end. The result of all of that work is actually quite impressive. We've heard today about the record jobs growth—400,000 jobs last year and 16 consecutive months of jobs growth. But, alongside that, we know that Australians have been stepping up and taking those jobs, and we know that because under this government the welfare queues are now at their lowest levels—as a proportion of working-age population—in 25 years. So Australians are stepping up and taking the jobs that are available. The third part of that is we've had fewer people from overseas needed to come into the country on 457s to fill those job shortages. I'm asked about the alternatives in relation to job creation and Australians stepping up and taking those jobs. We know that the alternative is stark, because, under the former Labor government, when the Leader of the Opposition was workplace relations minister, he was actually the gold medallist in issuing 457 visas to people from overseas to come and take these jobs. It would be one thing to be the gold medallist in issuing 457 visas if the labour market was very, very tight and there was almost nobody in the welfare queues. But, when you actually look at the data, the welfare queues grew by an incredible 250,000 people on his watch. That is the equivalent of people lining up from here to Goulburn. That's the additional number of people added to the welfare queue. And, at the same time that that welfare queue was going from here to Goulburn, he was bringing in 130,000 people on 457s. Mr Porter 208884 That doesn't make sense. Mr TUDGE M2Y That does not make sense, as the Attorney-General just pointed out. The question is: why does the Leader of the Opposition hate Australian workers so much? We know when he was a union leader he cut their salaries. He cut their salaries when he was a union leader. And, when he was workplace relations minister, he brought in overseas workers to take Australian jobs. (Time expired) Deputy Prime Minister 59 15:12 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today the Prime Minister has issued a stunning vote of no confidence in the ability of the Deputy Prime Minister to be the Acting Prime Minister. Therefore, will the Deputy Prime Minister go on leave every time the Prime Minister is overseas in the future? Doesn't the Deputy Prime Minister taking leave next week concede he can't do his job, either as Acting Prime Minister or, indeed, as Deputy Prime Minister of Australia? 15:12 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth It does not. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Presentation 59 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 59 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Aged Care 59 15:13 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Franklin proposing a matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government's failure to address the crisis in home care for older Australians. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:13 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin In homes right across Australia, there is a crisis. There is crisis of older Australians who are waiting for this government to provide the care that they so desperately need. Over 100,000 Australians, older Australians, many of them frail, many of them with dementia, are at home waiting for the care that they need. What we have heard from the government's own figures that were released late last year is that over 100,000 older Australians are on a waiting list for home care packages. Now, some of those people may be getting interim services at a lower level, but some of them are receiving no services at all. And, indeed, 78,000 of the over 100,000 are waiting for high-care packages—that is, older people who need a lot of support to stay at home and who want to make a decision to stay at home for their care are not able to receive the care that they need. The figures for the September quarter were released, ironically, just after the parliament finished sitting in December. What's really concerning is that we haven't yet seen the figures for the December quarter, which should be released in the next week or so. It's concerning because, in the last three months of data release, the waitlist grew by 10,000. The government did try and do something about it—I'll give the minister a little bit of credit here because he did try and find 6,000 extra packages—but, if the list is growing at 10,000 every quarter and the government releases just an additional 6,000 home care packages, it's clearly not going to be enough for these people who are waiting. We're really concerned, as are the people that are caring for these older Australians in their homes, that this will continue to increase and the waitlist will continue to grow. To allow members in this place to get a bit of an understanding of how serious this situation is, I want to talk about some of the people that have written to me in the last few days. One of the people on the waiting list for a home care package is 89. She's very frail. She lives alone. She's been approved for a level 4 package, but she's yet to receive any service at all. She was approved for a home care package back in October 2016. She is still at home. She has no intention of leaving her home, because she has made a choice to age in her home, in her community, but she is unable to do that long term without that package. Her family members are the ones who are coming in and providing that care. This is obviously having an impact on the wider community, because you've got all these families who are taking time off work, time out of the workforce or time away from their own children or grandchildren to go and care for elderly parents. Here's another example. Somebody wrote to me and said: 'My father has Alzheimer's. My mother is slowly dying of motor neurone disease. They are both in their 80s. They've been assessed as eligible for a level 4 package. They've now been waiting over a year for services.' Again, it is the family and friends who are waiting for care. There are so many examples of people writing to me, but one that really raised the issue with me was one who wrote to me about their elderly parents, who are 94 and 95. They've each been approved for home care packages and they've been told they need to wait more than a year. Their 70-year-old children spend most of the week caring for them. One of those children, an in-law, also has illnesses but is going there every day, administering daily care and general medication, because they need somebody to look after them and there is nobody else. I know the minister over there cares deeply about this and wants to do something about it, but it's not about this minister; it's about the government. The Prime Minister needs to understand how desperate this is. There are families waiting for these packages, and the government needs to do something about it. It's simply not good enough. When the minister was asked, in the ABC article, about home care packages and the change to having national waitlist, he said: We had no line of sight of the number of people who had been listed and were waiting for places … That means the government did no modelling on the unmet need and had no idea how many people were out there waiting for a home care package. That is just incomprehensible. I'm sure that cannot be the case. The minister then went on to say: But the reality is we have a budgetary process, and that fiscal constraint has to be considered. Of course it does. But caring for these people in their own homes is cheaper and easier, and the outcomes for people are better, than the alternative. The alternative is ending up in an accident and emergency room or going into residential care, both of which are more expensive than a home care package. It just does not make any sense. We've also got advocacy groups and peak bodies saying that the government needs to address this urgently. Indeed, we had the head of COTA, Ian Yates, say in September last year, 'It's absolutely clear the government will have to bite the bullet and put extra resources into home care.' Clearly something needs to be done. This cannot go on. It cannot go on all the way through to the budget. The government has said, 'We're going to respond to various reviews and reports into aged care in May, in the budget.' But people on this waitlist cannot wait that long. As I have said, some of them have been waiting far, far too long already. The minister himself has admitted that there were people on that list that have waited for more than two years. I am terrified of what the next lot of data is going to say in terms of how many people have been added to that waitlist and how many people have been waiting for more than 12 months. Exactly when and how is the government going to respond to this? People need to know, and they need to know today, Minister. They do not need for you to stand up in here, look at your notes and blame Labor. I'm sure that that's what's going to happen. But it actually doesn't matter whose fault it is at the moment, because these people are in their homes and they need the services, and they need them now. You're in government. You need to respond to this. Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms were bipartisan. They were adopted in 2013. We were halfway through 10 years of reform, and you have been in government for five years of that reform. You need to take responsibility for this. And people need those services. It is simply not good enough to say, 'We're going to wait.' You had an opportunity in MYEFO to do something about it. There were plenty of opportunities along the way. There have been reports, as I said, with recommendations for the government to respond to. You should have responded to these. This is getting urgent. Every day my office and my colleagues' offices, as they are all telling me, are being contacted about people who need a package. They need a package for themselves but also for their family members, who are getting stressed, who are taking time off work, who are taking time away from their other family members to deal with this situation, because they care about their family. It is not good enough to continue to say they must wait. They cannot wait, they should not wait and it is not good enough that this government continues to make them wait. It is not good enough at all. In relation to these reports, the government has said that it's going to listen and it's going to respond. David Tune made some very serious recommendations about in-home care. One of them was that we need a level 5 package, so it will be interesting to see whether the government does anything about a level 5 package. As I said, we already have 100,000 people on the waitlist. We have people who are very frail, and with high-care needs, and having a level 5 package may go some way to addressing keeping those people in their homes longer. This government needs to be very clear with people about how long they are going to need to wait, not simply say, 'You're going to have to wait till May for more packages.' Then there will still be people on the waitlist, which continues to grow. Some of the people on the waitlist are just being told, 'about 12 months'. They are getting no indication—is that 10 months, 15 months, 18 months, two years? Exactly when are they going to get their packages? Families need to plan. They need to know what services they are going to be able to get. They need to understand the systems better. They need to know what the options are. They need to be able to manage their lives and the lives of their loved ones. We cannot continue like this. People are lurching from crisis to crisis. They are not able to cope with dealing with all of this without the support that they are entitled to, without the support that they need, without those government services, without that home care package. Many of these people have saved all their lives, they have contributed to our economy, they have paid their taxes, and all they're asking for is some services to stay at home, in their own home, rather than go into a residential facility or go and live with another family member. They want to remain in their communities with their family, with their friends, with their neighbours, with their loved ones, and they should be able to do it. The government needs to do much, much better. 15:24 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her interest in this area. The current challenges we face in home care are yet another landmine left for Australians by the disastrous years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor governments. Under Labor, it was not possible for governments to ascertain the real demand for home care packages. The information was only available at aged-care provider level. I am aware of many families who, in the past, would put their names down with up to 15 providers, depending on where they lived. Then they would wait for a phone call, and they would ring providers frequently to ask if a vacancy had occurred. When I made the comment that there was no line of sight—I want to come back to the historical element of Living Longer Living Better. If you don't collect the data, you don't know the extent of the number of people waiting for placements and packages. When I made a national list, one of the challenges I faced was initially thinking it was 10,000. As we worked through the process of ACAT assessments—the allocation of packages—it became a reality that the list was going to grow. To address that problem, I gained approval to allocate an additional 6,000 home care packages in MYEFO to help alleviate that list. This is interesting. If I follow the logic of what the member for Franklin said—in the forward to 2011–12 Report on the Operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, the former Minister for Aged Care, the honourable Mark Butler, the member for Port Adelaide, said: The Government continues to emphasise the importance of providing consumers with the flexibility to choose the care they want. This year— in 2013— an additional 500 Consumer Directed Care (CDC) packages were allocated to Approved Providers. From 1 July 2012, these packages were converted to mainstream home care packages with conditions of allocation to ensure that care recipients continue to receive care and services… … … … This provided 187,941 residential care places, 60,949 community care places… When you look at the table of allocated packages—in 2008, it was 39,000. Labor then increased it in 2009, which took the total to 42,694, and then, in 2012, it was 46,588. During his speech, the minister made the comment that he would be allocating additional places. I want to go back to a couple of things. The Living Longer Living Better aged-care reform packages that the Prime Minister and I announced in April last year provides a 10-year plan for building new aged-care system—a system for the 21st century. But the work that was required to be done to identify the cohorts coming through by age didn't appear, and the underscoring of the number of places resulted in a lesser level being allocated by that government. It's fine to have choice, but one of the challenges is that governments have to look at the forward projections when they implement reforms, and in this instance that didn't happen. In February 2017, the Turnbull government introduced the landmark increasing choice reforms. The new system means that packages are released directly to consumers rather than providers. Consumers who have the most urgent needs or who have been waiting the longest receive their packages first. The new system allows us to better understand the extent of demand for home care packages nationally for the first time. Older Australians are now allocated a position on the national queue depending on their needs, and packages will be periodically released to customers based on ratios set by Labor in the Living Longer Living Better reforms. However, with the reforms introduced by this government, the system is transparent, and it has exposed the enormous inadequacy of the ratios set by Labor. When introducing the reforms the member for Port Adelaide indicated: …the total allocation of home care places rising from around 60,000 to almost 100,000 over the next five years. During the time of the Turnbull government, we've increased the number of aged-cared places from 83,800 to 97,516. That's an increase of 37,516 aged-care places. We are responding to the needs of Australians, and we will consider all the categories where I am informed, by members, of those requiring urgent support. What we do is bring together the resources under the various packages and provide them with assistance through the Commonwealth Home Support Program. I've always said that we need to ensure that people who are offered a level 2 package take that package and use it as the basis for the treatment they require that is also supported by the Commonwealth Home Support Program and other measures that are important. We are working on the issues that have been identified within the work that we are doing. The Tune legislation review and the Carnell-Paterson report go to the crux of building on the reforms that were set in place, but drilling down into the data is also required. In looking at these figures, I asked the department to do an analysis of the ACAT assessing patterns, because there were jurisdictions where the waiting period for an ACAT assessment was way beyond the 17 days that you would expect, as the national average. In Queensland, it was nine months. We have now written to every health minister, and those matters have been addressed. The only state where we are still lagging with respect to the ACAT assessments is the state of Victoria. The data does show there is a higher demand for level 3 and level 4 packages, and the government recognises that more needs to be done to support older Australians with high-care needs to continue living at home, and that's why we released the additional 6,000 packages. But that's not all we're doing. In the 2017 budget the Turnbull government provided a record $18.6 billion for aged-care investment for 2017-18. The first part is a commitment that is planned for the next five years. In addition to this, in the 2017 budget, the Turnbull government provided an investment of $5.5 billion to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program for a further two years until June 2020. This is also a mechanism that provides support to those who are waiting. It provides a sense of being assisted. I am aware that there are people who are waiting, and we work very closely with those who raise the issues—with families and with the department—in looking for solutions while people wait to receive their level 4 package. The best ally that older Australians have in this place is the government. The bipartisan commitment to ageing Australians remains the foundation of the way in which we in this place provide the opportunities to older Australians. But, equally, I am seeking the opportunity to increase further levels of care to senior Australians living at home. I certainly do acknowledge that we have a future in which we will see numbers increase, but we are working to make sure that we address those in the way that Living Longer Living Better intended. The work that we will continue to do will identify the extent of people waiting, the number who receive the packages and those who need additional support whilst packages become available. We release 2,500 packages every week as part of the process of providing better access to ageing Australians to ensure that they can live at home longer, enjoy quality of life and have the other supports from family. Certainly, carers are a strong consideration in the work that my department and I do under the Turnbull government to provide better outcomes for senior Australians. 15:33 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks Thank you for the opportunity to address this matter of public importance today. One of the best written TV programs of all times is The Simpsons, and one of the recurring motifs of The Simpsons is Bart turning up somewhere and being depicted as saying: 'It wasn't me. I didn't break it. It was broken when I got here.' We've heard 10 minutes from the minister saying: 'It was Labor. It was broken before I got here.' But the minister has been part of a government that's been in power since 2013 and bears responsibility for what the current situation is with aged-care packages. It is not good enough that the minister says that Labor failed to do anything before 2013. There has been sufficient time to add resources into this sector, and clearly the evidence shows that those resources should have been put in before now. The release of the latest data on the Turnbull government's Home Care Packages has revealed that there are more than 100,000 older Australians who are languishing in limbo waiting for care. It's not good enough, Minister, that you say that's the responsibility of Labor over five years ago. These figures include around 80,000 older Australians waiting with high needs, many with dementia. This is a crisis. It is unacceptable. It is absolutely unacceptable for you to play the role of Bart Simpson and say, 'It was broken before I got here.' The Turnbull government's own website states that most of these vulnerable older Australians will be waiting more than a year for a package. This has flow-on effects that go beyond the immediate concern of older Australians waiting for care. Families are placed under pressure, trying to ensure their loved ones have acceptable care, while simultaneously attempting to navigate a complicated system. Older Australians who would otherwise have access to a home-care package are, instead, forced to visit emergency rooms, which has a real impact on health departments and budgets at a state level. Minister, I've seen this in operation. I've seen what happens when constituents approach your office about the fact that they've been assessed for a level 4 package, but, after a wait of over a year, they get an offer of a level 2 package. Minister, a constituent of mine from Bridport, Diana, has written to your office about the particular issues that she has experienced. She wrote to you indicating that, late in 2016, she was assessed for a level 4 package. After a year, she was approved for a level 2 package. She contacted My Aged Care and established there is a further wait for a level 3 package of six to nine months and for a level 4 package it is over 12 months. She has a chronic situation with advanced arthritis caused by a rheumatic condition, which means that she has had multiple operations. She requires substantial assistance, which is evidenced by the fact that she's been assessed for a level 4 package. Minister, it's not good enough to condemn Diana, and many others like her, to substantial waits when she should be given assistance. It is necessary for people with many co-morbidities to be given practical assistance in their own homes before they are admitted to the emergency department of a hospital because they require substantial care. The Australian public deserves much better than this, Minister. It deserves a minister who gives attention to argue the case within cabinet for additional resources to be allocated. It's not enough, Minister, for you to recognise belatedly that there is substantial demand for additional aged-care packages and then drip-feed further packages into the market. Returning to the situation with Diana, she lives in a country town which is approximately 100 kilometres away from Launceston, in northern Tasmania. She found it necessary to approach over 20 providers to try to organise her own care package, which is already acknowledged to be less than what she needs for her ongoing care and assistance. I cannot begin to describe the substantial levels of stress and anxiety that have been caused by the indifference of this government about the level of these packages and the fact that people like Diana can't receive the appropriate assistance that they deserve and need. Minister, please listen to this. 15:38 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne The other side always claim the moral high ground, and it's a classic case here. They are trying to claim the moral high ground regarding home-care support packages and aged care, and that is so far from the truth. As the member for Hasluck, Minister Wyatt, already outlined, we are delivering in spades. We inherited a mess. The My Aged Care portal has had to have another $20 million poured into it to correct its workings and make it function better. There have been reviews and there's been extra capacity added. We are now up to $5½ billion being spent on the home-care support package system out to 2020. That's a massive increase. The whole aged-care budget is $18.6 billion over that same period, and $5½ billion of it is going into the home care support packages. We in the coalition know what our senior citizens have done in their life. The seats in parliament with the most elderly people are in fact Nationals seats. Today I looked up the figures from the department, and I claim the crown for the most senior citizens receiving support from the federal Commonwealth. In the Mid North Coast we have 122 aged-care providers, 4,264 people in residential care, 1,630 in home care and another 80 in transition. And as the minister and member for Hasluck outlined, we have added extra places in the last three years, 6,000 in the last two years and an extra 6½ thousand. We have supported putting extra money into multipurpose centres, which in rural Australia deliver aged-care services—$8½ million in January 2017 and another $3 million released by the good minister just in December 2015. In my electorate, for instance, we're pouring money into expanding aged-care services. We have a $40 million project happening in Forster. We have Bundaleer, with a $30 million aged-care project, with $8½ million additional funding from the Commonwealth. In Gloucester there is an $18½ million project expanding aged care. We know that the seniors in Australia built the nation, and the veterans fought for our nation, and they deserve all the support they can get. The review and the reforms to the system mean that the Commonwealth now has visibility on what these waiting lists are. There are 2½ thousand packages that go out every week, and on top of that we've added these extra bundles of 6,000, as my colleague and member for Hasluck has already said in his speech. So, that's greater capacity. There's a greater weighting towards package levels 3 and 4 rather than levels 1 and 2, And they are now in control of it, because they can get the providers they want rather than having the money go to the providers and back. It gives greater choice and greater control, and that is a very good principle. What the good member for Hasluck has done has been excellent in this space, and I commend him for it. As I said earlier, we understand the pressures of aged care, because up on the north coast we have a lot of retirees who have built the nation, and in their retirement and twilight years they come up to the north coast, and we are delivering for them in spades. It's a massive increase in care. The same goes for Commonwealth home support packages. It is so much better to keep elderly people in their homes for as long as possible, rather than having them go straight into aged residential care. The average length of stay in residential care has shrunk considerably, because people are staying independent, with assistance in their own home. And we're not talking about it; we are delivering in spades with extra places, a better system, and more choice and control so that our seniors get the care that they want, they get control, and they get the funds directed to them. All of this means a better outcome. Anyone would think the other side— (Time expired) 15:43 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I find it quite outrageous, the way this government treats our older Australians. I'll give you an example. Just this week the Minister for Social Services, Minister Tehan, stood up here in question time, when he was asked about deeming rates for part-pensioners, and what did he say? He said that they should get a job. Well, I just heard the member for Lyne, who spoke here prior to me, talking about them building our nation and fighting for our nation. I don't think we should be asking them to 'get a job' after building our nation. But of course it wasn't just Minister Tehan. Last year we had the government tampering with the pension asset test, which saw a number of pensioners in my electorate lose their concession cards. Thankfully, they got them reinstated, but why did they have to lose them in the first place? How cruel can you be to somebody who built the nation, who fought for the nation? But what I find truly unforgivable is how this government is mishandling the home care system, which has left more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for care. The government itself concedes that 80,000 of these are people with very high needs, including dementia. People with high needs should be considered a priority by this government, yet vulnerable seniors are still waiting one year, 14 months, 16 months or 18 months for a package. The government knows that this is an urgent situation. But, instead of prioritising it, this government has spent all of its energy giving tax cuts to big businesses and just fighting amongst themselves. This government must make this a priority. This is a crisis that needs to be addressed. This isn't something that can wait until Labor is elected. It needs to be addressed now. Older Australians and their families being forced to wait months and months and sometimes over a year is just unacceptable—and there are many, many stories about how unacceptable this is. Nearly 20,000 Queenslanders are waiting for their package. Let me share the stories of two people in my electorate. The first person I want to speak about is in her 80s—built this country, and she is now in her 80s. Her husband contacted me. He claims that his wife's been assessed by ACAT at level 3, but she's currently on level 2. Mr Harrison, who contacted me, said that there are no level 3 packages, so they've accepted a level 2. Last year, his wife fell down the stairs and broke her arm. She spent six weeks in hospital and was in an ICU for some of that time. They now need some renovations to their bathroom to help her live at home. Her husband contacted me and said, 'We cannot wait for another accident to happen while we wait for this package.' This is one of those horror stories—taking a lower-level package while they wait for their higher-level package. It is unacceptable. Then I've got the story of a 76-year-old constituent, another elderly Australian who has worked hard to build this nation. In May this year this constituent of mine was approved for a level 4 home care package. This constituent suffers from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and cancer, and is in very desperate need of some medical equipment, including an oxygen concentrator and a nebuliser. These are the types of equipment that this constituent needs. The constituent tells me that, if they had to buy it themselves, the cost of the equipment would be way out of their reach—absolutely out of their reach. But it doesn't get any better, because they are still waiting, more than 12 months on, and they have been told that it could be another 12 months before they can get their package. But the system doesn't get any better once you get your package. I am helping a constituent with an issue they have working through the online portal. They've got a package but they need to make some changes. There are two issues that forced this to be quite difficult. One is where they live. They live in a black spot area and their mobile phone doesn't work, so it's really difficult to ring and get some help. But guess what? They can't get onto the portal anyway because they don't have the NBN. It's a bit difficult. So, Minister, I say to you now: we need to fix these aged-care packages and fix them immediately. 15:49 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I rise to talk about this issue with great joy because there's been an unparalleled investment in my community not just within home care places but also within the wider aged-care area. I'll start with home care packages. In the last four years, home care packages have gone up by over 30 per cent in my community. So there are 30 per cent more home care packages in my community now than there were when we came to government in 2013, which is a huge investment in that sector. As the minister was saying earlier, we certainly understand that people do want to stay home for longer, and having more of these packages, and more wrapped around these packages, means that the flexibility, with people being able to stay at home longer, is there. That's why, in my community, we have increased the number of packages available in this area by 30 per cent. But there's more in the wider sector. Within the residential care sector and others in my community, there's been an enormous boon, not only in the availability of home care and residential care packages, which include dementia packages, but in jobs. I will run through a few of them. In the Clarence Valley there have been three major upgrades of aged-care places, both residential and home care. The Whiddon Group opened their upgraded facility in Grafton just a few months ago, and I had the pleasure of being there to open that. We've got a new aged-care provider coming into our region in the Clarence Valley, called Signature Care, and they themselves, with both residential and home care packages, are going to make an investment of tens of millions of dollar in that community. The Dougherty aged care facility is upgrading and is also going to be offering more aged-care places. The combination of residential and home care packages will not only provide hundreds of extra places; there will also be hundreds of extra jobs. There have also been more home care places provided in Kyogle. With the wider residential facility, we are not only providing some funding for places in aged care in Kyogle; we're actually helping one particular provider build the physical building itself. We understand that people don't only want extra home care packages. Obviously when you have a community that is widespread—it's not all in one centre—people also want residential aged-care packages in their own community, and we are making sure that we provide extra places in a variety of different communities. We also offered more home care packages in Casino as well. There are also some expansions of residential aged-care facilities happening there. I'll just go through some of the bigger figures as well. I know the minister mentioned some of them, but I think some of them are important to reiterate. We announced 6,000 additional level 3 and level 4 home care packages over 2017 and 2018. As I said, I certainly got a high proportion of those. In the 2017 budget we provided an investment of $5.5 billion to extend the Commonwealth Home Support Program. Again, this is a massive investment. It funds a range of essential services—Meals on Wheels, community transport, personal care, nursing and allied health, domestic assistance, home maintenance and modifications and a range of respite services. Again, I am exceptionally happy about these figures of what I've got for my community, in both home care and residential care. These figures, country wide, show the massive investment that we are making in this obviously growing sector. Obviously we're doing this because it's a statistical fact that we, as a community, are getting older and people are living longer, so the resources that we have to put into it will always increase. In a wider sense, we have a record $18.6 billion of aged-care investment in 2017-18, the year we're currently in, which is the first part of a nearly $100 billion planned for the next five years. We are a government committed to aged-care providers. 15:54 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Here we go again! I'm addressing an issue that I'd rather not have to address. I'd rather be talking about something else. This is extremely serious. We have some of the most vulnerable people in our community—people who have worked all their lives, people who have paid their taxes, people who have contributed to this nation—who now need a little bit of help. It's not much to ask when you've done everything you could possibly do, the right way, to build this nation. They've come to a point in life where they need that little bit of assistance, and we cannot give it to them. We cannot give them what they require after all these years of paying taxes and working. Today we're talking about, again, and highlighting the government's failure to address home care for older Australians. We know that there are approximately 80,000 to 90,000 packages available in this nation, but there is a massive waiting list which is blowing out by 10,000 every single quarter. On the last figures released it could blow out by another 40,000 and, within a very short time, we'll have more people on the waiting list than packages available. And this is just not right. I'm very proud to represent a seat that has a very aged population. At one stage, the demographics of those in my electorate showed that nearly 20 per cent were aged 65 and over. These are good people—people, as I said, who have contributed to this nation; people who have worked all their lives and have brought up children. These people are our mothers, our fathers, our grandfathers and grandmothers, our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, our uncles and our aunts, and they deserve better than they're currently getting from this government. In South Australia, for example, the latest figures showed that over 11,000 people were waiting for packages; they were at home fending for themselves, or having partners, husbands or wives, or children, or nephews and nieces looking after them—carers who may themselves be aged and frail. So what we are doing is putting not only the people who require the packages but also those people who are caring for them at risk. You see that people have had to give up work to stay home to care for their loved ones. We heard the minister say that there are financial constraints to keep people at home. Well, let's just look at that for a moment. If you spend some money to keep someone at home, it's far cheaper in the long run and costs the government far less than if they end up being hospitalised or end up very frail and very disabled, and we know that the best place for these people is at home—and the majority of people want to stay at home, with proper care. Some people in my electorate have been given packages, but I've heard some absolute horror stories. For example, one of my Hindmarsh constituents—and we spoke with them earlier and they were happy for us to use their name—is Mr Middleton of Seaton. Seaton is a working-class area, an area where people work very hard all of their lives to make ends meet. Mr Middleton is in his 90s. He contacted us after trying to access a package for his wife. She was placed on a level 4, after an assessment, back in 2014. In 2014, you have to remember, the then Prime Minister was the member for Warringah, about a year after the government had won the election. Fast forward to January 2017: Mrs Middleton passed away without that package. That is a disgrace. It is not acceptable and shouldn't be happening in our nation. Mr Middleton and Mrs Middleton worked very hard all their lives, and they deserved better. So how much assistance did they get? Zilch, from the government; zero; absolutely nothing. There are many more—like Ernesta and her husband, Ross. The daughter contacted us, saying that the mother has been waiting 18 months. They had contacted My Aged Care on 43 different occasions—43 different occasions—and spent hours on the phone with no further assistance. They'd been provided with eight different ACAT reference numbers. The husband has been waiting since August 2015 and only recently started receiving level 3, when they were assessed for level 4. Antonietta is another one; she was assessed over 12 months ago and cannot find a provider for level 4 assistance. Unfortunately, in March-April, Antonietta had to go into a nursing home—costing the government quadruple what it would have cost the government to keep her at home on a level 4 package. This is unacceptable. We know that the numbers are increasing by 10,000 every quarter. Yet we see no action on the other side to fix this. On our side of government, this is a priority for us. These are people, as I said, who deserve better and should be getting much better than they currently are. 15:59 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I rise to speak on the MPI, and it's great to be able to be in the chamber to support the member for Hasluck, who's also the Minister for Aged Care, who has carriage of this particular area. I also recognise the member for Hindmarsh; we both served on the health committee for many years, and he will know that, during his time as chair of that committee, under the Labor government, issues with aged-care and home-care packages existed as well. So it is not just isolated, as per their perception, to the coalition government. The beauty of having the member for Hasluck as the Minister for Aged Care is that I know how dedicated and how thoughtful he is and how much empathy he has for people, particularly coming from the background that he's come from to this place and having the focus that he has on aged care for all Australians. His experience is greatly recognised by many people, particularly in Western Australia where he's homegrown, as are the efforts he's made during the 18 months he has been the minister. I will also go to the fact that this is a bit of a scare campaign by Labor. With the broad, sweeping statements they come up with each sitting day, they're hoping for a bit of political pointscoring. As I mentioned, the member for Franklin had the opportunity when Labor were in government to fight for the increases she now talks about. The member for Hasluck has been the minister for 18 months. We come into this chamber every day to hear questions from those on the other side. You wouldn't believe it that but, in the 18 months that the minister's been the minister, he hasn't had one question from the member for Franklin on this issue—not one question. But now she brings it up in an MPI. This is the question that's the highlight of the day, and there has been not one question in 18 months. What sort of shadow minister is that? She has not even questioned the minister for any details about his portfolio, but is quite happy to bring spurious claims in here that are designed to scare the elderly and the vulnerable in our nation. It seems like a good opportunity to remind those opposite of their failure to address the crisis in home care for older Australians that they sparked. Under Labor's Living Longer Living Better reforms, the ratios set for care packages were inadequate and severely underestimated the real demand. The introduction of the new national prioritisation queue has uncovered the extent of the problem left by the former Labor government, which this coalition government under this minister is working very hard to fix. When we were elected to government, we inherited a home care system with predetermined ratios that were inadequate and a supply of packages that were vastly insufficient for real demand. Our 2017 aged-care reforms and commitment to transparency exposed the extent of the home care mess left by Labor, and we are working to fix it. I'm proud to be part of the Turnbull government that has achieved this. Now there are more consumers than ever receiving home care packages, and we're adding more and more every week under this minister. The increasing choice in home care reforms took effect from 27 February last year, and the reforms made changes in three key areas. Funding for home care packages now follows the consumer. There is a consistent national approach to assigning home care packages to consumers through My Aged Care, which allows for a more equitable and flexible distribution of home care packages. Consumers seeking care are placed on a national prioritisation queue, with their position based on their priority for home care services and the time they have been waiting for the care regardless of where they live. Also, item 3 is a streamlined process for organisations seeking to become approved providers under the Aged Care Act 1997. I'm sure the member for Hindmarsh and the minister will also remember in Western Australia the amount of home care packages that used to get handed back under the Labor government because they were unworkable. These reforms have ensured a home care system that is consumer-centric, market based and streamlined, which means older people are in control of their package. Service providers are driven by quality and innovation, and we're actively encouraging new providers to support greater choice for consumers. This new system allows us to better understand the extent of demand for home care packages nationally. As such, we have now released two data reports since the transition to the new home care system. The data shows the number of consumers in care increased by 1.2 per cent from 70,000 in March 2017 to 71,000 in June 2017. With the short time I have left, I would encourage the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, to take advantage of asking the minister questions in question time. 16:04 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide It's no wonder that Australians find themselves disillusioned with politics and with this parliament when you listen to contributions like that. The lack of home care packages is an issue which is affecting tens of thousands of Australians and their families each and every day. They expect and demand better of this place than to come in here and hear nothing but politicking and blame shifting. Let's be really clear about this. Rather than just standing up and reading some government lines about what Labor did, why doesn't the government stand up and concede that it has been in office for five years? The people want solutions, the people want actions and the people want policies which will set this straight. They don't want people looking back to the history books and trying to find a way to make it Labor's problem. The Abbott-Turnbull government has been there for five years, and this has occurred and got worse and worse and worse under its watch. There are lots of issues that we debate in this parliament, but there are few which affect the dignity of older Australians more than this issue, and it should be treated with absolute importance. It breaks my heart, as a mother of two young children, when they ask for my help with something and I can't assist for some reason. But I'll tell you one thing that would be even more heartbreaking than not being able to deliver for your children, and that is not being able to assist your parents—who have looked after you, raised you and supported you throughout your whole life, who have made sacrifices for you and who stand there proud yet vulnerable in their older years—when they come to you for help, because, even when they are assessed as needing extra assistance, the government won't provide it. That is the situation that we're hearing from tens of our constituents, coming to each and every one of our offices, saying, 'Can you please help me?' or 'Can you please help me to help my parents?' Every one of us has heard those stories. That's why we raise this here today—not because we want to engage in politicking and buck-passing with those opposite, but because we are pleading with the government to stand up and fix this issue. The government itself knows how absolutely shameful this situation has become. That's why it snuck this data out after parliament had risen last year. It is an absolute disgrace that more than 100,000 older Australians are in limbo, waiting for the care which they need and deserve. It is, quite frankly, unacceptable. One of my constituents, Trude, came to see me to talk to me about her 93-year-old grandmother, who, I must say, has been an absolute champion of our local community. She has contributed so much over so many decades, but she now needs us—this parliament and particularly this government—to stand up and give something back. Irene, who is 93 years old, has been assessed for level 4 care, yet, despite this, she is still receiving level 2 care six months after the assessment. We know that Irene has permanent physical issues which she will need to deal with. She's very stooped and her family are really concerned about her falling over. Irene is a very proud woman, and she wants to stay in her home. She knows that she can stay in her home, but she needs assistance to be able to do that. Her family want to support her to do that but are terrified that Irene could fall and hurt herself. The difference in the level of support between a level 2 package and a level 4 package could make a huge difference for Irene and the type of support she could have to remain in her own home; or whether she would be faced with no choice but to have to move into an aged-care facility, which is not what she wants and not what she needs if she gets the right assistance. I note that the minister said there were financial considerations as to how many of these packages were available. Let's talk about that. If you want to put aside human dignity and doing the right thing by older Australians, who have worked so hard to build this nation, if you want to just look at it in terms of dollars and cents, consider this: it is smarter and cheaper for the federal budget to support people in their own homes than to pay for aged-care facilities. I urge the government to fix it. (Time expired) 16:09 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie What rot we hear from the member for Adelaide over there, when we haven't had one question from the shadow minister in 18 months. The member for Swan exposed what this MPI from those opposite is all about today. They haven't asked the minister who's sitting here at the table one question in 18 months. The member for Franklin ought to revisit that and raise a question in parliament in question time when we come back the week after next. In relation to the aged-care sector, I would like to personally thank everyone in my electorate of Petrie who works in either community or residential aged care, supporting our senior Australians to remain independent and age well. Thank you to them. They work hard and are often underappreciated in an industry that is growing and is so critical to ensuring quality care for our ageing population. Yes, we knowledge there are deficits and the system is far from perfect. As members here who represent our electorates, we need to work together to ensure things are at the best possible place they can be for people seeking home care packages. It is so crucial to ensuring quality care for our ageing population remains competent and capable. Since consumer directed care was introduced under the Turnbull government in February 2017, we've seen ageing Australians receive much more freedom and choice in remaining at home, supported by the Home Care Packages Program. The options for aged care have increased, and whether seniors want to be cared for at home, live in an independent living retirement village or live in residential aged-care facility they can. There are still fully funded government support beds in residential aged care for those who can afford private services or want resort-style living in their sunset years. We support them as well. They can have that. Baby boomers are demanding five-star care, and our self-funded retirees want to age comfortably. For the disadvantaged and vulnerable, our not-for-profit sector provides services free of charge for those in financial hardship as well. In talking with those who work in the industry in Petrie, they report on the wonderful facilities and services offered by so many. I have visited plenty of them, including BallyCara at Scarborough with their new wellness centre providing exercise physiology sessions to keep our seniors active. Their motto is, 'Inspiring healthy and happy living.' Seasons Aged Care at Mango Hill, which I've had the privilege of visiting a number of times as well, particularly at Christmas, are providing innovative options for seniors with their unique aged-care model as well. The Holy Spirit Home in Carseldine have retirement-living, aged-care and nursing centres to help people as they progress through life. I've had the chance to meet and mingle with many senior Australians throughout my electorate in these places. I also want to give a shout-out to Kerri-Anne Dooley, who works for Home Instead Senior Care in Redcliffe. Kerri-Anne is a registered nurse, works in the aged-care industry and does so much in that industry. She's a good friend of mine. I want to thank her and others in my electorate for what they do. At the end of last month, I also visited Seabrae Manor in Rothwell. I enjoyed having a cuppa and morning tea with residents and chatting to the very compassionate staff. They have really good staff there. The residents there were so full of wisdom. I thoroughly enjoy visiting aged-care facilities in my electorate. These are just a few of the some 39 aged-care facilities in Petrie, and the list of community providers in my electorate is even longer. The Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Ken Wyatt, visited my electorate last July. The minister is here. I want to thank him again for coming up to my electorate. We hosted an afternoon tea and a Q&A session with around 200 locals at the North Lakes Resort Golf Club. The minister did not shy away from answering the tricky questions that some people had. He is passionate about his portfolio. You can see from his speech today that he is doing the very best he can. We're seeing great results, with increased expenditure in the budget. We need to continue to be able to deliver for senior Australians. I want to thank them for what they do in my electorate. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HWN The time for the discussion has concluded. BILLS 69 BILLS Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 69

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 69 16:15 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders ( I move: That the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 69

Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017

Returned from Senate 69 COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Membership 69 BILLS 69 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 69

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 69 Third Reading 69 16:16 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume ( by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 70

Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017

Report from Federation Chamber 70 Third Reading 70 16:17 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume ( by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 70 Report 70 16:18 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the following reports: Report 176: Air Force Training—Singapore; Deployment of Personnel—Solomon Islands; Space Tracking—USA, and Report 177: Extradition Jordan; Mutual Legal Assistance—Jordan, incorporating dissenting reports. Reports made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ROBERT HWT by leave—Today I rise to make a brief statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Reports 176 and 177. Report 176 contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of three treaty actions: an agreement to continue support for the Singapore Air Force Flying Training Institute to continue to use the RAAF Base at Pearce in Western Australia; an agreement with the Solomon Islands to support the deployment of Australian personnel to the Islands in the event of need; and an agreement with the United States regarding continued support for America's space program. The agreement with Singapore replaces an existing Memorandum of Understanding and will provide a legal framework to support the continuing operation of Singapore's Flying Training Institute in Australia. The institute has been a central element of Australia's defence relationship with Singapore for almost a quarter of a century. This agreement will allow Singapore to continue flight training at the RAAF Base Pearce into the future. We note that the significant Royal Singapore Air Force presence at RAAF Base Pearce provides economic benefits to businesses in the area and that the community are supportive of the arrangements. We have a significant history of bilateral relations with Singapore and concluded the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with them in 2015. Indeed, the foreign minister—the trade minister at the time, Andrew Robb—and I were the ones who concluded the comprehensive strategic partnership with them in 2015. This agreement further demonstrates our commitment to that partnership and the ongoing wider bilateral relationship, which is a relationship of profound importance to our nation, our national security, and especially to my Liberal-Nationals colleagues in the north of our great country. The agreement between Australia and the Solomon Islands enables the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force to deploy rapidly and effectively in the event of any emergency. Of course, this could happen only at the request of the Solomon Islands government. For 14 years, from 2003, Australia led the RAMSI mission to help stabilise the country after a period of unrest. RAMSI concluded on 30 June 2017, and this nation can be extraordinarily proud of what our Australian Defence Force personnel did, ably assisted by the AFP—and I believe one firey was engaged in that theatre—over those 13 years. It was an extraordinary effort, with the bulk of the heavy lifting being done by the Australian Army Reserve. That speaks volumes of our Reserve capability and our ability to surge in times of crisis and in times of requiring support and troop commitment on multiple fronts. Whilst RAMSI was extraordinarily successful, the Solomon Islands still faces many development challenges. This agreement will allow Australia to provide ongoing support, helping to build long-term stability and enduring growth. The region has a long way to go. Back in 1988 I was privileged to be on the second contingent in rotation to Bougainville during that horrible civil war that saw something like 20,000 Bougainvilleans slaughtered at the hands of, literally, their neighbour. That is on the border of the Solomons in what is called the New Solomon Province. As they move towards decisions on where their future will go, it simply speaks of the challenges that this region and this area has. And can I say, Australia acquitted itself magnificently over more than a decade in Bougainville at the time—another successful mission in an area that we should be extraordinarily proud of. We note the importance of stability in the region to Australia's security. We heard about the concerns of Solomon Islanders regarding the conclusion of the RAMSI mission and the withdrawal of its personnel, particularly Australian Defence Force and police personnel. We were assured that the negotiation of this new agreement has gone some way to allaying those fears, and we've been told that it has the wide support of Solomon Islanders. I have seen nothing to show that that support is not wide and deep, and recent visits from Australian senior personnel have reinforced that view. The agreement between Australia and the United States for space vehicle tracking and communications facilities consolidates an existing arrangement that's been in effect since 1960. We've all seen the movie The Dish; we've seen the game of cricket played atop. But we note not just the great Australian actors—who can forget the lemon!—but, more importantly, the significance that Australian facilities and Australian personnel have contributed to the US and global space mission. Therefore Australia's vital support for this space program is well recognised, not just in the House but also in business, in industry and indeed in the great arts in Australia. We need to continue to support these arrangements. Facilities including Canberra's Deep Space Communication Complex at Tidbinbilla have provided support for missions, including the rover Curiosity's exploration of the surface of Mars, the Cassini mission to Saturn and the Hubble Space Telescope. These are extraordinary ventures into space that have expanded mankind's knowledge of what lies beyond. The agreement allows for the ongoing collaboration to continue for another 25 years. This is a longstanding agreement. It is with one of our oldest friends, the United States of America, and I'm particularly proud that our committee secured that in such a short amount of time. The committee recommends that binding action be taken for all these three agreements. Finally, the report also contains the committee's review of five minor treaty actions. Those are somewhat perfunctory and of course are well supported by the committee. The second report being tabled today, report 177, contains the committee's review of the proposed extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties with Jordan. The committee has a history of supporting extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, and has recommended that the two treaties being considered here be ratified. Indeed, for those in the House, you'd be aware that we have an Extradition Act that oversees all of the treaties that are being considered when it comes to extradition. That act provides substantial powers for the responsible minister to reject requests for extradition on a raft and range of reasons. The extradition treaty we're talking about here with Jordan brings to a total number of some 40 extradition treaties that have been built around this act. The committee has made two further recommendations and a suggestion to address matters raised during the inquiry. The reason we've made these is we believe we can strengthen how we report on and how we respond to extradition requests. I've ensured that what we're recommending is entirely consistent with what the committee has recommended not just in my two-year tenure as the chair but also going back to what other committees from both sides, chaired by both sides over numerous governments, have also sought to recommend. We have sought to build on the 2010 decision by the then Labor government, which provided a degree of reporting which was to appear every year in the Attorney-General's annual report on exactly how many Australians may well be incarcerated overseas. We believe there is an opportunity to build on that work that was put in place in 2010. Firstly, the committee recommends that Australia and Jordan negotiate a less-than-treaty-level agreement setting out how the extradition treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters transiting through Jordan from Iraq and Syria. This is a recommendation we've put forward, notwithstanding that, as stated today, we are recommending that the treaty be ratified. We're recommending a further less-than-treaty-level agreement setting out how the treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters that are transiting through Jordan from Iraq and Syria. We believe the less-than-treaty-level agreement will prevent complications arising from the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences. The issue of extraterritorial fighters and how fighters who are captured in one country while fighting in another, we think, is vexed, and there is a recommendation here to make the issue firmly established in law. Secondly, the committee recommends an expansion of monitoring arrangements for Australian residents who have been extradited. That expansion is to build on the 2010 institute, where reports were added for the Attorney-General in their annual report every year. We believe there's an opportunity to build on that and provide more information. The committee feels that monitoring extradited Australian residents contributes to public trust in the extradition process by minimising any possibility that extradited Australian residents would be subject to any cruel or inhuman treatment. Finally, the committee suggests that, in relation to extradition decisions for persons who may be tried by Jordan's State Security Court, the Attorney-General's Department advise the relevant minister that this court may not be fully independent. Having put forward these extra recommendations, can I say that the committee is pleased with the steps that Jordan is taking in dealing with its judicial system. We're exceptionally pleased with the very strong relationship Australia has with Jordan and we're very pleased to be taking this next step with Jordan in terms of extradition. The committee believes that the recommendations we have put forward are important and necessary. We commend them to the government. On behalf of the committee, I commend the reports to the House. I'm thankful and grateful for the support we were given by multiple government departments, and the committee is very pleased to be able to support the recommendations and the treaties. ADJOURNMENT 72 ADJOURNMENT Richmond Electorate: Law Enforcement 72 16:29 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise today to highlight an issue of concern in my electorate, the massive cuts in police numbers on the New South Wales North Coast and how those severe cuts have resulted in a policing crisis. This is a major issue in our region, and one that community members continue to raise with me. Locals blame the Berejiklian Liberal-National government for this harsh slashing of our vital police resources. Official New South Wales police data reveals that since February 2012 the Tweed-Byron Local Area Command has suffered a reduction of 33 police officers. In 2012, New South Wales Police numbers were at 198 for the Tweed-Byron Local Area Command. Under this state Liberal-National government, police numbers have dropped to 165. What angers locals most is that this Sydney-centric Liberal-National government is wasting $2.5 billion on sports stadiums in Sydney instead of investing in more police officers and police resources on the New South Wales North Coast. The fact is that the premier and her government have all the wrong priorities. Instead of investing in schools, hospitals or police resources, the New South Wales government is wasting billions of dollars on sports stadiums. It is particularly insulting for those of us living in regional and rural New South Wales; we are constantly forgotten by this very Sydney-centric government. On the New South Wales North Coast we have a rapidly growing region combined with a constant influx of tourists. At a time when there's increasing concern about crime and personal safety, the state government is harshly cutting police number and resources. I continue to call on local National Party MPs to explain why they and their government have purposely and dramatically reduced the number of police officers in the Tweed-Byron Local Area Command. All of this has occurred despite the broken promises by the Nationals to increase police numbers on the North Coast. Not only have they have not increased them; they've cut them. Our local police do an outstanding job in our community, and I commend them for their dedication to keeping us all safe, but we need more police and more resources. Speaking as a former police officer myself, I understand firsthand the importance of having appropriate numbers of police on the beat in our communities to ensure that locals remain safe. I also continue to call on Tweed Nationals state MP Geoff Provest to apologise to our local police for his comments blaming them for our current policing crisis. Mr Provest made very unfair and totally unacceptable comments about our police officers. He should be backing them, not attacking them. He made comments that were reported in the local paper, Tweed Daily News, on Wednesday, 6 September, 2017. The story reported how Tweed-Byron Local Area Command are now so severely understaffed that they're beyond breaking point and have voted to begin industrial action due to the extent of the policing crisis. Geoff Provest unfairly claimed that the crisis is due to the number of police on long-term sick leave. This is total rubbish. Police put their lives on the line every day and go into situations where others would never go. The comments he made are totally untrue and unfair. The current crisis is solely due to this National Party MP and his government's continued incompetence and failure to deliver more police. It's insulting that Geoff Provest blames the hardworking men and women who work tirelessly as police and have suffered injury whilst safeguarding the residents of New South Wales. To date, he has not apologised to them. I again call upon him to apologise. For years, our community has been demanding that the Liberal-National government deliver many more police for our region, and the government has constantly ignored these pleas. The policing crisis on the North Coast is in direct correlation to the Productivity Commission's report on government services which was released in January this year. The annual report on government services provides information on the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of government services in Australia. This year's report showed just how underfunded the New South Wales police are. I note that the report confirms what the New South Wales Police Association has been saying for years: New South Wales police are under-resourced and it's only getting worse. We now see in New South Wales the lowest police funding in Australia, with the lowest expenditure on police services per person and the worst police-to-population ratio—excluding the ACT. This is a clear indication of the New South Wales government's failure to invest in policing resources. Again: at a time when they can spend $2.5 billion on sports stadiums, they can't fund our police properly to keep us safe. We see in the report that over the past four years real recurrent spending on police services in New South Wales has decreased every year. In New South Wales, the operational staff ratio per 100,000 people is the worst in the country. This is indeed a shameful record. Under the Liberal-Nationals, spending on police goes down. The end result is that we'll have communities that aren't as safe. We have such in our region, with a police crisis that's getting worse. On the New South Wales North Coast, what we need is more police resources to keep our community safe. This state government has failed us, and the National Party has especially failed us in regional and rural Australia. National Party choices hurt, and it really hurts with this massive cut in police numbers on the New South Wales North Coast. Murray-Darling Basin 73 16:34 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I'm the proud representative of river communities in South Australia, and that makes me the number one fan of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, because I know that it's South Australia and my communities in particular that stand to gain the most from the implementation of this plan in full and on time. But that also means that South Australians stand to lose the most from this plan being wrecked. Sadly, last night, in the other place, an unholy coalition of Labor, the so-called SA-BEST party, who are, quite frankly, acting like 'SA-WORST', and the Greens operated to vote down the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, effectively opening the door for New South Wales and Victoria—who, let's face it, have been reluctantly brought to the table on many of the issues that need addressing in the plan—to crab walk away from this plan. I believe in a plan that delivers 3,200 gigs to the environment. That's not achievable now. What we saw was the SA-BEST team, Labor and the Greens playing petty politics in the other place. You might ask me, 'Why would South Australian senators vote against a plan that is so squarely in South Australia's interests, a plan that was fought for tooth and nail by South Australians?' Well, it has something to do with St Patrick's Day this year, not because it's St Patrick's Day but because that is the date of the next South Australian state election. I haven't seen any more obvious examples of playing petty politics with the Murray-Darling Basin than last night's. Sadly, it's my communities that stand to suffer. Irrigators along the Murray-Darling Basin and those who enjoy the unique environments have struggled with uncertainty in and around their entitlements for over a century. That was resolved, thanks to the stellar efforts of the member for Watson. I wasn't even in this place when the Murray-Darling Basin agreement was reached. While I'm the No. 1 fan of the plan now, I was certainly the No. 1 cheerleader then because I knew we needed a plan. I knew that, if I was given the great privilege to come into this place and represent the interests of river communities, my job would be to implement the plan. To watch now the member for Watson—no doubt pressured by the Premier in South Australia and the arch-populist Nick Xenophon from, as I say, the 'SA-WORST' party—walk away from what could've been his great legacy in this place proves to me that nothing is above politics. And it is so sad. I spoke to irrigators and community members overnight and this morning, and there is a deep sense amongst river communities of feeling betrayed. It's one thing to beat your chest and say you're standing up for the Murray. It's another thing to look an irrigator in the eye and say: 'Well, the truth is we're going to take your entitlement away from you. The truth is we're playing petty politics. The truth is: yes, we had an agreement to do a northern basin review, and yes, there's an SDL, but, quite frankly, there's a state election coming and we'd actually prefer to cheat our way into an election win. It's been great knowing you on this journey, but you're now politically expedient.' That's how they feel this morning. Whether at Meningie on the Lower Lakes or all the way up at Lock 6, they feel cheated and they know this is all about politics and has nothing to do with the plan. My call is to the member for Watson and the 'SA-WORST' candidate in Hartley, Nick Xenophon—please, come back to the table and work with South Australians to implement this plan because otherwise you are selling South Australians down the river, and I pity you for that choice. Adelaide Electorate: Millswood Infrastructure 74 16:39 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide It pains me to have to stand in this place and raise this issue once again, but, on behalf of my constituents, I will. I take the time to raise an important infrastructure issue in my local community around a walking path in Millswood which was closed several years ago. Ever since, the local residents and I, as their representative, have been fighting to have it reopened. I went through the history of this issue and see that this has involved speaking to Warren Truss when he was the minister and speaking to the member for Gippsland when he was the minister, and now I call on the Deputy Prime Minister, who may be looking for an issue that he can get himself involved in and fix. I would recommend that the Millswood walking path is just that issue. This is an example of where government has been completely out of touch with the needs of our local community. There is a walking path alongside the freight line in Millswood. It was deemed to be unsafe, so the walking path was closed way back in 2015. In 2015, it was deemed unsafe. Since then, residents have been turning to the state government, pleading with them to upgrade the walking path and reopen it. The state government have said that they can't do anything because the freight line is overseen by the federal government, so they need the federal government to undertake a safety audit. The federal government have said, 'This is not our responsibility. We don't control walking paths, so go and speak to the state government.' Local residents have been left scratching their heads and wondering why no level of government can undertake the simplest infrastructure upgrade to improve the lives of these local residents. I had the opportunity to take the shadow minister, the member for Grayndler, to the site of this walking path. When he looked at it, he said, 'This is simple to fix. This could be fixed with a phone call. All you need is for the minister to instruct the ARTC to undertake a safety audit and that safety audit would say that you could open the walking path if there were a new fence.' It should not be beyond this parliament to supply one safety audit so that we can get a new fence in place and finally reopen this walking track, but it's taken countless letters to ministers and countless speeches in this parliament, and now the Deputy Prime Minister is so busy and so side-tracked with other things. Let him prove that he is focused on the issues affecting Australians. Let him pick up the phone, call the ARTC and say, 'We need you to undertake a safety audit.' That is all we're asking in this regard. Following the last letter to the government, we got a response saying, 'It would be a bit too expensive to do a safety audit.' We heard just this week how much underspend is in the federal government's infrastructure budget. Nobody thinks that a safety audit is going to be particularly expensive, and we all expect that the safety audit will say, 'If you build a fence that will maybe cost $20,000, you'll be able to fix this issue.' For crying out loud, the federal parliament should be able to undertake the safety audit so that we can build a new fence and reopen this walking track once and for all. I stand here and continue to fight for this. I regard myself as being quite successful in lobbying for funding for projects in my electorate, but I can't conduct a safety audit. The state government have been lobbied. I note that the Labor candidate for Badcoe, Jayne Stinson, is furiously lobbying on behalf of the local community. She's also very successful. She's already secured $2½ million for new sports club rooms at Goodwood Oval, she's found a new home for the Puddle Jumpers children's charity and she's helped the Forestville Hockey Club to move to a new $9 million sports hub, but she can't conduct a safety audit either. The only people who can ensure that the safety audit is undertaken are the federal government. We need the federal minister to pick up the phone and ring the ARTC, and, once the safety audit has been conducted, we can take care of the rest. This is about the government showing that, so far, they've just been too pre-occupied and too busy chasing headlines to focus on the small issues which are never going to lead the headline news, but they are impacting on people's lives each and every day. The residents in Millswood deserve to have a minister in charge of infrastructure—a minister in charge of the ARTC who can act on this important issue, pick up the phone and just request a safety audit. As the local member, I will take care of the rest. (Time expired) HMAS Darwin 74 16:44 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden It's my melancholy duty to inform the House that, after 33 years of national service, HMAS Darwin FFG 04, an Adelaide class guided missile destroyer, one of four built in the '80s in the United States of America—this one commissioned in Seattle on 21 July 1984—was decommissioned on 9 December last year. She was an extraordinary ship bearing three battle honours: East Timor in 1999, the Persian Gulf in 2002-03 and Iraq in 2003. Normally, the sad fate of such mighty warriors that once ruled the sea is to be cut up for scrap. Thankfully, DDG 41, HMAS Brisbane, was saved and sunk off Mooloolaba as a dive wreck, but Kanimbla and Manoora met with that horrid fate—of going under the blowtorch of those cutting her up. Tobruk was saved, after a fight between the Gold Coast and northern Queensland, as another dive wreck. Now there's an opportunity for the HMAS Darwin not to meet the fate of Manooraand Kanimbla, not to meet the blowtorch, but to once again have a proud role, this time under the ocean as a dive wreck off the coast of one of the nation's greatest cities—indeed, a world-class city: the Gold Coast. There is an opportunity for HMAS Darwin to be sunk off the Gold Coast as a wreck, a dive site to rival DDG 41 off Mooloolaba and certainly to rival that off North Queensland. This is a project that has wide support from sitting members on the coast; the Queensland state tourism minister; the Gold Coast mayor, Tom Tate, who is in love with the project; the diving industry; and a great number of my constituents. Let's get some focus on the diving industry. It's an industry worth $2.2 billion to our national economy. In practice, the figure would be greater when you factor in the consumption spends on travel, accommodation, food and beverages that go with it. That also doesn't take into consideration the additional spending that would occur in overlapping and supporting industries. Numerous independent studies have been undertaken which conservatively estimate that an ex-Navy warship sunk off the Gold Coast would lead to at least 7,000 divers visiting the wreck per year. Gold Coast City Council modelling suggests that it would immediately add $5½ million in direct and indirect economic benefits to the city if the wreck was provided by the Commonwealth. The council's modelling, completed in 2016, suggested it would create 73 full-time jobs, with the flow-on to create another 81 positions and a further $6.1 million within three years of injection into the economy. Independent studies also have indicated that scuba diving is already quite a substantial contributor to the Gold Coast economy, and the Gold Coast has a large and passionate community of commercial and recreational divers who would actively use and promote the dive site. I'm a diver. I've been a diver for 30-odd years—maybe 28—and have dived around the world. This would be an iconic dive site. Remember: the Gold Coast has its own international airport. It's only an hour's travel from Brisbane. It's the sixth-largest city, connected by the M1 to the third-largest city. There's little doubt that the provision of an ex-Navy warship will greatly increase the number of tourist visitors. The Gold Coast is one of the most active diving communities. It deserves to have a great wreck. The Gold Coast is an outstanding candidate for HMAS Darwin because of the tourist industry that is already in place there, and it's worth noting that previous wrecks have seen a huge increase in tourism to their areas. Gold Coast tourism and the diving businesses are established, they're full time and they run year round. Studies have shown that the physical location of the Gold Coast also lends itself as the standout candidate for HMAS Darwin to find its final resting place, with 300 days of sunshine—compare that to the morose conditions we find ourselves in here on the Limestone Plains—and clear skies for the vast bulk of the year, and a temperate climate that lends itself to diving all around the year. The safety of the Gold Coast Seaway Bar crossing also enables dive operators to easily access the site. It's a competitive market, and the Commonwealth providing Darwin to the Gold Coast will make a big difference. And, can I say, it's a fitting end to this great warship. Darwin's motto was 'Resurgent'; its badge features a phoenix. Well, there is no greater place for a resurgence in diving than on the Gold Coast; there's no greater place to see a city like a phoenix rising—a city that, in 1954, had 18,000 people and today has 600,000 people. I call on the Commonwealth to support my bid for HMAS Darwin for the Gold Coast. Child Sexual Abuse 75 16:49 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports Normally when I see Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld on TV, I'm full of trepidation that some terrorist incident has happened. This time, when I saw him a couple of nights ago, I was pleased to see that the process of justice for survivors of sexual abuse, Dassi Erlich, Nicole, Elly and others—constituents of mine—looks like it's making progress. Policeman Rosenfeld, on TV from Jerusalem, was announcing the arrest of Malka Leifer, who was accused back in 2008 of molesting students at her school in Melbourne. The announcement was followed by Judge Winograd ruling that the former principal remain in custody. But, instead of returning her to prison, he ordered that she be sent to a Jerusalem district mental health facility where she could be closely observed. The judge said that he needed a new in-depth assessment before deciding if Ms Leifer was too ill to face a new extradition hearing. That's precisely the advice that the brilliant Melbourne barrister, Amanda Mendes da Costa, gave survivors in the lobby of the King David Hotel in October, when we were there for the Battle of Beersheba commemoration. Mr Speaker, I must disclose an interest: that barrister is my wife. It's very pleasing to see that all the work of the Australian government, supported by the opposition, together with the support of Israeli MKs Hilik Bar, Merav Michaeli, Michal Biran and Sharren Haskel—a non-partisan group from across their and our political spectrum—has helped justice distil itself in a society, which, like Australia, has a justice system and where justice will out. Dave Sharma, our very capable Australian ambassador, was lobbying all through those years, as was I. But I particularly want to pay tribute to Dassi Erlich and the young women who, from completely non-political backgrounds, lobbied the Australian Prime Minister and former Premiers, went to see the Israeli Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked, and did an extraordinary interview with Israeli Channel 10, which I think was the key catalyst that changed the willingness of the Israeli police to take on Ms Leifer. In any system like Australia's or Israel's, people who face extradition hearings appear before psychiatric panels, and sometimes a three-hour psychiatric panel won't give you a true evaluation of what's happening. That's why Justice Winograd's decision to put the accused person under long observation in a psychiatric facility so people can see how she behaves over a longer term and whether she is in a fit condition to participate in an extradition hearing is the right thing to do. It's the kind of thing that would be done in Australia, and it's exactly what Amanda suggested to the three survivors when we were talking about whether we should proceed with the apparently stalled Leifer case. An Israeli court has said that Leifer should stay under psychiatric evaluation until further notice. The absconded principal should be returned to Australia, a country friendly to Israel, to face charges that were made against her in 2008. I'm very pleased that the survivors won't be left hanging and that this issue will not be left in the air. The rule of law in Australia and Israel is a very important thing. Fairness needs to be shown to this person, but fairness needs to be shown to the survivors as well. I want to say one thing in conclusion about the community from which she comes: I don't want them to be scapegoated or stereotyped. They're a very orthodox, religious community. They have a perfect right, in Australian society, to practise their beliefs as they see fit. I notice that SBS TV did an excellent and very fair program on them, which screened as a documentary some months ago. We can have justice for the survivors of alleged sexual abuse. We can have it take place over there where Leifer will be fairly psychiatrically evaluated and observed over a period of time and then face an extradition trial to be brought back to Australia. (Time expired) Gilmore Electorate 76 16:54 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Sometimes in this job you have to be all things to all people—and, of course, that never works. So my guiding principle is to get on with the job of helping as many in our community as I possibly can. I believe that everyone in Gilmore is eagerly waiting for the formal announcements of funding for projects that have been in the pipeline for years. I've worked hard for these projects and I'm proud to be delivering the very important dollars. In the Eurobodalla Shire council area the funding has gone to three disability enterprises. The first is stage 2 of the Muddy Puddles expansion, with an allocation of more than $500,000. It's a not-for-profit organisation offering therapy and education programs for children and young people with a disability as well as their families. In 2014, a group of concerned parents and community members who wanted more local services for their children began Muddy Puddles. They now cater for a wide range of groups, starting from early childhood through to teens, offering individual therapy and group programs run by qualified therapists and educators. Thank you Anne Minato and the board for your patience and dedication to get this project finished, helping parents in so many ways, including navigating the NDIS. The second group to get help to complete stage 2 of respite and permanent accommodation for young people with a disability was Yumaro. Their project gained $600,000. Again, thanks go to the dedicated board and the untiring work of Mark Brantingham. This project will be such a community asset. The third project is the all-inclusive playground at Corrigans Park, now named Variety Park, where stage 2 will be completed with the injection of more than $650,000. The Eurobodalla Shire Council and Charles Stuart have been the drivers of this project. The Shoalhaven City Council region will see a number of projects finished—firstly, the Dunn Lewis Centre, which has received community support for years but has struggled to finish. With the addition of $1.9 million, they'll now complete the auditorium, allowing them to have fundraising functions, maintain their programs for youth work experience, out-of-school learning and Work for the Dole and generally being a great community hub. Well done, Gayle Dunn. Now you can see that it's going to be done! The basketball stadium, as part of the Shoalhaven Indoor Sports Centre, is a Shoalhaven City Council project, but the quality fit-out, bleachers and other internal facilities were beyond their budget. So the investment of $2.8 million will resolve that issue. I know Ralph Cook and John Martin will feel that their dream is finally coming together. South Coast Dairy, as well as being a winner of gold medals for milk production quality, will be launching—or perhaps I should say churning—its way into butter manufacture, with a grant of just $14,000. Kara Duncan, John Miller and the dairy farmers who had faith in themselves—you are all stars! Voyager Park in Huskisson currently has an incomplete access path to the memorial area and also has a plan to have a space of honour to recognise our serving men and women. That will be finished, hopefully, by November, with a $600,000 spend. Well done to the Husky RSL board and members. The aged-care facility to be built in Kiama will be absolutely brilliant. That, too, is staged, with an investment of $2.3 million dedicated to the community hall and meeting rooms. What a fantastic project this will be for that area. Congratulations to the previous council, with Brian Petschler at the helm, and the current mayor, Mark Honey—but always with the advice and guidance of their general manager, Michael Forsythe. There will be a great deal of employment opportunity with each of these projects, and I look forward to seeing those outcomes. There'll be more job-generating announcements in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, I'll continue to focus on the Shoalhaven River crossing and funding resolutions for the Princes Highway, working alongside my state colleagues for the entire length of that highway. Recently, my state colleagues offered to lobby for funds to maintain the historic Nowra bridge. I truly hope they are successful. Just imagine, if you can, a better-aligned highway, more state and federal funding, fewer accidents and an international invitation for tourists to come and visit. I wonder if the South Coast councils and state governments could consider developing a vision for our highway, our future. The Grand Pacific Drive could be such a vision for our region—not just a road of strategic importance but one that doubles up and takes visitors to all of our villages. It would be wonderful. This concept is being explored by tourism groups, and I really believe that they have a great idea that is worth follow-up and advocacy. We in Gilmore can achieve terrific outcomes. We should work on this one together. I encourage our state members, local councillors and the community to get on board and push for a Grand Pacific Drive extension all the way down the coast, making our Princes Highway as great as the Pacific Highway—except that it has better destinations to visit—to get our tourists there and to get our people jobs. It will be fabulous. House adjourned at 16:59 NOTICES 77 NOTICES

Thursday, 15 February 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ) took the chair at 10:05.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 79 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Workplace Relations, Taxation 79 10:05 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam The good people of the electorate of Whitlam, covering the southern Illawarra suburbs and Southern Highlands of New South Wales, send me to this place to represent their interests and to ensure that the government of this place has a vision, a plan, that is going to move their lives forward—that is going to give their children an opportunity to ensure they are not going backwards, deal with the cost of living and the future of their kids' education, and ensure their kids have got jobs. Sadly, the government have a plan for tax cuts for the big end of town, but they do not have a plan to raise the wages of ordinary workers. Let's have a look at their decision to support penalty rate cuts, because this is the strangest thing that we can imagine—a government that agrees, reluctantly, that one of the most pressing economic reforms that is needed in this country is to give ordinary workers a pay rise, yet they are supporting a decision which will see up to 700,000 workers get a pay cut because their penalty rates are going to be reduced or removed. Cutting penalty rates will see a pay cut for low-paid workers in my electorate of up to $77 a week. The Liberal Party member who represents the electorate just south of me, the member for Gilmore, has said this is going to be a gift for young workers. Well, it is anything but that. Close to 7½ thousand retail workers and over 4,000 food and accommodation workers are going to be affected by this. The Prime Minister likes to say that the corporate tax cuts are going to provide a benefit for ordinary Australians—they simply are not. If we look at where the corporate tax cuts are going, we see that over four times the amount of benefit goes to electorates like the one the Prime Minister lives in and the one the deputy leader of the Liberals lives in, but not to electorates like mine. In fact, four times more of the benefits are going to those sorts of electorates than to Whitlam or, say, Eden-Monaro or Gilmore. This is simply not a plan for the people of my electorate; this is a plan to divert money away from education, health care and Medicare, away from those who need it most to those who need it least. Forde Electorate: Logan House Residential Rehabilitation Facility 79 10:08 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'm pleased to share with the House some great news for the electorate of Forde. In 2016 the government announced a $986,000 grant to construct six new family recovery units at Logan House recovery centre. This month I was very pleased to turn the first sod for that project. I'm very excited to say that construction is now officially underway on these new units, which will help parents with young children access rehabilitation services. The Logan House recovery centre provides vital accommodation to facilitate access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services for parents with children, and the new family accommodation units will help even more towards breaking that cycle of addiction. We in this place all know that addiction affects not only those suffering the addiction but also others around them in their home and the wider community. In particular it is hard for children with parents who have untreated addiction problems. At Logan House, where they provide a valuable support network for these people, these units will now allow them to accommodate families. Thanks to the coalition government's grant, three two-bedroom units and three three-bedroom units are under construction, so the centre will be able to provide this vital accommodation for parents from early next year. Each unit comes with an attached kitchen, bathroom and living room and there is a shared outdoor room, giving each family the independence and the security they so desperately need and deserve. I would like to thank Lives Lived Well CEO Mitchell Giles and the entire team not only for the work they do in our community but for their commitment to expanding their services. Now that the building of the family recovery units at Logan House is underway, parents with young children are a step closer to having the support services necessary to deal with the scourge of drug and alcohol addiction and, importantly, access to professional rehabilitation services to assist them to recover. When I spoke with Mr Giles at the sod-turning he explained that parents often struggle to get the help they need for their problems because they don't have the support services around them. These new family units mean parents can live with their children and have them cared for while they are receiving the intensive support they need to get back on their feet. Lives Lived Well's Logan House has a long history of working with people using these evidence-based therapies. I wish them every success with this project. Lindsay Electorate: Australia Day Awards 80 10:11 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Today I come in here to congratulate the 2018 Penrith City Council Australia Day award recipients—the recognition of Lindsay residents and organisations who work tirelessly for our local community. I often come in here and talk about the fact that the greatest strength of my community is the people, so I would like to give a shout-out to Michele Ellery, the 2018 Penrith Citizen of the Year. Michele founded and is now the CEO of the Queen of Hearts Community Foundation, which was established to support victims of child sexual abuse—not always the charity we think about when we think about those doing great work but they are tirelessly doing great work under exceptional circumstances. I also congratulate Nicole Bridges, who received the Penrith Local Appreciation Award. Nicole has been a tireless volunteer worker for the Australian Breastfeeding Association, helping countless families and mums for 15 years. She is currently the ACT and New South Wales president. She's a breastfeeding counsellor on the 24-hour hotline mum 2 mum. I know Nicole from many years ago when I studied interior design under her. She's a wonderful woman and a great asset for our community. Three of the local appreciation award recipients are from Nepean Food Services: David Hancock, Myra Rodgers and Jim Riley. Nepean Food Services is an amazing success story. It's a place that I'm happy to visit. I'm very proud to see some of my Stronger Communities grants gifted to that charity to support them to keep going. It started with just three staff members and a very small band of volunteers. It is now 90 volunteers strong and under the great leadership of Ditte Kozak, who is the manager there. They deliver many meals across my electorate to seniors, people with disabilities and people who need that level of support. I'm so proud to be associated with this group. David Hancock is a dedicated volunteer who packs, distributes and delivers meals to seniors. Myra Rodgers, who volunteers, is on the hot run service that delivers, heats and assists the person to start eating safely. These are things we don't often think about when we don't need them. Jim Riley has volunteered more than 20 hours for every single week. He packs meals, makes deliveries and supports other volunteers. I congratulate the 2018 Penrith Community Group Award recipients: #Northstmarysmatters project and Team Colyton, who are trying to revive an older established area in my electorate. They are trying to instil some confidence and good karma into that community and make it an even better place to live than it already is. Lastly, I'd like to congratulate the Penrith Community Organisation Award recipient winner: the Australian Women & Children's Research Foundation, OZWAC, which is headed up by my daughter's paediatrician, Professor Nanan. It's a medical research foundation based in my electorate. It was founded in 1992 to provide grants for medical research for women and children's health. I'm proud of everyone in Lindsay but I am especially proud of those award recipients. Hume Electorate: Broadband 80 10:15 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume A telecommunications revolution is rapidly unfolding around Hume, bringing families closer together, making it easier to do business and making life safer for our communities. Dozens of villages, like Wingello and Exeter, are benefiting from the fantastic fixed wireless technology being rolled out by the NBN. The Exeter Village Association president, Simon Bathgate, said the tower's switching-on meant his small community could access broadband speeds enjoyed by larger towns and cities. Indeed, more than 2,400 premises in rural communities like Tuena and Taralga are accessing the NBN satellite service. Horse-breeder John Walsh live streams the racing and thoroughbred auctions through his Sky Muster service. John says: 'The only time I get into trouble is when the wife wants to use the computer. It doesn't miss a beat, however.' Pinnacle Tax & Accounting, which employs 13 people in Camden and Wollongong, haven't looked back since their connection. Principal Peter Tapp says the NBN has allowed them to have a completely cloud based business, with faster speeds, increased data security and reduced costs. Out at Lost River—many here in this place know of Lost River, because we eat their lamb in the parliamentary dining room on a regular basis—they are getting decent mobile phone coverage for the first time. It is a godsend for locals like Michael O'Brien, who says, 'Just this morning I was able to make a call from inside the house, which I never would have been able to do before the tower went up.' He said this when the Lost River mobile black spot tower was switched on just a few weeks ago. More towers will be switched on at Tarlo, Dalton and Mount Hunter. Labor did not build a single mobile phone tower, nor invest a single cent in mobile phone coverage, in their six years of government. The Mobile Black Spot Program is the most significant one-time increase in mobile network coverage to regional and remote Australia ever delivered by a single public funding program, and Hume is in the absolute thick of the action. In less than four years, I have managed to secure funding for at least 21 towers in my electorate under the coalition's black spot program. Ninety-six per cent of my electorate now have an available NBN service. That's almost 66,000 premises. All of that has happened in the last few years. In fact, in the 12 months to January this year, the NBN connected an average of about 74 premises every day—every day. Fifty-three per cent of the premises in my electorate now have an active NBN service, well above the state and national average, and in some areas the take-up rate is higher than 70 per cent. The revolution is here, and the coalition are driving it through unprecedented investment in their commitment to deliver technology for everyone. Western Sydney Airport 81 10:18 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley Every couple of months I'm out at railway stations in the electorate, and I watch commuters pile in to railway stations at Mount Druitt, Rooty Hill and Doonside. Sometimes the row is five deep with people crowding onto those trains. If they have not been successful in the mad dash for a seat, they are standing for around an hour, or even longer. If they have come from my colleague's electorate of Lindsay, from Penrith, they have been standing for ages waiting to get to work. I have been thinking of those commuters in a climate where tolls have been reimposed on the M4and where the train timetable in Sydney is a mess. What plan has been put forward to help struggling commuters? Well, all I'm hearing about at this point are plans for a new rail line, north-south, connecting Badgerys Creek Airport to the already congested Western Sydney line. There is no comprehensive plan to deal with people movement in Western Sydney, just a plan to put more people onto a crowded train network. It is unfathomable that that is all we've got. We hear talk, announcement after announcement, about this airport: 'It's an amazing piece of infrastructure.' It's an airport with no planes. We hear all these announcements about boards being created, where the bulk of the people on the boards don't come from the region. We hear about a headquarters being announced in Parramatta for something that's happening in Liverpool. We hear about earthworks being done, and tens of thousands of jobs. It was going to be creating 60,000 jobs; now it's going to create roughly 11,000 jobs, based on what the minister was telling us the other day. But we don't hear anything about flight paths. We don't hear anything about a jobs plan. In fact, the best we've got for a jobs plan is the Minister for Urban Infrastructure and Cities, Paul Fletcher, saying, 'Of course, locals will be well placed to apply for those jobs'—no guarantee of jobs; just that you can apply for them. I used to hear Slim Dusty lament about the pub with no beer, but the Turnbull government are absolutely giddy about an airport with no planes. They won't tell people where the planes are flying, and in fact in their EIS they deliberately avoided having Airservices Australia do the work to map out the flight paths, because Airservices Australia would have had to consult with people about the flight paths. This is four years. Ten billion dollars has been announced for this airport. We know exactly what's going on: the money's being loaded up; all the spend is being done; no people are being told how they will be affected, because at the point when they find out they will have no choice but to cop this facility, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is a disgraceful way in which $10 billion is being spent. So to any of you who complain about infrastructure dollars not coming your way: just know how quickly $10 billion was spent on one project with little detail. Page Electorate: Surf Lifesaving 81 10:21 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page The Woolgoolga Surf Life Saving Club will host the last round of the North Coast boat series on 17 March. They're a great club, and it was great in 2016 to give them $1 million of federal government money to relocate the clubhouse, because they badly need a new clubhouse. The club competed at South West Rocks a fortnight ago and came away with six medals from six events. Gold medals were won in the open men's, the open ladies' and the men's 180 masters. Silver medals were picked up by the men's masters 120 and the ladies' masters, with the reserve grade men bringing home the bronze. There are 52 crews, across seven categories, competing in the championship, with Woolgoolga currently leading the open men's, open women's and women's masters, while men's masters and reserve men are in second place. As a club, Woolgoolga is holding second place, with the final round, which will be at home, worth double points. I'd like to wish the three sweeps, Darren McSkimming, Trevor Clark and Neil Baker, plus their crews, all the best on 17 March. Thank you also to President Les Pepper and Vice President Bob Wright. A special thanks to Woolgoolga's Director of Lifesaving, Brian Sedivy, who is responsible for making sure the beach patrols are in place, and the Director of Education, Ted McCartney, who organises all the training for members. Good luck to a great club! Congratulations also to the Yamba Surf Life Saving Club for an outstanding result at the New South Wales lifesaving country championships. They travelled to South West Rocks, and many lifesavers from Yamba returned with medals. I'd like to congratulate Kalani Ives, who won four gold; Bobbie Winger, who won three gold, a silver and a bronze; Ben Morris, who won two gold and a silver; Jane Lawrence, who won two gold; Jill Ennever, who won one gold, a silver and a bronze; Jim Dougherty, who won a gold and a silver; and Dylan Greef, Ben Plunkett and Malik Elabbasi, who also brought home medals. I'd also like to congratulate the under-17 female beach relay team for winning gold. Well done! I also congratulate the Minnie Water-Wooli Surf Life Saving Club, to whom I was happy to give, the other day, a small grant to get a new boat. Their under-23 women's boat crew won a silver medal and their under-19 male boat crew won a bronze at the recent New South Wales lifesaving country championships. Young nipper Eliza Berrick won two silvers and Tony Dougherty won a silver in his masters surf race. It was a great effort from the club. Well done to everyone! Moreton Electorate: Australia Day Awards 82 10:23 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm proud that the Moreton Australia Day Awards have become a feature of the community calendar on Brisbane's south side. To celebrate the 10th anniversary of the awards, we had a wonderful ceremony at Robertson Gardens, right in the heart of Moreton. These awards celebrate the spirit of volunteerism in our local community. There are a number of Moreton Australia Day Award recipients, and then we also announced the Sir James Killen community service award. Again this year we were fortunate to have Lady Benise Killen attend to present this special award. This year the recipient of the Sir James Killen award was Joan McGrath. For the last 14 years, Joan has been the Treasurer of the Salisbury-Moorooka St Vincent de Paul Conference. Joan has been the touchpoint for many locals, from Moorooka, Rocklea, Annerley and Salisbury, experiencing hardship. Her role involved coordinating the resources to maximise assistance with rent, utilities, food vouchers, school resources and much more for those locals that need a helping hand. Joan still lives in the family house in Moorooka. It was built in 1932 on land that has been in her family since 1893, so she's almost a local! Not surprisingly, Joan has also dedicated much of her time to the local history group. Further evidence of her commitment to social justice and building community is Joan's work with the local refugee community in Moorooka. Again, through St Vincent de Paul, Joan participated in local settlement services to provide support, advocacy and information to some of our newest Australians. We are so privileged to have Joan in my community. She is a very deserving recipient of this award. Other Moreton Australia Day Award recipients this year were Lisa Briggs from the Sherwood Australian Breastfeeding Association; Brian Tovey from Oxley Neighbourhood Watch— Mr Dick 53517 Hear, hear! Mr PERRETT HVP I take that comment from the member for Oxley—Phyllis Stockwell from Bethesda Caring Centre; Bill Elliott from the Yeronga Men's Shed and Annerley Stephens History Group; Naomi Frampton and Paul Hodges from the Annerley Community Bookshop; Ruby Luder from the Yeronga-Dutton Park RSL; Julie Segal from Kurilpa Scouts—scout name Rikki Tikki Tavi, for those following; Reverend Heather Griffin for her work promoting community harmony; Mary Jane Lepre from St David's Neighbourhood Centre; Colleen Williamson from Omega International foodbank; Craig Schooth, Vice-President of Runcorn State School P&C; Lyn Cassar, President of Kuraby Special School P&C; Leonie Hoey from Lloyd Rees Park; Robin Blackson from Yeronga Anglican Church op shop; Ron Goeldner from the Yeronga Districts Residents Association, St Sebastian's P&F, Hyde Road Kindy, the RSL, the local Neighbourhood Watch and many more; Denis Peel from the Annerley Stephens History Group; Jacquie Rogerson from the Sunnybank Scout Group; Paul Rogerson, Regional Commissioner, Brisbane South Region, Scouts Queensland; Michelle Fludder, scout leader from Sunnybank-Robertson Scout Groups; Thomas Yuen from the Australian Cantonese Association; Rex Low, also from the Australian Cantonese Association; Michelle Gadke, Belong; Michelle Langley-Taylor, Belong; Raina Davies, Belong; Maria Hong, Australian Cantonese Association; and Willy Frommolt from St David's Neighbourhood Centre. Duggan, Ms Donna 82 10:26 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner Donna Duggan is an old girl of Moreton Bay College in my electorate who's been doing incredible humanitarian work in Arusha, Tanzania. Her story is as heartbreaking as it is inspiring. Thirteen years ago, Donna arrived in Tanzania as a volunteer nurse. She met and married a wonderful man named Nas and started a successful safari company called Maasai Wanderings. They also began to work with the Maasai people who live in the region around Arusha because they wanted to give Maasai children the best early education, setting them up for the future and helping break the cycle of poverty. Using money from their own pocket as well as funds raised by the Wynnum community, Donna and Nas built several nursery and primary schools in Arusha. They also paid for nursery teachers and cooks to give children a mug of porridge each day, feeding over 4,000 children a day. They've built other vital infrastructure in the town such as toilets and water tanks. Two local retired teachers were inspired by Donna's generosity and launched Mealtime for Maasai Students, just before Nas was tragically killed in November last year in a light plane accident, leaving behind Donna and their two young children. Nas was a local hero, and after his death Arusha locals started writing songs about him. Meanwhile the Wynnum community in my electorate also rose up to show their support. To help raise funds for this project, the Moreton Bay College Old Girls' Association held an afternoon of Christmas barefoot bowls at Manly Bowls Club. Just one donation of $50 helps feed one Maasai student nutritious meals for one year. In total, they raised over $6,200 on the day, but they've raised nearly $20,000 so far, which will go to water tanks, gas burners and nutritious meals. What an incredible outpouring of support from the community. Donna and her children returned to Queensland for Christmas last year in order to grieve in private, and while she was there Donna shared her inspiring story at the fundraiser. I commend her for her ongoing humanitarian work, and I commend the Moreton Bay College and Bayside community for joining together to support Donna and Mealtime for Maasai Students. I wish her all the very best in the future. Fowler Electorate: Lunar New Year 83 10:29 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler Tonight I will have the pleasure of joining over a thousand Vietnamese families at the midnight celebration at the Phuoc Hue Temple in Wetherill Park to welcome in the Lunar New Year, or Tet, as the Vietnamese refer to it. Lunar New Year is one of the most important cultural events celebrated in my community. It is a time to spend with family and friends, a time for personal reflection, a time in which the community takes a moment to remember and pay respects to their ancestors. This year marks the year of the earth dog. Traditionally, the dog is associated with people who are courageous, clever, lively and loyal. As part of the Lunar New Year tradition this coming week, I will have the honour of visiting a number of Vietnamese and Chinese temples and churches in my electorate. I will also attend the annual Vietnamese Tet festival in Fairfield showground. It is one of the most popular festivals in the local calendar and ordinarily is attended by over 40,000 people. I congratulate the Vietnamese community of Australia, New South Wales chapter, for the hard work they've invested in organising this most-anticipated event. The line dancing, the traditional dress or ao dai, the fantastic Vietnamese cuisine and the fireworks all add to the general carnival for the families who come together to showcase Vietnamese culture. I would like to particularly congratulate the president of VCA, Paul Huy Nguyen, his deputy and the executive for their tireless efforts in preparing for this event. I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge our Chinese community, in particular James Chan and Vincent Kong of the Australian Chinese Buddhist Society, who have hosted many marvellous events and celebrations for the Chinese community at the Mingyue Lay Temple in Bonnyrigg. Lunar New Year is a time for all Australians to celebrate the success of our multicultural community and the exceptional contribution the Chinese and Vietnamese communities have made to our great nation. I feel very privileged to be part of this colourful, vibrant, diverse community in which the Vietnamese, Chinese and many other communities live harmoniously, and I wish them and all members of our community a harmonious and prosperous Year of the Dog. To my Vietnamese constituents: Chuc Mung Num Moi. To my Chinese constituents: Gung Hay Fat Choy. 10:32 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Fowler and I want to associate myself with his comments and wish my local Vietnamese community a Happy New Year. The Year of the Dog is my year—I was born in the year of the dog—so it should be a very auspicious year. Trade Unions 83 10:32 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher We all know 14 February of every year is Valentine's Day. Yesterday, Australia celebrated Valentine's Day. It is a very special day for lovers all over the country. But yesterday was not a good day for the CFMEU. Yesterday will go down in history as a very, very dark day for the CFMEU, and it was a day which will make the CFMEU finally sit up and take notice of the illegal conduct that they take part in on a daily basis. Not one but two very, very important decisions were handed down against the CFMEU yesterday. The first one was a decision on appeal from the full court of the Federal Court to the High Court of this country. What that decision held was that unions whose officials break the law can be required by an order of the court to be prevented from paying the fines imposed on those officials. This was a very important decision because up until now, as we all know, when the CFMEU and its officials have broken the law, the CFMEU has gone and paid those fines for its officials. So there's been absolutely no deterrence, no consequence for the sort of illegal conduct that we continue to see the CFMEU and its officials partake in. But yesterday's High Court decision will put an end to that. Yesterday's High Court decision will give the courts the ability to impose orders which prevent the CFMEU from paying those personal fines. What that will mean is we will see a great degree of incentivisation coming on in building sites across the country. These people that continue to break the law, that flout the law, will now know that they will be in the gun for very, very significant fines that will be coming out of their pockets. The second case that is very worthy of discussion is a decision of the Federal Court which imposed two—not one, but two—$500,000 fines against the CFMEU for breaching secondary boycott provisions. This is very important. They were the largest fines ever imposed under the Fair Work Act. The CFMEU is on notice that the ABCC will continue to police the law— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WALLACE 265967 I am asking for an extension, and my friend behind me is happy to second the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is leave granted? Leave not granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The honourable member's time has expired. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. BILLS 84 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 84

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017

Second Reading 84 10:36 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I am delighted to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017, which performs a vital community service insofar as it agrees to continue to support the wonderful medium of digital radio. Digital radio, as we all know, is an incredibly important service, over and above radio as a standard transmission that has provided information and entertainment in Australia for over 90 years, back in the day when it was known as the wireless. Of course, wireless means something completely different these days from what it meant back in the days of The Sullivans. In government, Labor introduced digital radio in Australia to supplement rather than replace traditional analog AM and FM radio services. Digital radio offers many features and benefits, including an enhanced choice of stations, clear reception, exceptional sound quality, song and artist information, and pause and rewind functionality. In order to receive digital radio services one needs a receiver or digital device with a DAB chip in it. For those at home not familiar with a DAB chip—I understand 'dab' can mean many things. The dab was made famous by Usain Bolt. I will not demonstrate one in this chamber, because it would be awkward, quite frankly. But in the context of digital radio, DAB means digital audio broadcasting. Digital radio services from commercial radio broadcasters and national broadcasters have been operating in the metropolitan licence areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth since 1 July 2009, as well as in Canberra and Darwin on a trial basis. We know that the rollout of digital radio across regional Australia involves significant cost and complexity, and it is being planned by the Digital Radio Planning Committee for regional Australia, which was formed in September 2015 following a federal government review of digital radio. I'm delighted to rise in support of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill. It is another step in the chain of a long line of consistent actions taken by the federal Labor Party which demonstrate unwavering support to the medium of digital radio. Before the 2016 election, following the May 2016 budget, it appeared that the Prime Minister and those conservatives who yearned for simpler times were seeking to cut $5.6 million from community digital radio across the country. What that was likely to do was pull the rug out from under the feet of my local radio station RTRFM. I would like, at this point in time, very much to put a big shout out to RTRFM. RTRFM is a fantastic local radio station. Its premises are located in Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley, and it has gone from strength to strength for over 20 years in that space. As a matter of fact, I remember quite clearly back in my earlier university days—again, I'm on the verge of sounding terribly awkward—having long hair and a You Am I T-shirt, rocking out the first ever In The Pines event that was hosted by RTR in the Summerville Pines Auditorium at the University of Western Australia. Weren't those the days! In The Pines has survived, as RTR has survived, a not-for-profit radio station, but it had to adapt and progress into the 21st century. There was a real risk that this funding of $5.6 million over the course of four years, or $1.4 million per annum, would mean that a not-for-profit community radio station like RTR, which provides a service to many Western Australians, many of them living within in my federal electorate of Perth, would be jeopardised. So I was very pleased to be one of many to campaign to make sure this funding was restored, back in 2016. I was very pleased, back on 2 June 2016, to be able to that announce it was one of federal Labor's election commitments to ensure that that funding was restored. It was our way of making sure that digital radio, from a community point of view, was maintained and thousands and thousands of Western Australians, particularly younger Western Australians who really are into the sort of music that RTRFM puts on—it's mostly independent music—could continue to enjoy it. The reason it is so important that we maintain investment in digital radio, which is the reason why we agree to support this bill, is that it not only means we stay competitive insofar as an ever-shrinking global economy goes but also means that local stations like RTRFM in Mount Lawley continue to offer a foothold into the industry for those who are trying to establish themselves in the sound and music arena. RTRFM continuing on for so long means that budding sound engineers get their first go, up-and-coming rock bands get their first go and DJs get their first go—all in an environment where a not-for-profit community organisation pulls in volunteers who keep the show on the road. I am very pleased to say that the commitment to support digital radio at RTRFM is a commitment that is also matched by the state government. My great friend and colleague Simon Millman, the member for Mount Lawley, campaigned to support RTRFM prior to the state election. He was successful in securing a funding grant, in the range of $120,000, to ensure that RTR could continue to survive and prosper. While the In The Pines event has been going for 20 years, it is really dwarfed by the genesis of RTRFM, which has been going for 40 years. It was vital that community radio and digital radio received the level of support that we're seeing in Western Australia from all levels of government—local government, $120,000 from the state government and campaigning to restore the cuts to digital radio at the federal level. So, to Stu MacLeod and to Rewi Lyall and to all the troops at RTRFM, it is important that they know that, even all the way over here in sunny Canberra, we continue to support local ventures like not-for-profit community radio stations. This bill stems from reforms identified by completed statutory reviews of digital radio. The measures in the bill arise from consultation with the key digital radio industry stakeholders and recommendations contained in the Digital radio report, following the completion of statutory reviews of digital radio. One of the recommendations was that the government consider minor amendments to existing digital radio regulatory regimes to create a simpler, more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. Can I suggest that it is simply the way forward, in terms of managing that interface between government and many of these radio stations who survive on the smell of an oily rag, to make sure that we do everything we can to create a simpler framework, particularly as we move into that digital platform space. This bill contains a package of measures designed to simplify the digital radio framework and help expedite the rollout of digital radio to regional Australia by shortening legislatively prescribed time frames associated with the rollout. That's something that my good friend and most eloquent colleague the member for Bendigo will probably speak more on, given regional Australia is, perhaps, more her bailiwick than mine. If I started to describe the federal seat of Perth as being, remotely, a regional framework I would be in all manner of trouble. It is most certainly not a regional framework, but it does require the same sort of support, particularly in relation to making sure that our not-for-profit local community radio stations are supported. We need to be consistent in relation to that measure. We need to be consistent in relation to making sure that, as we evolve into the 22nd century and more and more Australians receive the benefit of digital radio, the platform is supported. In closing, I'm very pleased that Labor will support the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017. It is yet another sign of our unwavering support to bipartisan politics in this place, which we see happening time and time again for the benefit of this great country. We have that support, in an unblinking fashion, both for the city and the country, and we will see that continuing ever more, particularly in the digital radio space. To finish, I offer one more shout out for the great people at RTRFM. Long may their services reign in all manner and method of broadcast, and we will continue to support them at all levels of government. 10:46 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Whilst the member for Perth is right that Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 is noncontroversial, it does give me a chance to talk about digital radio and the importance of radio as a means of communication with the regions and with other significant parts of our community, such as many of our multicultural communities. In our communities, we have a number of people who are Greek Australians, Italian Australians and Chinese Australians who still switch on the radio to hear, in their first language, news about what's going in the community. In my contribution to this debate I want to speak about the importance of radio, and about having a comprehensive policy that ensures that radio, as a means of communication and entertainment in our country, continues. We have a problem with the pace with which we're rolling out digital radio, and there is a bit of a discussion about whether we will get the digital method across our country before we get to online streaming—which will come first? As the report that others have referred to said, we have to do both. This also gives me a chance to talk about what is happening with mobile reception and the NBN and the rollout of internet access, and the effect that that is having on radio. When I first got that email pop into my inbox—that spam email that says, 'I've been made aware that in your postcode you are entitled to digital radio'—I thought: 'What is digital radio? How is it different to analogue radio?' I started to make inquiries, and discovered that Bendigo and central Victoria were not actually part of the digital radio rollout. It is mainly something that exists in the cites. We are quite fortunate in Bendigo and central Victoria, and it might have something to do with our geography. Mount Macedon appears to have caused a bit of a problem for us with receiving signals from Melbourne, but, because of that, we have a number of own radio stations and a number of our own community stations. Being a regional electorate of over 6,000 square kilometres, each of our towns has their own community station—whether it be in Woodend, whether it be in Mount Alexander and Castlemaine, or whether it be in Bendigo. I should give a shout out to some of the radio stations that have been operating for many years in my part of the world. There's the popular 3BO, and I shout out to Cogho and Ez, who have been doing breakfast mornings—particularly Cogho, Bryan Coghlan, who has been on the breakfast program for 25-plus years. These days it's known as Triple M. It's one of the most popular radio stations we have, with at least 50 per cent of people in Bendigo switching on. We also have ABC Central Victoria. It's very popular amongst people in our community. From the Macedonian Ranges through to Echuca people switch on, particularly to Fiona Parker's morning program. We also have, apart from the more popular ones, KLFM and Gold Central Victoria. I will get in trouble if I don't give a shout-out to Bruce Lees. We have a regular segment where we talk about politics and what's going on in this place. Phoenix FM is a community radio station. It is a family. They broadcast programs from Latin through to council meetings. They cover a number of issues in the community. In Maldon they have a segment about Maldon matters. They play a bit of Simon and Garfunkel's My Little Town as their theme music, which is really fitting and reflective of Maldon. Apart from the fact that radio stations in the regions deliver local news and help tell the local stories, they are incredibly important, particularly when it comes to emergencies. When there is a bushfire risk a number of stations become the emergency broadcaster. We hear the music that sends a shiver down your spine before the presenter goes on to tell you what the risk is. Quite often in areas where you've lost phone reception you can still turn the radio on and hear the broadcaster tell you when it's safe, where it's safe and what the advice is. This isn't just in Victoria; it's also in regional Queensland—when it comes to cyclones and severe storms, radio broadcasting continues to be important. At a time when there is so much that people can consume to be entertained, we thought people would start to phase out radio. But, with the rise of podcasts and online streaming, people are still turning to radio and listening to radio, because it does go with you. In regional areas and in the city you will spend lots of time in your car. The radio is still the best way to be not only entertained but updated. While speaking about traffic, I'll tell you a little thing that happens in regional Victoria, particularly in my part of the world. Traffic updates are a big deal in Melbourne. They tell you which roads to avoid. It is the same in Sydney. Our traffic update in Bendigo quite often is: 'There are no traffic issues today. Enjoy your day.' Isn't it great to live in central Victoria? It's that tongue in cheek and that real kind of experience that we have. Talkback radio continues to be a way people engage in the issue of the day and debate it. There is even texting and tweeting about what is happening on radio. Radio is interactive; it's not just information sharing. It's a way people in our communities participate in debate and discussion. This week the radio, like all media, has been a bit ugly. People in this place know how ugly it has been. But beyond that there is genuine discussion about what is happening in our community and what matters. I touched briefly on the importance that radio has, particularly to many of our ethnic and multicultural communities. It's a way in which we can ensure Australians from a non-English-speaking background do know what's going on and can participate and engage. The SBS, the ABC and our community radio stations need a shout-out for their efforts to ensure that all Australians stay engaged and are actively involved in topics of discussion. They do this while at the same time sharing music and being entertaining. Entertainment and music are a big part of our culture, and radio is part of helping to share that story. I want to touch on the report that was released and highlight a couple of things I really hope the government, and future governments, take on board. We are in a telecommunication crisis, particularly in regional Australia. Different people use different means in which to engage with radio. Some are fortunate enough to have good mobile phone reception, or good internet, and can stream. They might have an app that works where they can stream, whether it be ABC listen or their favourite Triple M app. But that is not the case for all, particularly if you don't live near a tower, and particularly if you live in a black-spot area. Therefore, in these areas it is unlikely that they'll be added to the digital rollout map anytime soon. So it's really important that the government note and respect the recommendation that no timetable be set for analog radio switch off—don't switch it off. Do not switch off the ability for people in the regions to tune in and listen. This is not just when it comes to emergency times but it is to be able to stay engaged. If you talk to farmers, to people who work on the lands and to people like truckies who are driving for long stints, the radio keeps them engaged and alert. It's important that we do not set down a timetable to switch off analog radio, because it will hurt many people in the regions. It will hurt many people in our multicultural communities and ethnic communities if they lose the ability to engage. It will also hurt a lot of our community radio stations. We know, as others have said, that the transition to digital radio is a commercial decision that is made. It is a decision that the industry make because they believe that there is an opportunity for commercial reasons. I appreciate and understand that radio is a commercial business; however, it is so much more than that. It is a way in which people in our community communicate. It is a way that people share their stories and engage. I wish that more members in this place had the opportunity and the radio stations and programs that we have in central Victoria—whether it be Triple J, Radio KLFM, Phoenix FM, with its 'Maldon matters', or any of the 22 radio stations that we have in the electorate. We have diversity, and we have the opportunity to continue to share our story. It's important, as a government and as a parliament, that we continue to support and ensure all radio services are available—whether they be community or commercial—and that we have the infrastructure. In the future we may have the same mobile connectivity as China, we may be able to walk into the bush and continue to use our mobile phones, and we may catch up to the rest of the world when it comes to our mobile connectivity and our NBN connectivity, but, until we get to that point—where 100 per cent of Australians have access to use their mobile phone for streaming or accessing radio—we need to ensure that we continue to support analog and digital radio. As I've said, it is a way that many Australians continue to engage in politics, in debates, in weather and in what's going on in their community. 10:58 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The Nick Xenophon Team supports the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017. Radio plays an important role in connecting our communities, particularly our regional and remote communities. As a listener and a one-time amateur community radio announcer, I'm a keen supporter of this medium and appreciate how much digital radio has supplemented the FM and AM stations. Digital radio has been broadcasting in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide since 2009. Canberra and Darwin are about to receive permanent licences, and I understand Hobart is next on the list, but the rollout has been sloth-like in its slowness, and, really, it does show contempt for those of us who live outside the big metropolitan regions. Some of my electorate is in the Adelaide licence area, but most of it is not, and the listeners in Mayo would like that to change. Why should we wait eight years, as we have? This is another example of the digital divide that exists between city folk and those of us in rural and regional Australia. To that end, I and my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues welcome this bill, which seeks to streamline the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA's, regulatory regime to make it easier to plan and licence digital radio in regional Australia. These amendments have come about after consultation with the broadcasting industry and are drawn from recommendations in the 2015 Department of Communications Digital radio report. This is truly welcome reform. In a time of rapid technological change, we need to be flexible and help rather than hinder the private sector. However, I do realise that while ACMA's Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia has identified 39 markets to introduce digital radio, it will be a commercial decision made by the broadcasters themselves. My concern is, if large commercial enterprises find the decision difficult or they don't believe a region will be profitable enough for them, they won't apply for a licence. This could mean that regional areas, which are just as deserving of this technology, this form of communication, will be at the mercy of a CEO's decision based on potential profits and not on regional need, and there's the great likelihood that some areas will never receive digital radio. This gap in services to community radio, I believe, comes into its own and leads me to raise the issue of the backlog in community radio licensing. I have five community radio stations in my electorate with long-term licences and three with temporary licences. TribeFM and 5 Triple Z share a temporary licence, and Hills Radio is on its fourth year of a temporary licence. These stations are not alone in their desire for a long-term licence. The Community Broadcasting Association of Australia says there are approximately 65 community radio stations across the country still waiting for a permanent licence. I understand approximately half a dozen licences were advertised recently by ACMA. This is the first group of licences to be advertised in many, many years. They are in areas that are fairly easy to regulate. In my electorate and in the case of Hills Radio, the regulatory regime is more complicated. The Murray Bridge licensing area plan needs to be reviewed. The time line for this review has been significantly delayed. Bear in mind, Murray Bridge is 46 kilometres away from Mount Barker, a community very different to the Adelaide Hills. And the people of the Adelaide Hills rarely travel or work in the Murray Bridge area. When I raised this issue with the communications minister, Senator Fifield, in 2016 on behalf of my constituents, I was promised that the review would be in 2017. I understand that it's been delayed again, and now will be the last quarter of this year at the very earliest. I understand that poor resourcing is exacerbating the processing time for ACMA. But this is just not acceptable. How can it be that government provide support to some—it's reported they provided $30 million to Rupert Murdoch and Foxtel—yet only crumbs are available for community radio? And don't get me started on the lack of government support for community television! I raised this claim about the lack of resources in ACMA's community broadcasting unit in correspondence with the minister, but today I'm none the wiser and I still am yet to understand whether the minister truly supports community radio. So, while I commend the government for streamlining the regulatory regime for digital radio, I urge them to investigate similar reforms and put in the same amount of effort when it relates to community radio licensing. With respect to digital radio, the government must ensure that there are supports in place so that those of us who live in regional areas don't miss out because of commercial decisions of CEOs. At the very least, government need to provide ACMA with the resources it needs to get the work done, because regional Australia is missing out. In the last budget, the government gave a two-year commitment of $3.9 million to community digital radio. I must say that was after a huge campaign by community radio stations, which I was very keen to support. But that money won't go far and it won't reduce the backlog of community radio stations and their licensing applications. Community radio had a record number of listeners in 2017. More than 5.3 million Australians—one in four Australians—tuned in. There are more than 450 community radio stations across Australia, and 66 per cent of them are in regional and rural areas communicating with Indigenous communities, ethnic communities, young people, senior citizens. More than 70 per cent of the content on community radio is locally produced, and most of it by more than the 20,000 volunteers, who are passionate about this sector. They are elderly people who love radio and also young people who are really keen to get into this medium. Community radio provides more than 600 full-time equivalent jobs, and the sector trains more than 5,600 people every year, making it a training ground for our future journalists and broadcasters. So, in closing, while I commend the government for its efforts to streamline community radio licensing arrangements, I call on the government to make sure they review the rollout when it's in regional areas to make sure that we don't miss out, simply because of commercial decisions. I also call on the government to give the same attention they give to digital radio and commercial enterprise to community radio. 11:05 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I thank the members who have contributed to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill. The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 with measures designed to facilitate the rollout of digital radio in regional Australia. The measures in the bill have been identified in consultation with the Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia, which is chaired by the Australian Media and Communications Authority and includes Commercial Radio Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the Special Broadcasting Service and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. Industry and regulatory stakeholders are supportive of the measures. The aim of the bill is do deliver a simpler, more flexible process for industry and regulators to plan and license digital radio in regional Australia. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 88

Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017

Second Reading 88 11:07 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I would like to speak in favour of the amendments and obviously to indicate that Labor will be supporting the passage of the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill. We're all concerned when we find that there are loopholes that prevent its ability to achieve its end result, particularly when it comes to matters of law enforcement. The proceeds of crime regime allows the authorities to trace, restrain and confiscate proceeds of crime against the Commonwealth law. The whole notion of this is to prevent organisations from financially benefiting from their crimes. Apart from crime causing misery and suffering within communities and the harm that it does, proceeds of crime allow criminal enterprises to reinvest those funds into other activities, which continues the suffering within communities. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, as you know, prior to coming here I spent many, many years representing police in most Australian jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, I grew up in a police family. I can readily remember Dad coming back, probably on a Sunday morning, after he and a lot of his colleagues had been out—probably the forerunner to things such as the gang squads—and some of my uncles, as I always referred to them—I subsequently found out we weren't related, and they were all a lot bigger than me—were missing bits of bark and stuff. So they had probably had a very hard night. They were certainly enthused by catching criminals. They were enthusiastic when they caught them in an operation and they had the evidence for a successful prosecution and prepared their briefs. With bikies—I suppose their forerunners were bodgies and widgies, in those days; we probably wouldn't refer to them today as bikies—force was met with force. That's the way things were. The thing I want to point out is that, in that era of policing, the driving thing was to catch crooks and lock crooks up, whereas I think the modern-day aspect of policing is to prevent and disrupt crime. There's a victim in every crime that takes place. Being able to prevent or disrupt criminal enterprise has a huge social benefit for all of us. That's why we need new tools to fight contemporary crime. I know proceeds of crime is a relatively straightforward concept—you don't let people benefit from a criminal enterprise. The whole notion of this is to take away the business model that underpins criminal enterprise. I think the proceeds of crimes legislation is very good. It's been around for some time. I think it was introduced by the Hawke government some 30-odd years ago. I have been able to discover from my work on the parliamentary law enforcement committee and my involvement with current police colleagues, both within the country and internationally, that it is a matter of following the money. Proceeds of crime is one aspect of it. I suppose unexplained wealth is another. I'm particularly concerned to see that we tighten our provisions to ensure that, on how we approach moneys that flow from crime, we set a national agenda that is consistent among the state and territory jurisdictions as well as the Commonwealth. In an effort to debase criminal enterprise we do need to take away the attraction of criminal enterprise, which is to make a profit. Their profit is derived from crime. As I said a little earlier, for every crime that's committed there is a victim. Therefore, there's got to be some greater emphasis put on that. I know that there are many things. There is the sharing of intelligence that goes on among police. That's a very good thing because crime doesn't know borders—it doesn't respect the geographic borders, the electoral borders and things of that nature. They will look for areas of opportunity. They will commission their crime where there is weakness and where there are loopholes. I come back to the matter before us. A loophole exists in the current legislation in respect of the proceeds of crime. I did see a very good example of where the weakness is. It is actually explained in the explanatory memorandum. I think it's a very good example: a car is bought from the proceeds of crime, from a fraud offence, and the car is later sold and the money is subsequently put towards a mortgage repayment on real property. I think most of us on both sides would say that they're obviously the proceeds of a crime and it doesn't matter when it occurred, they are still the proceeds of the crime. The Western Australian Supreme Court and the Queensland Court of Appeal took a different view in respect of the cases of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hart and others. The courts took the view that the person's interest in property is fixed at the time of the initial acquisition. In other words, quite frankly, the courts have taken the view that, once that money has been transmitted, you can't follow the money—it stops at that initial purchase. That's a bit of a green light for some of the criminals out there who might want to buy a block of units in Sydney, Melbourne or somewhere like that: they might get pinged for the offence but not for the financial aspect, the proceeds of the crime. I've mentioned some of the work we did on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and in this debate I'd like to refer to the exercise that took place between April and May 2009. The Australian government sent a delegation to a range of countries to look at contemporary methods of law enforcement and what police thought they needed to do in targeting criminal enterprise. In every jurisdiction that was visited—and bear in mind the jurisdictions were Canada, the United States, Italy, Austria, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands—the law enforcement strategies that were discussed all went to attacking the business model that underpinned serious and organised crime. The Italian national police's Mr Grassi summarised it well for our committee when he said that, from their perspective, members of criminal syndicates are far more prepared to spend time in prison than to have their assets lost as a result of any proceeding. I suppose we all know that in jail we have issues about communication and crime syndicates continuing to operate, but it's a real issue when people are prepared to spend time in jail for what they've invested in crime but not to relinquish their actual assets. That's certainly the view of policing generally at the moment. I would like to quote from a submission that was made by Mark Burgess APM, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Police Federation. I think he succinctly captures the law enforcement perspective when it comes to this bill. He said: Criminal assets confiscation methods offer law enforcement agencies the opportunity to send a clear message to criminals: if you make money from criminal activity, we will take that money off you. This is basically the contemporary thinking of policing—not waiting for a crime but actually going out and attacking the business model that underpins crime. We need to have regard to the fact that there will be certain intrusions into civil liberties, and no doubt that's one of the issues that the courts have to deal with, but if we are going to protect our society we need to have that balance. I would favour the liberties of the people we represent to live harmoniously, to live in peace and to live without the fear that they may be impacted by crime. I have less regard for the civil liberty of criminals who perpetrate crime. I think we need to have a suite of legislation that gives our police and our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to attack the 'big end of town' when it comes to criminal enterprises. It's all very well to have poor coppers running around and locking up people distributing drugs on the street. Those people, to the cynics among us, are probably a dime a dozen. The Mr Bigs of crime are where we need to address our energies, and the only way to do that is to focus on the money. Again I quote Mark Burgess, from the Police Federation: With the 'Mr Bigs' of the crime world able to distance themselves from the actual commission of crimes, or with criminals unconcerned with serving short term jail sentences, asset confiscation is an integral piece of the crime-fighting puzzle. That certainly echoes the views I have. We must get serious about this. We must ensure that our agencies have the tools they need to do the task that we require of them, which is to protect our communities—all this when serious and organised crime is estimated to be costing the country $36 billion a year. That's a lot of money. I have a view not so much about the proceeds of crime but unexplained wealth. The more money we can take off criminal enterprise to redirect into strategies that keep our community safe—I think that would be a pretty noble thing for us to do as law makers. As I say, I know in doing that there will be arguments about trampling aspects of civil liberties, but, again, I come down in favour of protecting the community. As I said at the outset, I support the legislation. No doubt as courts do their work and inadvertently unravel the intent of what we as legislators intended in this legislation, there will be other remedies required. I would indicate that if we move away from the intention of what this is—to take money away from the criminals—I will certainly be up for supporting any other amendments. 11:21 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I'm pleased to follow on from the member for Fowler and his support for this bill, the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017. I acknowledge his support for our police force and the officers who wear the uniform every day and go out there and keep our community safe. The support that the member for Fowler gives to that is very well recognised on both sides of this parliament. I would like to personally say thank you to him during this contribution. The entire purpose of the proceeds of crime legislation is that we want those who are thinking about getting involved in criminal activity for a profit to rethink—you cannot obtain wealth and you cannot obtain the things that are great in a free-market society by engaging in illegal activity. We want those criminals to use their entrepreneurial skills to add real wealth to the economy and engage in legitimate business activities. If they do so, for whatever wealth that they accumulate we say, 'Good on them.' But if they think they can accumulate wealth through illegal activities—that is what this legislation is aimed to prevent and stop. This bill has a range of special measures that we need to address. These amendments are a necessary response to developments of recent cases, where there have been found to be some weaknesses or loopholes in the legislation that need tightening. The amendments: align the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime with other types of orders in the Act to ensure that it covers situations in which wealth is 'derived or realised, directly or indirectly' from certain offences 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 security or liability incurred in relation to the property, and clarify that property or wealth will only be 'lawfully acquired' in situations where the property or wealth is not 'proceeds' or an 'instrument' of an offence. I'm glad this bill has support across the parliament. There are a few particular areas of criminal activity that I also think this parliament needs to look at more closely to ensure that we have the right legislative response to them. The first one is in respect of illegal tobacco. There is only a market for illegal tobacco because of government legislation putting very heavy taxes on that tobacco. For example, I was passing through Dubai airport last year on a delegation and in the duty-free section there were Benson & Hedges cigarettes on sale. Firstly, I'm not a smoker. I'm probably the most rabid antismoker you could find in this parliament. I can pick up the smell of cigarettes from 100 yards away and I find it offensive. It affects my nasal passages. When it comes to antismoking, I think I'm the most antismoking person you could find. But I was keen to see what the price of those cigarettes that I could buy duty free actually was. I worked out that a packet of Benson & Hedges—in a three-carton package—was the equivalent of $1.67 Australian. That's the retail price in a duty-free shop. Admittedly it was on special, but it was $1.67. We are putting legislation through which is bipartisan legislation—it's supported by both major parties in this parliament—to increase the rate of taxation on cigarettes as an attempt to drive down the rate of smoking, because of the harm smoking does. But, in doing so, we are going to raise the retail price of that packet of Benson & Hedges to $40. So, when the retail price through taxation is $40, yet you can buy that same product overseas at a retail level—let alone a wholesale level—for $1.67, we have created a great incentive for criminals to become involved in the illegal tobacco racket. We're seeing more and more seizures. I'm sure that every member of this parliament would be able to go to countless tobacconists in their electorates and, if they really wanted to, buy an illegal packet of tobacco. In Western Sydney, in particular, they seem to be popping up all over the place—selling unlawful product and almost thumbing their noses at the law. So, if we are going to crack down on tobacco use in this country, if we are going to try to reduce the rate of smoking in this country by a price mechanism—effectively, a prohibition via price—we have to acknowledge that that will cause all the criminal activities that we have seen throughout history when prohibitions on products occur. So we need to think very carefully about this issue of illegal tobacco, how we're going to tackle it and the law enforcement activities that we're going to need in this area. One of the most important areas is the proceeds of crime. Anyone who thinks that they can obtain wealth through the importation or the sale of illegal tobacco must know that this parliament will put laws in place that will confiscate those ill-gotten gains. The second area regarding our laws here in Australia that we need to look at and crack down on further is car theft. We have seen a slight decline in car theft across Australia in recent years—as technology improves, it can make it harder for criminals to steal cars. Unfortunately, as we always see, we have to keep one step ahead of the criminals. We have seen places in Melbourne where a modus operandi of car thieves is to break into people's houses when the people are at home, take the car keys—which people often leave at somewhere near the front entrance or in the front foyer of the house—and go and steal the car. People have actually been erecting bollards to prevent this. There is a company in Melbourne that is doing a roaring trade erecting bollards—the type of bollards that we see here at Parliament House. When people get home to their house they can put their bollards up, sending a message that if anyone breaks into their house for car keys, they won't be able to get the car out. The other concern about the issue of car theft is that we've seen a great imbalance in the figures between the states. New South Wales has had a very significant decline in the rate of car thefts, which has been very good, but Victoria has had a very large increase in car thefts. It's almost as though a large section of the car theft industry has packed up and moved out of Sydney and gone down to set up business in Victoria. That is something this parliament needs to look at more closely. And the reason why, even though car theft is a state issue, is that there have been reports that a lot of the stolen cars are actually being exported out of Australia. There was a famous story about a month or so ago where someone had their late-model BMW stolen in Melbourne and it turned up in Dubai. There are reports that up to 40 per cent of cars stolen are exported out of the country. You could imagine that difficulty in Europe, where you have open borders making it very easy to ship cars across countries. But in Australia, the only way to get a car out of the country is to put it in a container and have it exported. So I think we need to look closely at what export regulations we have in place and at the weakness of those laws that enable car thieves to put stolen cars in containers and ship them out of country. In doing so, we need to be careful that we don't overly interfere or put too much red tape in the way of businesses or companies that are doing legitimate exports of cars and car parts. We could reduce that rate of car theft if we could close our borders. Often so much of our law enforcement activity is done looking at goods being imported into the country. It appears that we have a blind spot with stolen goods being exported out of the country. So it's very important that this parliament looks at what we can do in this space to tighten up those export regulations for the export of stolen cars to help our state law enforcement agencies to crack down and to reduce the number of car thefts, because, if we can reduce the number of car thefts in this country, we can reduce insurance premiums. If we're doing that, we're effectively putting money back in motorists' pockets. If we could get car thefts down substantially, we'd see a substantial reduction in premiums. At this time, every household is under cost-of-living pressures. If we could do something just to reduce the insurance premium on their car, that would go a long way in helping. This is why the law enforcement committee, hopefully, will be looking at the issue of car thefts and the export of stolen cars and looking at what regulations we can make in this federal parliament to close that gap down. If someone here in Australia thinks that they are going to obtain wealth and property—whether it's fast boats, fast cars or flash houses—through stealing cars, this legislation gives them the message to give up that illegal activity because this will see their assets confiscated. I leave my remarks there. I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I hope that, in this area of proceeds of crime and law enforcement, this parliament can continue to work in a bipartisan manner to crack down on illegal activity. I thank the House. 11:33 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The government does support the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017 to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act as it operates at a Commonwealth level. This piece of legislation serves to rob criminals of any benefit that they may receive from the crimes that they commit. And it mirrors, in many respects at least, a legislative intent of a similar form around the country. This particular bill aligns the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime with other types of orders in the act to ensure that it covers situations in which wealth is derived or realised directly or indirectly from certain offences. One would have to say that we would hope with this amendment that the unexplained wealth provisions that exist at the Commonwealth level might actually now start to be used. The states have been using these provisions in their own legislation for a long period of time, and one would hope that, having such a provision in the act for quite a while now, maybe the Commonwealth will make use of the provision once it's amended. The legislation also purports to clarify: … that property becomes 'proceeds' or an 'instrument' of an offence under the Act— when those— are used to improve the property or discharge an encumbrance security or liability incurred in relation to the property, and clarify that property or wealth will only be 'lawfully acquired' in situations where the property or wealth is not 'proceeds' or an 'instrument' of an offence. Australia's proceeds of crime regime must be kept up to date. It must meet modern economic conditions and it must ensure that it is effective and that loopholes are not created or maintained that allow criminals to maintain wealth from their criminal activities. These loopholes, where they exist, must be addressed. However, it must also be said that the Proceeds of Crime Act as it currently stands does provide for the forfeiture of property or at least the value of such property in an extremely wide set of circumstances already, some of which may actually be quite concerning, or at least surprising, to the public at large. Foremost of those is cuckoo smurfing, the description of which is probably far too detailed for this speech but is something I'm sure the AFP commissioner and those apprised in this area of the law are familiar with and know needs to be addressed. In dealing with this legislation, the issue I would like to turn briefly to is the changes to the definition of proceeds and instruments. Those words are used in sections 17 to 19 in relation to restraining orders and 47 to 49 in respect of forfeiture. They're also defined in sections 329 and 330, and it's important to look at those two provisions. Section 329 sets out the meaning of proceeds of crime, and section 330 describes how something becomes or ceases to be a proceed of crime. Generally, the specific will overrule the general. Section 330(4) specifically defines how property ceases to be a proceed of crime. The government is amending section 330 by inserting proposed subsection (8), which provides that whatever is in section 330 will not override or not limit section 329, but that may have the effect of actually creating more ambiguity than the provision as amended is trying to resolve because it sets up a situation where property may be a proceed of crime but it's not clear, at least for the purposes of a bona fide third-party purchaser for value, whether that property actually ceases to be a proceed of crime. It's for that reason, and to deal with those sorts of issues, that not only do we have the opportunity under the Proceeds of Crime Act to confiscate or to forfeit proceeds of crime, which is very important, but the commissioner has the opportunity to seek a pecuniary penalty order. In other words, the commissioner has the capacity to take the same value off the criminal as the proceed of crime, where they cease to hold it themselves. In that regard, the explanatory memorandum for these particular amendments cuts straight to the chase where it says that the amendments proposed to the act are, in part, directed at the decision by his honour Justice Kenneth Martin of the Western Australia Supreme Court in the decision of the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and Huang in 2016. The effect of the amendments could actually be far wider than trying to deal with this case, but it is important to realise that, in that case, if the commissioner had applied for a pecuniary penalty instead of a forfeiture, he would have got the value he was seeking. So in many respects the amendments that are being sought by the government may not have been required but are in response to the poor tactical decision which seems to have been made by the commissioner in that decision. But we don't stand in the way of what the government is proposing to do here, because if there are actual loopholes in the legislation we of course support the government in closing them. I speak only to make sure that it does stand on the record that, in trying to close loopholes, the government may well just be creating others for the future. What the government also needs to understand is that legislation alone will do nothing to fix issues relating to crime if our police continue to be under-resourced. This government pretends to be tough on crime while savagely cutting funding for the Australian Federal Police. In the 2017-18 budget, the government cut $184 million, with 151 AFP officers let go this year alone. Of course, we have to tackle crime. But, if the Prime Minister were serious about tackling crime, he wouldn't be cutting the numbers of the police force. We should be judging this government on what they do rather than just what they say, because, even though they talk a big game when it comes to law and order, their actions are seriously lacking, not only on the policing end but in actually doing work to ensure that crime doesn't occur in the first place. But, when it comes to resourcing our primary law enforcement body, the AFP, it's inadequate, especially when it comes to financial crimes. And these are the crimes where the Proceeds of Crime Act provisions are actually the most cutting and should have the most serious effect on those who are thinking of committing crime, because those are usually the most premeditated crimes. Those are the crimes where the people who commit them are thinking about whether they will be caught and what the penalty will be. So it looms large to make sure that the Australian Federal Police, along with its other complementary agencies in the area such as ASIC, APRA and AUSTRAC, are adequately resourced to actually police Australians to make sure that financial crime does not happen. Similarly, not only do the resources of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, so long overlooked by successive governments I will admit, need to be increased, along with the ever-expanding scope of the work of the Australian Federal Police and our other law enforcement agencies, but a significant investment is actually required to catch it up with all of the prior expansion of law enforcement work that has been happening at a federal level in this country. Whilst they remain inadequately resourced, all we see is more and more law enforcement agencies running around trying to catch crooks, as they should; yet, they can't be, or there is a backlog in prosecuting them properly and making sure that justice is brought to bear against those that commit crimes in this country because the Commonwealth DPP is chronically underresourced. These amendments are supported, but, like much of the government's legislation nowadays which I have to speak on so frequently, it's necessity is somewhat dubious, and I really hope that we do not soon find ourselves back in this place having to fix another legislative amendment bungle by this government. 11:42 Mr HART 263070 Bass I rise today, like the member for Burt, to speak on the Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017. As we have heard this morning, this bill makes amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 with the intention of closing loopholes that exist in our proceeds of crime regime. Specifically, these amendments address a gap in legislation which allows criminals to structure their affairs to avoid forfeiture or confiscation of assets that were not lawfully acquired. Under the Commonwealth's proceeds of crime regime, authorities are empowered to trace, restrain and confiscate the proceeds of crime against Commonwealth law. Two relatively recent court decisions have been referred to this morning which have prompted the government into action, consequently proposing the amendments to the act that we have before us today. The first of these was Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Huang, which was a 2016 decision. This matter concerned an application under section 94 of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The particular issue that arose was the fact that the source of funds used by the offender in order to repay a loan meant that they couldn't trace or acquire the particular property. So, if you'd paid down a mortgage, that didn't thereafter taint the property that had been acquired. In response to this particular case, parliament passed amendments to the definition of 'lawfully acquired' within the act, which were intended to ensure that, where illegitimate funds are used to discharge a legitimately obtained security such as a mortgage, property or wealth obtained using the security is not considered lawfully acquired. I say again: a criminal may well have property which has been legitimately acquired, subject to a mortgage. In this case the mortgage was partially repaid. The question was whether the legislation at the time enabled the Commonwealth to deal with the property on the basis that it had been tainted by the money that had been repaid from the mortgage. The second case is Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Hart & Ors—no relation, I assume—which, again, is a 2016 case. That case was analogous to the Huang case, where you had a repayment of mortgage, but in the Hart case the source of funds which were used for repairs or restoration of a particular asset were the issue. In other words, if you had a particular asset such as a house which had been enhanced, repaired or renovated, the question was whether the unlawful activity tainted the property and whether the source of funds used for repairing or restoring the assets could be relevant in determining whether there was forfeiture of the asset. The amendments serve to align the Commonwealth unexplained wealth regime with other types of orders which are contemplated in the act to ensure that those provisions cover situations in which wealth is derived or realised directly or indirectly from certain offences. It also clarifies that property becomes proceeds or an instrument of an offence under the act when they are used to improve the property or discharge an incumbent security or liability incurred in relation to the property—in other words, a mortgage. Lastly, the act is amended to clarify that property or wealth will only be lawfully acquired in circumstances where the property or wealth is not proceeds or an instrument of an offence. It is important to understand the context of what we're talking about here today. Serious and organised crime is estimated to cost Australia $36 billion each year. That's a cost to the economy that affects you and me. It affects organisations doing business within the Australian economy. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that this equates to $1,561 out of every individual's pocket. Of course, this is money not paid in tax; this is money lost to the economy. It is essential, therefore, that our proceeds of crime regime is kept up to date. The regime provides justice to the community by stopping criminals from financially benefitting from their crimes. Also, further crime is prevented by cutting off funding for future criminal endeavours and would-be criminals are deterred by reducing the appeal of the illegal activity. However, given the scope and impact of organised crime in our community, it is clear that legislation alone is not enough to tackle this deeply concerning problem. We on this side of the House believe that it's absolutely essential that we properly resource law enforcement. It's not enough simply to provide legislation that is able to be used by law enforcement if we don't adequately resource our law enforcers. This bill will not and cannot make up for the fact that this government has cut Australia's law enforcement activity. As we heard earlier this morning, the other side, those opposite, claim to be tough on crime. They often come into this place and talk about issues like mandatory minimum sentences, for example. They beat their chests and claim that they are being tough on crime. But when you look at what they are actually doing, how they're resourcing the Australian Federal Police and enforcing law enforcement generally, you see that in the most recent budget they cut $184 million from the Australian Federal Police. Last year, 151 AFP officers were let go and the government threatened the pay and conditions of AFP officers. In my home state we see the ongoing effects of these types of cuts. For example, in Tasmania in 2014 the Abbott Liberal government removed all the Australian Federal Police from Hobart airport. You might ask the question, 'Why would I, in northern Tasmania, be concerned about whether we have an AFP presence in Hobart?', because we don't have a presence of AFP in Launceston, and we haven't had it for a significant period of time. The important issue—an issue which is totally lost on this government—is the fact that this decreased the total number of AFP officers in Tasmania from 30 to five. That was an 84 per cent reduction in AFP personnel in Tasmania. That affects the entire state; it's not something that affects just the capital city. Tasmania, regrettably, is the only state where the capital city airport has absolutely no AFP presence. This has forced the diversion of Tasmania Police resources from ordinary policing activity to the protection of Hobart airport. This means that there is a diversion of precious resources away from community policing and general crime policing across the state to protect the Hobart airport. It's not doubted that the AFP are experts in fighting serious crime, such as drug trafficking and organised crime, and it's difficult to know how many of these crimes are going undetected in Tasmania because of this government's refusal to fund the AFP properly or to reinstate the presence of AFP in the state. Last year, I'm proud that the Labor opposition committed to reinstating an AFP presence at Hobart airport to patrol the airport to prevent and detect crime and to keep passengers and workers at the airport safe. The restoration of a permanent AFP presence at Hobart airport will enhance our national security and improve security at the airport by enhancing the law enforcement's ability to detect national security threats, contraband, illegal drugs, federal crimes and other crimes. The restoration of this presence will also enable Tasmania Police to re-divert their officers and resources back to community policing, which should improve community safety in Hobart and across Tasmania. Under Labor's policy the AFP presence in Tasmania will increase from five personnel to 21 personnel with at least two federal officers on duty at all times the airport is open. This is the type of resourcing that ultimately allows law enforcement agencies to do their job detecting and preventing crime and keeping our community safe. This government is happy to give lip-service on law and order, but so far we're yet to see a proper commitment to resourcing and supporting law enforcement agencies in their incredibly important work. I'd also like to note that concerns were raised through the committee process regarding several aspects of this bill. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, for example, recommended that the government undertake a detailed assessment of the Proceeds of Crime Act to determine its compatibility with the right to a fair trial and the right to receive a fair hearing. The committee also noted that the proposed amendments may engage and limit the right to not be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with a person's home as the amendments affect orders that can be used to restrain and forfeit real property. Further, there did not appear to be a safeguard in place to allow the court to revoke a forfeiture order where a person has been acquitted of an offence or where their conviction has been subsequently quashed. It's really important, at this stage, to reflect upon the fact that there are some areas, such as law enforcement, where bipartisanship is truly appropriate. We can't afford to place national security, for example, in issue when we're considering the safety of our nation, and that also applies in this area of law enforcement. Of course, we must consider the rights of the individual. We also must consider representations that have been made by peak bodies, such as the Law Council of Australia, as to how, in practise, these amendments might work. The Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reported on the bill. They took into account a submission from the Law Council of Australia to the committee's inquiry, which raised an important issue of proportionality. They stated that there is a need for proportionality, which was especially critical, given that this legislation anticipates that there will be a low threshold in obtaining restraining orders. The legislation also contains strict exclusion tests, and there's a very limited judicial discretion to prevent forfeiture and the operation of forfeiture provisions. Just unpacking that for a minute, the issue of proportionality is important; it's something that I think this parliament needs to monitor. The important issue is that, if there is a trivial application of proceeds of crime to the reduction of a mortgage or to renovate or repair a house, one would not want to see injustice occasioned, particularly to a perpetrator's family, where a house, where an asset, has been tainted by a trivial transaction. As presently drafted, and as advised by the Law Council of Australia, that is something that needs to be considered and needs to be monitored. Whilst Labor are satisfied that we should support the legislation through the House, it's perfectly appropriate that we do sound a note of caution with respect to issues like proportionality. Labor will not oppose the passage of this bill through the House; however, we should also be vigilant about carefully examining this legislation to ensure that it is sufficiently robust to address what have been identified as significant gaps in our proceeds of crime regime. We also need to be mindful that we do not unnecessarily encroach on Australian individuals' rights and liberties. Again, as I indicated earlier, there is a gap, in many cases, between what the government professes it is doing with respect to issues like law and order and how it actually implements legislation. The job of a robust opposition is not simply to oppose. That's why Labor is not opposing this bill. But speeches like mine and the speech that was delivered by the member for Burt are really important signals to the wider community that there are concerns as to issues like proportionality, as to whether injustice might be occasioned in the operation of this legislation. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 95

Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 95 11:58 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam With great pleasure, I make a contribution on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which could be described as an omnibus bill providing what, on the face of it, are a range of administrative and largely sensible amendments to both the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011. In summary, the amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act change the account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements for commercial broadcasters; remove the duplicative requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, of certain changes in control of regulated media assets; and provide a consistent classification arrangement for all television programs, including films. These are all sensible reforms which Labor supports. I'd like to make a few more comments about the changes to the National Broadband Network Companies Act. The changes in this omnibus bill include a change which allows the NBN Co to dispose of some surplus non-communications goods. Some technical prohibitions in the existing legislation limit NBN Co's capacity to dispose of such assets. It is an unintended consequence of the original legislation. We should support this provision. I say with tongue in cheek that it might help them to dispose of some 16,000 kilometres of copper wire, which at some point in time is going to be obsolete. We don't object to the provision. We support it. I do say that if we're looking at the priorities that the government should be focusing on, this bill should have also included provisions that are going to enhance consumer protections and consumer rights in the area of telecommunications. Just last week, with the publication of the ASX-listed companies report, we learned that a staggering 83 per cent of small businesses are lacking confidence in the delivery of the government's second-rate NBN. Fifty-four per cent of small businesses believe that they're going to be left behind as the digital economy develops, with technology infrastructure given by those respondents as the key barrier to starting a new business. We have seen consumer complaints hit a record high level, with the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman reporting that NBN complaints in the 2016-17 report surged by a whopping 159 per cent when compared to the previous period. NBN complaints are growing 37 per cent faster than the number of new premises that are being connected to the NBN. So clearly there's an issue here. The government has come very, very late to a realisation that there is a deep-seated concern within the community about the quality of service, whether that's at the install, whether it's the service that they are getting or whether it's a problem with their internet service provider. There are deep-seated problems within the community, and the government has been nothing short of sluggish in responding. An announcement was made just before Christmas, after significant pressure from Labor and from communications advocacy groups, that we needed more action on the consumer protections framework. The government's announcement—changing the acronym that applies to the universal service obligation and kicking that can down the road—is, quite frankly, no answer to the problem. The house is burning down. We don't need a committee being formed by government to establish whether we need a fire hydrant or a garden hose. We need action on consumer service protections. We are seeing nothing from the government. That's the first comment I want do make. That's about what the government should be including in any national broadband bill before the House. The second thing I want do focus on is included in the bill. It goes to the requirements on the NBN or potentially other carriers or internet service providers in new developments. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to repeal the power of the NBN Co to issue a statement that it's not installing fibre in a new real estate development, and to remove the obligation for the NBN Co to maintain the associated public register of these instruments. This is a sensible reform. We don't believe that it's appropriate for the NBN Co to have this quasi-regulatory power in the existing environment. The explanatory memorandum to the bill explains that the provisions are intended to provide a mechanism by which relevant developers—they are constitutional corporations—can seek to be excused from the default obligation to provide fibre-ready facilities, such as pit and pipe, in areas where the NBN Co would be providing services using fixed wire or satellite technology and where the NBN Co could not be using fixed lines. In such circumstances, it was envisaged that the installation of pit and pipe would be unnecessary, as there would be little likelihood that they would be used by the NBN Co. The ability for the NBN Co to make such statements failed to recognise that other carriers may wish to come in and provide fixed line infrastructure in such areas. I'm mindful of the fact that Telstra has obligations as a universal service provider to provide voice services in those parts of Australia where the NBN is not rolling out a fixed line technology—that is, in the wireless and satellite footprint. Telstra may well want to use pit and pipe to do this. In addition, other competitive providers could be contracted to service developments in such areas—for example, but not exclusively, a mining community. There are many new developments where this is occurring. While the issuance by NBN Co of a statement under section 372J would not preclude Telstra or a competitive carrier requiring pit and pipe as a contractual matter, it could lead a developer to believe—and I am going to have something more to say about this—that it had been exempted by virtue of NBN Co's statement. It could lead to confusion on the ground for the developer and the carriers and has the potential for delays, costs and inconvenience in providing services—and I will give some instances of where I believe this problem is coming up. So the amendment here is sensible. I do want to deal with the issue of NBN Co rollout in new developments, and connectivity in new developments in particular, because it has attracted a high degree of complaint. I've picked it up in my own electorate and I'm sure that there are many other MPs in this House who have picked up similar issues. It comes up a lot in small-scale infill developments. It also comes up a lot in small-scale new commercial developments in existing developed areas. Despite the Australian government's introduction of the Telecommunications infrastructure in new developments policy, the 2015 policy, there is still much work that needs to be done to ensure that the process of installing new telecommunications infrastructure in new developments is working for all parties. Currently, a large number of local government areas across the country do not have provisions that require the installation of telco infrastructure in new developments—that is, it's not a part of the development application and it's not a part of the occupancy certificate—and that is creating problems. Some jurisdictions do have a provision. In Victoria, there's a standard condition, the 2013 Victorian planning provision amendment VC81, which is entitled 'Telecommunications services and facilities and subdivisions'. This requires the owner of the land to enter into agreements with network service providers for the provision of telecommunication services. I believe that it is a sensible condition and should be provided elsewhere around the country, by either individual councils or entire states taking up this provision. I think it's something that should be seriously considered by the federal government. I want to give one example—but I could cite several—of a company I'm working with in my own electorate, who go by the name of Rideworx Pty Ltd. They're a small business in my electorate who service and repair bikes. They employ around 13 staff. They're currently in the process of building a new factory in Berkeley. They gave all the requisite advice well in advance. The company have recently been told there's no telecommunications infrastructure available in the street to connect to their new factory. They need a phone line in order to take business and do the regular stuff that a business does. I'm using Rideworx as an example but I could cite three or four other businesses in my electorate who, over the last 18 months, have had similar problems. Rideworx were told that a development application should have been made three months prior to the factory being built by the developer but no such application was made. This leaves the small business in the lurch. They turn up expecting there will be water, electricity and telco into the premises, only to find that telco is not there. We're onto it; we're attempting to get this one fixed, and today I intend to write to every council in my electorate asking them that they make it a condition of both the development application and the occupancy certificate stage that telecommunication services are available to the premises. The alternative is that the new occupant of a premises could be out of pocket by thousands and thousands of dollars and have months and months of delay because there is no equipment available. In this day and age, we should be treating telecommunications infrastructure—the line from the street into a new premises—the same way we treat electricity and water. You could not get a sign-off by a council for starting a new business and get occupancy for a new business if it didn't have electricity and water and many other facilities. In this day and age we should have telecommunications equipment as a part of that requirement. I will be taking the initiative in my own electorate by writing to every council and asking that they consider their own approval arrangements to ensure that these sorts of examples—I have cited one; I could cite many, many others—aren't repeated around my electorate. I think a requirement that for new developments we ensure that telecommunications equipment is actually available to the new occupier of a new premises is something that should be taken up at least at the state if not the national level. It costs business thousands of dollars if it isn't there and it's simply not good enough. As we're doing all of this work to roll out a new network throughout the country—and we can see that new developments are going to be a part and parcel of infill, of conversion of use from one type of residence or premises to another—this is going to be an ongoing issue. The bill doesn't deal with it and hasn't dealt with it. It's not a criticism of the government in and of itself, but it is something that I put on the agenda that simply has to be addressed. We can't have a situation where businesses or households are out of pocket for thousands of dollars for the connection of a service that the house or the business literally 100 metres up the road has had connected for nothing. It is simply not good enough in this day and age. With those comments made, I again commend the need for upgrading our consumer protection frameworks to the House. It's an urgent job and work that needs doing. With the exception of those comments, I commend the bill to the House. 12:12 Mr HART 263070 Bass I'm very pleased to be able to speak to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 and the amendments to be moved by the shadow minister for communications. This bill amends a range of acts so as to minimise the regulatory burden on the broadcasting and telecommunications sectors. Labor supported an earlier version of this bill in 2015. Of course, that bill lapsed when the election was called. This bill has been one of the last flames from the unmemorable deregulation bonfire initiated by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, some years ago. Some may be wondering why the bill has taken so long to reach a second reading debate. Indeed, it was not quite panic that I felt when I noted this was on the program and that I was to be speaking on this legislation. I then saw that I'd actually prepared the first draft of this speech about four or five months ago. It's interesting coming back to a piece of legislation and then reacquainting yourself with the central provisions, particularly with a piece of legislation like this, which is an omnibus bill. The important issue addressing us today—it was of prime importance when I first prepared this speech—is that schedule 2 of the original bill had been removed. Labor intended to move amendments to remove schedule 2, because schedule 2, in Labor's view, was a bridge too far with respect to deregulation. Labor was going to argue and, in fact, successfully did argue with the government that the complaints handling provisions which were previously in place, which enabled complaints to be properly considered by the industry and then addressed by the ACMA, were appropriate and that this particular deregulation which sought to remove that was inappropriate. Schedule 2 did seek to repeal part 11 of the Broadcasting Services Act, and, in our view, it was an overzealous and ill-judged deregulation. The effect of that particular amendment would have been to undermine and confuse the current system of broadcast co-regulation, where, as I indicated earlier, industry is the front line for consumer complaints handling, and the taxpayer funded ACMA is the backstop regulator for shortcomings within industry processes. There are also some administrative amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to amend account-keeping and licence fee administration arrangements for commercial broadcasters. These are fairly trivial in effect and really don't need to concern us here today. But it also removes duplicative requirements for licensees, publishers and controllers to notify ACMA of certain changes in the control of regulated media assets and also provides consistent classification arrangements for all television programs, including films, and amends statutory publication requirements. There's also an amendment to the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011 so as to permit NBN Co to dispose of surplus non-communication goods. A technical error within the Telecommunications Act 1997 is corrected so as to provide for admissibility of certain evidence in court proceedings. There are some minor amendments to remove the requirement for the ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine cable protection zone. There are other amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 and the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 so as to make technical amendments. There are, I'm informed, some very interesting amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 and three other acts for the management of telephone numbering to be transitioned from the current arrangement, which is a co-regulatory arrangement, to an industry managed scheme. There is a repeal of 53 acts and the removal of redundant provisions in four acts. There are amendments to the obligation imposed upon NBN Co to issue and keep a register of statements that they will not be installing fibre in new real estate developments. I'm really indebted to the member for Whitlam for his contribution this morning, particularly about the issues that arise with the rollout of NBN with respect to infill. I know, within my electorate, we're extremely fortunate to use the existing NBN fibre technology, which provides—much to the disgust of my fellow caucus members—400- to 500-megabit connections to domestic premises within Northern Tasmania, and the first commercial gigabit connections to NBN at a reasonable price in the Australian market. You can see how fundamental the installation of fibre is, and will be when you are talking about infill development, which of course is an important town planning consideration. As I indicated earlier, the bill contains provisions that deal with the disposal of surplus assets by NBN Co. Due to some technical provisions in the law, NBN Co currently finds itself unable to sell surplus assets, such as office equipment and vehicles. Addressing this unintended consequence will assist NBN Co to manage its assets in a more efficient manner. Surprisingly, I'm informed that the bill restores a provision that was repealed by a previous deregulation bill. Labor's view, as I indicated earlier, is that this legislation is straightforward. It fulfils an important function; it forms part of a rudimentary regulatory housekeeping exercise. Labor is supportive of aspects of the bill that amend unnecessary administrative requirements imposed on industry, and that portion which repeals redundant legislation and/or spent acts. We do give credit to the government for listening to the concerns expressed by the opposition with respect to the repeal of the consumer protection and complaints handling mechanisms within the act. I would like to digress, because, whilst this is nominally a deregulation bill, as I previously indicated, the bill doesn't appear to result in savings to industry. If it is a deregulation bill, it's relatively simple in operation. It would be remiss of me to not pass comment on the extraordinary changes that have occurred with respect to both telecommunications and broadcasting/datacasting. Of course, that fact that this legislation is in omnibus form and deals with telecoms, broadcasting, datacasting, media regulation, telephone numbering and the installation of fibre within real estate developments emphasises the broad field which used to be described as communications and media. It is a moot point to query whether social media, such as Facebook, Twitter or other platforms, answer the description of 'media', particularly the news media and entertainment. Of course this has been the subject of much debate surrounding the reach of organisations and whether the previous regulation on the extent to which you could have cross-media ownership was appropriate. There has been absolutely amazing change in the last 10 years. Even in the short time that I've been in this place, social media has been refined, particularly with the pushing of video and other media into the community. That media can be targeted and shaped and the responses received can be taken into account really places an order of complexity on considerations of regulating that industry. And that's before you consider the fact that these very large organisations are, in the whole, based overseas. As I indicated earlier, this issue was front and centre in other legislation. That legislation dealt with, at the request of industry, the threats presented from new technology. The question which was debated at that time was whether the threats from social media and new media determine the particular response which was sought by industry and in particular the abolition of existing cross-media ownership rules. At the time I wrote this speech there was a very interesting article written by Margaret Simons published in The Guardian online. It posed the question as to how society will adjust the way it satisfies its information needs in light of the dramatic changes within the communications and media industry. Some of the material in that article is relevant and was relevant to the issue of cross-media ownership, but in some of the remaining time available to me today I would like to focus on the issue of so-called fake news and the potential implications for traditional media and journalism. It's particularly relevant in the sense that the government did listen to the concerns raised by the opposition with respect to the maintenance of the existing complaints regime. The central tenet of Margaret Simons' article is that journalism still matters. I do agree with that. I think, therefore, there needs to be a robust discussion about the future of, in particular, public interest journalism in a landscape that encompasses both traditional media and social media as we now know it and the forms of other social and other media that are developing or yet to be developed. Deregulation of the industry may assist in resisting what is seen as a threat from new media, but from a public policy perspective it is very important for the public to have confidence in the institution which is always referred to as the fourth estate. Complaint-handling issues may be relatively arcane, but they remain important in ensuring that the public maintains confidence in the operation of the industry. With the election of the current American President the concept of fake news has been highlighted. We now know that there are dangers associated with the nature of new media, where barriers to publication of information are so low so as to permit any person to publish any information, sometimes with malicious or less than honourable intent. Indeed, we have heard in this place about the fact that there are Eastern European farms that operate to harvest media and then promote that media through social media channels for pure financial gain. That may have the effect of distorting our political process and is something that we need to be mindful of. Social media has demonstrated that fake news may be amplified to the extent that it drowns out even established media. Who could contemplate that an organisation as powerful as News Ltd could be shouted down by social media? That happens. We see that organisations like Fairfax are under pressure. The traditional print media is under pressure, and of course broadcast media is operating in an environment whereby anybody with a smartphone can broadcast on Facebook Live. The Simons article argues that the prevalence of fake news highlights the importance of good journalism. I argue also that the maintenance of confidence in journalism requires a regulation framework which ensures that good journalism is celebrated and breaches are called out. So, again, congratulations to the government for maintaining the complaints-handling process within this legislation. As I indicated previously, the existing complaints-handling process supports an 'industry first, government second' approach to facilitate appropriate regulation, whereby complaints are made pursuant to the industry codes of practice to a broadcaster, and the ACMA acts as a backstop if the complainant does not receive a response within 60 days of making the complaint or if they are dissatisfied with the response. This is a deregulation omnibus bill. As I indicated earlier, it is supported by Labor, with the concession of the removal of schedule 2. It is important that we recognise the environment that we're now operating in and the enormous changes that are occurring. Things that once were thought trivial may become very important or remain increasingly important. I think that the issue of complaints handling is something that really snuck under our collective radar, and it's very important that we ensure that we maintain confidence in both telecoms and the media industry generally. 12:26 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise today to support this bill. The purpose of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Deregulation and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is to amend administrative requirements imposed on broadcasters and datacasting licensees and to remove tariff-filing requirements for certain carriers and carriage service providers. It will allow for the communications industry to develop an industry scheme to manage telephone numbering. It will amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to repeal the power of NBN Co to issue a statement that it is not installing fibre in a new real estate development, and remove the obligation for the company to maintain a register of the statements. It will amend the National Broadband Network Companies Act 2011, the NBN Companies Act, to allow NBN companies to dispose of surplus goods. It will abolish the requirement for ACMA to consult with an advisory committee before declaring a submarine cable protection zone. The bill also repeals redundant legislation and spent acts, and corrects an error in the Telecommunications Act which relates to the inadmissibility of evidence in certain proceedings. For legislation around one of the fastest growing industries, it's good to finally see it here in the House again, getting some airtime. In 2016, Australians watched 18.7 billion hours of TV and nearly 20 billion hours on the internet. As our dependence on utilities like the NBN grows, so must government efforts to ensure quality of service and that no-one is left behind. Let's be honest: people being left behind is what's happening in Tasmania. With our NBN rollout almost complete in Tasmania, we already see huge differences on the ground in how the rollout has taken place. Hobart and Launceston have the Labor fibre to the premises, so businesses and households there can access and are accessing the fastest speeds and connectivity. Launceston, in the north of the state, is the first one-gigabit-per-second city in the country, and it is taking advantage of the opportunities that come its way. But out in the regions, which is much of my electorate, it's not such a pretty picture. In Lachlan, a town with a population of just over 800, the NBN is a complete sham. At peak hour, once the kids come home from school and get on the net, it grinds to a stop for town residents—and, even after a petition has been pulled together begging for action from NBN Co, it remains that way. Sometimes, at peak hour, they can't even get two megabits per second in that town. It's so slow, so bad, they can't even do a speed test. Imagine that: a supposed broadband system that is so slow you can't even do a speed test. How on earth are you meant to do school work, business, research or anything else when you can't even do a speed test? I should note that Lachlan is just 45 minutes north of Hobart, so it's hardly a remote area. On that note, I'll wrap up. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples: 10th Anniversary 100 12:31 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio After the Tourism Australia ad that premiered during the Super Bowl, the member for Corangamite and I had fun last week with the idea of a new Crocodile Dundee movie being filmed in Geelong. This week the parliament has commemorated the 10th anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generation. It truly was a remarkable event in the life of this parliament and in the life of this nation. In a larger sense, the apology was a grand act of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. Much more needs to be done in closing the gap, but the significance of the apology in the history of Indigenous relations cannot be overstated. This anniversary has been a reminder to me of a much earlier story of goodwill between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia which occurred in the first years of European settlement. It's a story I have spoken about previously in this place. William Buckley was a former bricklayer and soldier sentenced to 14 years transportation to the New South Wales penal colony for having knowingly received a bolt of stolen cloth. In 1803 Buckley was aboard HMS Calcutta when it entered Port Phillip in an attempt to establish a new penal colony in Port Philip Bay. The attempt at establishing a new penal colony failed but, prior to the party leaving, Buckley and a number of other convicts made an escape on 27 December. The group ran away from the main camp at a site close to where Sorrento is today. As they made their way around the bay, the group broke up and Buckley found himself alone moving around the western side of Port Phillip Bay. Survival in the Victorian bushland was no easy task for Buckley. By the time Buckley reached present day Geelong on the Bellarine Peninsula, he was close to death. It was here he encountered the Wathawurrung people, the traditional owners of the land around Geelong and the Bellarine. Buckley was a tall man, six foot eight inches by some accounts, and at this point was in his early 20s. One can only imagine what the Wathawurrungpeople made of him when they came across him in his weakened and ailing state. In this moment they were faced with a range of choices. A fear of the unknown might have seen them kill Buckley—a sad outcome but one hardly unprecedented in human experience. Perhaps a more likely choice might simply have been to leave Buckley alone and let nature take its course—no aggressive acts committed but at the same time no risk taken in respect of a being the like of which the Wathawurrung people had never seen before. But, instead, a far more unlikely and amazing path was taken. The Wathawurrung people took Buckley in, returned him to health and ultimately made him one of their own. Over the next 32 years, Buckley lived with them and became a husband, a father and ultimately an elder of that community. Buckley was presumed dead and the original party left Port Phillip in 1803. In 1835 a small and isolated number of English settlers had been sent as an advance party to again try and establish a settlement in Port Phillip. As they waited on the beach for supplies and other settlers to arrive by boat, William Buckley emerged from the bush dressed in kangaroo skins, carrying Aboriginal weapons and had forgotten how to speak English. It was via a tattoo that Buckley was able to establish who he was. In this moment Buckley returned the favour of 32 years prior. As tensions rose between the new settlers and the Wathawurrung people Buckley was able to intervene to prevent an outbreak of hostilities. In 1836 Buckley had rejoined the colonists and was given the position of interpreter to the Indigenous population. He was a guide for English military figures and dignitaries, and was called upon for his grasp of the Aboriginal language. By 1837 Buckley left for Tasmania. He married, lived for another 19 years and died in Hobart in 1856 at the age of 76. The tale of William Buckley is genuinely amazing. The chance of a person lost re-emerging from the wilderness after 32 years is what's behind the phrase 'You've got Buckley's chance'. It's more extraordinary than Tom Hanks' Castaway, yet it is a true story. But it also contains within it a hopeful message of how Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can take a positive path and work together. When we talk about making a movie in Geelong, this is the movie that should be made in Geelong. In February 2009 I said in this place: In the history of Australia both Indigenous and non-Indigenous surely William Buckley's life must be one of the most extraordinary lives ever lived on this continent. It is an extraordinary story; they ought to make a movie about it. I call on this again today. A made-for-TV movie, The Extraordinary Tale of William Buckley in April 2010, was a dramatised documentary which told Buckley's story. The last time the TV documentary aired was in 2014 on the ABC. But this story needs to go mainstream and it deserves to be on the big screen. Geelong has been the host to major blockbuster productions—The Dressmaker made $24 million at the box office. Its filming locations included Mount Rothwell, north of the You Yangs, and Little River, amongst others. A Crocodile Dundee remake set in Geelong would be great, but the story of William Buckley would be truly great for the city. William Buckley's story needs to hit the big screen. Wide Bay Electorate: Bruce Highway 101 12:36 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Members in this place will not be surprised that I rise to call for federal funding to be allocated in the 2018 budget to complete the final project of the Bruce Highway Cooroy to Curra upgrade section D. Road safety is everyone's responsibility, but in Wide Bay it's of the highest priority. Too many lives are being lost on the section of Bruce Highway which passes through my electorate. It has consistently been rated as one of the deadliest sections along the national highway, and as a former policeman and traffic accident investigator I have dealt with the tragedy wreaked on my community by this road. Now I'm pleased to report that we are seeing the benefits of the newly completed section C—a four-lane divided highway between Traveston and Woondum. This came in ahead of schedule and under budget, but the Cooroy to Curra job is still only half done. We need to get on with construction of section D, the biggest part of this Bruce Highway upgrade. Its time has well and truly come. This 26-kilometre section of highway from Woondum to Curra is a completely new road that will skirt around Gympie, eliminating eight sets of traffic lights, two school zones and eight speed limit changes. When completed it will save considerable time, providing a high capacity, high speed highway. Most importantly, long sections of subgrade 100-kilometre-per-hour road to the north will be avoided, and it will be safe. After the tragedy and horror of deaths and injuries caused by accidents between Cooroy and Curra and a multitude of pleas from the community, The Gympie Times, Fraser Coast Chronicle, WIN and 7 News and road safety experts, the federal and Queensland governments know they need to work together to get this job done. There are no more excuses. The Queensland Government has committed to the project. We have the business case. The detailed design report is about to be released. The federal government has spent $52 million on land acquisition and planning. All that's left now is for the federal government to commit funding to get construction of this life-saving and nation building piece of infrastructure underway. This project was first planned by my predecessor, Warren Truss, over a decade ago, and now funding must be allocated to it. Last year, as transport minister, the member for Gippsland said that section D is the government's top priority on the Bruce Highway. The new transport minister, Barnaby Joyce, is well aware of the importance of section D. His visit to my electorate last month immediately followed the tragic death of a 21-year-old man from Maryborough on the highway at Chatsworth. As Barnaby described the section, 'One mistake and you're dead.' The Bruce Highway is Australia's most dangerous highway and is ranked as one of the worst in the world. Each year there is an average of 50 deaths. The RACQ estimated that without future action there will be a further 350 deaths and 5,000 injuries over the next decade. The coalition government is making important trade deals and opening up new export markets for Australian producers, but we also need a decent freight network to transport the goods to market. Section D will allow industries in South-East Queensland to compete with those in the city, better connecting Bundaberg, Maryborough and Hervey Bay to Brisbane. Section D will improve productivity, labour mobility and the supply chain and eliminate frequent blockages caused by flood. I made these points to Treasurer Scott Morrison when I met him recently to impress upon him the importance of section D funding. He understands the need for this project and its significance to Wide Bay and the wider community. Section D is common sense. Once it is completed, fewer families will be shattered by the news that their loved ones are not coming home. If we delay, more people will die. I call on the government to prioritise funding for section D. Every day we wait risks more lives. Health Care 102 12:41 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Tasmania's health system is in crisis. For the third night running, ambulance ramping at Royal Hobart Hospital has been out of control. Last night, at least eight ambulances were ramped, making them unavailable for emergency call-outs, while more than 60 people awaited treatment in the emergency department. On Tuesday night, at least seven ambulances were ramped, with 62 Tasmanians waiting in emergency. On Monday night, it was six ambulances. Ambulance ramping under the Tasmanian Liberals is a daily feature of the health system. Every ambulance on a ramp with a patient in it and usually two paramedics is an ambulance that is unavailable for emergency call-outs. Ambulance ramping takes highly trained and highly professional paramedics out of action. Ambulance ramping occurs because the Tasmanian Liberal government has for the past four years failed to invest in our public hospitals and our emergency departments. The Tasmanian Liberals would rather keep patients waiting in ambulances than provide the resources that allow them to be admitted so ambulances can get back on the road saving Tasmanians. In their first year of government, the Tasmanian Liberals cut $210 million from the Tasmanian health budget, and that was on top of the $1.1 billion that the federal coalition cut from our hospitals over 10 years. What did the Liberals think would happen? Beds were shut. Services were cut. Specialists were lost. And, now, after four years of crisis after crisis and in the middle of an election campaign, the Liberals want Tasmanians to believe they'll put back all the money. But the fact is the Tasmanian Liberals cannot be trusted. Many of the beds that the Tasmanian Liberals have announced won't be open until 2023, more than two elections away. That's not an election promise; that's an election con. A Rebecca White-led Labor government will triage Tasmania's haemorrhaging health system. Rebecca White will invest $560 million in our state's health and hospital system, and that means 500 more health workers. But Rebecca White isn't just looking after the cities. She knows that people in the regions also deserve access to quality health care, and that's why $35 million will be specifically directed at better rural and regional health care, better patient transport to rural and regional areas, better flow of admissions and discharges between major and regional hospitals, and an investment in seven-day community nursing. Labor will also invest in preventative health and health promotion, which is welcome news to me after the Turnbull government cut funding to preventative health programs throughout regional Tasmania last year, causing great upheaval in many of my communities. And now, in the middle of a state election campaign, the Liberals are talking a big game on health. It's like they've just woken up after four years of cuts and realised that health's a big issue. But Tasmanians can see with their own eyes what the Liberals have done with health for the past four years, both in Tasmania and federally. Under the Liberals the Medicare rebate freeze remains in place, costing Tasmanians more every time they go to the doctor. Health insurance premiums continue to rise, while what can be claimed continues to fall. The cost goes up, and so does the gap. The Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, isn't worried. He just comes into this place to parrot the lines of his private health insurance masters and cry about how Labor supposedly hates private health insurance. No, Minister, we don't hate private health insurance. We hate that Australians are getting ripped off by expensive premiums that do not provide the cover that Australians expect—as well as ambulance ramping, overcrowded emergency departments, fewer beds, cut services, lost specialists, higher costs to go to the GP and private health insurance that doesn't do the job that's expected. Tasmanians know the Liberals cannot be trusted with health. In the few seconds left to me I'd like to briefly talk about the economy. What we hear from this government is that these corporate tax cuts are going to be the panacea for everything. Well, what we heard yesterday was that NAB posted, I think, a $6.9 billion half-year profit and 6,000 jobs are going to go—explain that to me. Economy 103 Workplace Relations 103 12:51 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen In September last year I spoke about the plight of maintenance workers at Esso, who, despite their company's booming profits, were deceitfully sacked. It's five months later, and I'm back in here speaking about the very same abhorrent workplace practices. Once again, this government has failed to lift one finger when it comes to protecting hardworking Australians and their jobs. I'll always stand up for Australian workers, because on this side we know that they are the foundation of this country. Workers built this country, not fat cat merchant bankers. Last year, UGL completed their seven-year contract with Esso and were awarded a five-year maintenance contract for Esso's onshore and offshore facilities in Bass Strait. This was done because of the expertise of the workers, who did their job and did it well. But, in a trend that's becoming all too common with these big multinationals in Australia, the reward given for this hard work was to fire the existing workforce and then offer their jobs back at much reduced wages and conditions. UGL undermined the Fair Work Act and refused those contractors their right to bargain for fair wages. On top of that, they cut annual leave entitlements and shift loadings and also put in place unsociable rosters, meaning workers with families would be ripped away from their homes and loved ones for extended periods of time. It's take it or leave it as far as they're concerned: workers either cop the cuts to their wages and conditions or they lose their jobs. There are 200 people—whose partners, families and livelihoods depend on a steady income and a safe workplace—now facing an uncertain future. While the Prime Minister might be able to go home and live comfortably on his personal stock of truffles and gold bars, the Esso workers risk defaulting on their mortgages, not being able to put food on the table, and not being able to take their kids to the doctor or pay for their schooling needs. Meanwhile, this government gives big multinationals like ExxonMobil—the sixth largest company in the world—tax cuts. These are the same multinationals that continue to intimidate and exploit their workers. Just as a sidenote, how much tax does Esso pay on the $8.5 billion profit they made in 2014-15? Something the government seems to turn a blind eye to is the fact they paid zero tax. That means that the 200 workers who they've made redundant have paid more tax than this multinational company has. Since the beginning of this debacle, Esso workers have been doing what anyone would do when faced with a 15 or 30 per cent pay cut: they're peacefully fighting for their rights at work. Throughout almost 240 days, the unions have done the right thing. They've liaised with local police, conducted themselves very peacefully and there have been no incidents whatsoever from the union side. Unions like the AWU, ETU and AMWU are out there protecting workers and standing up for families in these regional communities, while the government are sitting in their rent-free homes and trying to stand on them. When will this government stand up and fight these attacks on wages and working conditions in the Longford community? The question has to be asked: why has the local member ignored the plight of these families? Does anyone on the government side actually give a stuff? It's a sad fact that there's only one thing you can count on the government doing: they will always back the big end of town over you. Last month I went along to Longford to hear firsthand from these great Australians. While we were there we noticed two cowardly morons hiding in their vans, sneakily filming and taking photos from down the street. The workers told me that this thug-run security outfit is constantly there, doing slow drive-bys of the picket line, taking photos—even taking photos of the workers' kids without their parents' permission—ripping down legally placed signs and using tactics to try to provoke workers into unlawful activities. Seriously, you have to ask yourself: what insipid low-life would do that? Well, their boss, Peter McWilliam, turned up and, I assure you, all the questions were answered. Does ExxonMobil really think this scientologyesque stalking squad is the answer to its abhorrent treatment of hardworking Australians? Well, their squirrel squad doesn't scare me and it doesn't scare the workers or the unions. We're not scared of standing up for what's right and we won't stop until Esso workers are granted the wages and conditions that they have worked for and they deserve. Energy 104 12:56 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn There's no easy fix for the energy problems facing every Australian; however, there must always be a plan to improve the situation. My 10-point plan identifies the issues and provides the solutions to at least get us on the right path to delivering safe and affordable power to all Australians. Front and centre of my plan are HELE coal-fired power stations. 'HELE' means high efficiency, low emissions. They exist in other parts of the world. Kogan Creek in Queensland is the closest we have, but it is still not enough. HELE plants are the most reliable, sustainable, affordable generators of energy. We must invest to upgrade our existing coal-fired power stations and extend their life. Upgrades would probably extend the life of most of our power stations. We have eight in Queensland, and we could probably extend their life for another 10 to 20 years. We must invest in HELE plants, do our upgrades and build new power stations, to boost the economy, deliver jobs and reduce the cost of electricity. HELE build time is three to five years, so we must start today. We must stop the gouging. There are too many fingers in the pie all trying to scoop money out of the system, and these costs, of course, are put onto customers. State governments are robbing Peter to pay Paul to fund their debt crises. The gold-plated poles and wires, and then the return on investment put on those overvalued poles and wires, are crippling the electricity market. The poles and wires are owned by the governments, and the governments must come to terms with how much they want to take out of the electricity system to boost their coffers, a cost that is passed on to the consumer. In Queensland we have the wholesalers Stanwell and CS Energy, and on the retail side we have Ergon and Energex. One must ask the question: why do we need four companies to deliver electricity to our houses and our industry? There are examples throughout my electorate of businesses where the network cost component of their electricity bill is more than half the actual usage bill—businesses like Biggenden Meatworks. Biggenden Meatworks is the lifeblood of Biggenden, supporting more than half of the town's working population; without the meatworks, Biggenden would no longer exist on a good economic basis. For instance, their November 2017 bill for operating a small abattoir was $20,400, of which $7,850 was for network charges. In December, that bill went up from $20,400 to $20,800 and network charges went up to $8,500. In January of this year, the bill rose to $21,280 and network charges to $8,300. That's a four per cent increase in the last three months. How much can a koala bear? The owner has told me that once he starts getting into a loss situation he'll have no alternative but to shut down the meatworks. I'm working with him constantly to stop that from happening, because it would be a disaster for the area. We need reform in the NEM. The rules of the National Energy Market are out of date and were not designed to subsidise the construction of renewables. There is going to be a mix of renewables in our future energy supply, but they must learn to stand on their own two feet. We've got to protect our people against blackouts by delivering base-load power. Base-load power keeps the lights on and the economy moving. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Federa tion Chamber adjourned at 13:01   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 106 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Immigration Detention (Question No. 851) 106 851 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 04 December 2017: (1) Prior to 31 October 2017, was the conduct of (a) Australian officials, (b) service providers, and (c) other private contractors, at the former Regional Processing Centre on Manus Island attributable to the Australian Government as a matter of international law; if so, on what grounds; if not, why not.(2) Prior to 31 October 2017, did the Australian Government have any obligations under international law in relation to the men transferred to Manus Island; if so, (a) what was the scope of those obligations, and (b) does the Australian Government now have a duty to provide an effective remedy for any breach; if not, why not.(3) Prior to 31 October 2017, did the Australian Government have any responsibility or obligations under domestic law in relation to the welfare of the former detainees at the Manus Processing Centre; if so, what (a) were the legal sources (ie, tort law, constitutional law) of those obligations, (b) was their scope, and (c) remedies are now available for any breach; if not, why not.(4) Since 31 October 2017, has the Australian Government had any obligations to the men transferred to Manus Island under (a) international law, and/or (b) Australian domestic law. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: (1) The former Manus Regional Processing Centre (Manus RPC) was a matter for the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Government as this centre was located within PNG's sovereign territory and was managed and administered under the domestic law of PNG, and in accordance with PNG's international legal obligations. Once the transferees were in PNG, which is relevantly a party to the Refugees Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it was PNG's obligations under these international instruments that were engaged. Although transferees were outside Australia's territory, jurisdiction and its effective control, Australia provided support and assistance to the Government of PNG in meeting the commitments the PNG Government made under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Australia and PNG. (2) As mentioned in the response to (1) above, the Australian Government did not and does not exercise effective control over persons taken to PNG under regional progressing arrangements. Regional processing arrangements were a matter for the PNG Government. Australia has provided support and assistance to the Government of PNG in meeting the commitments the PNG Government made under the MOU. (3) The Australian Government's position is that it does not owe any general legal responsibility or obligations under domestic common law in relation to the welfare of all individuals transferred to PNG under the regional processing arrangements. Duties under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act) are imposed where the Department has an 'undertaking'. Insofar as any 'undertaking' at the Manus RPC before 31 October 2017 is concerned, the Australian Government's position is that ultimate responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the former Manus RPC rested with the PNG Government. (4) Following 31 October 2017, the conditions relating to the accommodation and treatment of persons transferred to PNG under regional processing arrangements are a matter for the PNG Government for the reasons outlined in the response to (1) above. The Australian Government's position is that it does not owe any other general and ongoing responsibilities or obligations under domestic law in relation to individuals transferred to PNG under the regional processing arrangements.   Immigration Detention (Question No. 854) 106 854 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 04 December 2017: Have there been any Australian Government officers on Manus Island at any time since 31 October 2017; if so, (a) in what capacity, and (b) what is the breakdown of the numbers by Government department and agency. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: Yes - 12. The AFP deployed 1 liaison officer to PNG on 25 July 2017. The AFP LO departed Manus Island on 28 November 2017. The ABF deployed 11 liaison and support officers to PNG. The 11 were not on Manus Island at the same time but rather operated as three separate teams on a rotating basis. The last ABF liaison team departed Manus Island on 30 November 2017.