2018-03-27 45 1 5 House of Reps 0 0

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

 

COMMITTEES 2843 COMMITTEES Membership 2843 12:02 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received messages from the Senate acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. Copies of the message are on the chamber table and details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Corporations and Financial Services Committee 2843 Reference 2843 12:02 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That the following matter be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 20 September 2018: Options for greater involvement by private sector life insurers in worker rehabilitation, including support after return to work, with particular reference to the following: (1) the interaction of Income Protection (IP) insurance and Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) insurance with State, Territory, and Commonwealth legislative and regulatory frameworks including Medicare, government employment schemes, workers compensation arrangements, national injury insurance schemes, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and private health insurance; (2) the interaction of IP and TPD insurance products with social security benefits in the context of the Life Insurance Act 1995, Health Insurance Act 1973 and Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2015; (3) how benefits available under continuous disability policies, such as TPD, could be utilised to provide assistance and incentives to people returning to work, such as covering the cost of professional nursing care and other rehabilitation related expenses, including: (a) whether there are any legal impediments to this; and (b) whether there are any identifiable limits to this, for example with respect to cover arrangements for small business employees and the self-employed; (4) the current definitions, standards, and requirements claimants must meet to access services and payments, including waiting periods or prerequisites; (5) the consistency and transparency of IP and TPD insurance definitions, policies, and disclosure documents in the context of other rehabilitation schemes; and (6) information available to consumers about IP and TPD insurance in the context of other rehabilitation schemes. Question agreed to. Report 2843 12:03 Mr IRONS HYM Swan On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services I present the committee's report on its inquiry into the life insurance industry. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr IRONS HYM by leave—The inquiry into the life insurance industry was referred by the Senate on 14 September 2016 to review: a. the need for further reform and improved oversight of the life insurance industry; b. assessment of relative benefits and risks to consumers of the different elements of the life insurance market, being direct insurance, group insurance and retail advised insurance; c. whether entities are engaging in unethical practices to avoid meeting claims; d. the sales practices of life insurers and brokers, including the use of Approved Product Lists; e. the effectiveness of internal dispute resolution in life insurance; f. the roles of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority in reform and oversight of the industry; and g. any related matters. I see the member for Burt, here, who is on the committee. He is going to speak afterwards. That referral was fairly tight, but as the inquiry progressed 'any related matters' became quite expansive. We delved into many areas of the life insurance industry, which, when the original referral was made by Senator Williams in the Senate, were raised purely on the basis that he had received many complaints in regard to the processes of claims to life insurance companies. That was the initiation of this report. Following the referral, the committee advertised the inquiry on its webpage, inviting submissions from a wide range of relevant stakeholders. Through this process, the committee received 77 submissions and a number of supplementary submissions. Once submissions closed on 18 November 2016, the committee held seven public hearings—one in Sydney, one in Melbourne and five here in Canberra—to provide relevant stakeholders and organisations the opportunity to provide evidence to the committee. Life insurance has a noble purpose: to provide financial protection to policy holders—that is hardworking Australians—in times of immense need and financial and emotional distress. In doing so, the life insurance industry forms a significant part of the financial services sector in Australia. Again, the member for Burt will agree with me that there are many expectations of life insurance. But there are different parts of stakeholders, and there are different parts of the community, who have different expectations of what life insurance should provide and shouldn't provide, and we found that out during the inquiry. Despite this, there are sections of the industry that can and must do better in delivering the protection they promise whilst remaining financially viable long into the future securing policies of current policy holders As at September 2017, there were 29 life insurers in Australia. The big four banks each owned life insurance businesses until 2017, when some of those life insurance businesses were either completely or partially sold. Whether that was as a result of this inquiry, I couldn't exactly say, but I know the probing by the member for Burt had many stakeholders and life insurance companies on the edge of their seat. For the benefit of the House, the committee has taken a broad view of the life insurance industry covering direct retail and group life insurance products, including life cover, also known as life insurance or death cover; total and permanent disability, or TPD; trauma cover; and income protection. The committee's inquiry has followed on from an overlap with significant reviews and legislative changes, as well as the ownership changes in the industry, and it was a moving feast during the time of the inquiry. The report focuses on areas where substantial changes are required to ensure the life insurance industry is held to account in relation to effective consumer protection and industry codes of practice; the transparency of remuneration, commissions, payments and fees; the provision of advice in the best interests of consumers; group life insurance arrangements that do not disadvantage certain groups of consumers; appropriate access to personal, medical and genetic information; and a fair claims-handling practice, which should also be a timely claims-handling practice. I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank all of those who've contributed to this inquiry, be it through written missions or evidence provided during the hearings. The evidence we received provided a strong evidence base, which informed our deliberations and the report. The areas that we did delve into were, obviously, consumer protections, the codes of practice, remuneration, commissions, payments and fees, which I have mentioned, the retail life insurance and approved product lists, group life insurance, access to medical information and genetic information—mental health played an important role during the process for all those items I've mentioned—and, again, the claims handling. One of the things I personally feel is important, that this industry should look at and should be targeted is the transparency and that definitions of life insurance be harmonised amongst the life insurance companies and also the fact that we can track a parcel from one side of Australia to another by going on to a website, but, unfortunately, people are putting in claims for life insurance, which need to be treated fairly, equitably and quickly, but they cannot follow the process of that life insurance claim, whether it be a TPD claim or whether it be any other form of claimed workers' compensation. I thank my fellow committee members for their contributions to this inquiry, which I know will effectively improve consumer outcomes and the sustainability of the life insurance industry; my Deputy Chair, Senator Deb O'Neill, who I've had the pleasure of working with on a number of inquiries; my parliamentary colleagues, including the member for Forde—his work on the financial services sector was invaluable—the member for Mackellar; Senator John Williams; Senator Hume; the member for Griffith; the member for Burt, who I said is in the chamber; Senator Chris Ketter and Senator Peter Whish-Wilson. I would like to add a special comment and thanks to Senator Williams for his commitment to this inquiry and his commitment to represent the people who came to him with claims about being treated unfairly by the life insurance industry. For as long as Senator Williams has been in the Senate he has been a strong advocate for improvements to this industry. I would also like to pass on my sincere thanks to the committee secretariat, particularly Patrick Hodder and Jon Bell, for the enormous amount of work they've put into this inquiry. This is the second major inquiry I've had the privilege of working with this committee on. The previous one we did was the whistleblower inquiry, which is equally important to many Australians. I would like to thank those two gentlemen for the professional and dedicated approach they’ve taken to handling this inquiry. And it would be remiss of me to not thank Hansard, broadcasting and the staff of committee members. I am very proud of the informed recommendations contained in this report, and trust it provides a constructive way forward for the life insurance industry. I commend the report to the House. 12:11 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt This is another unanimous report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. This inquiry was into the life insurance industry, which includes life insurance, trauma, and total and permanent disability insurance as well as income protection insurance, whether purchased directly, on an advised basis or through group arrangements, such as through superannuation. I would like to thank all those individuals who took the time to make submissions to the committee and to attend hearings, speaking about their engagement with the life insurance industry. Your contributions have helped to shape the recommendations which we are making in this report today. I would also like to thank my fellow committee members for their collaborative approach to the committee's work, and to the committee secretariat staff for their very diligent and helpful work; I'm sure they felt at times that they were herding cats. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by a group of academics associated with Monash University and beyond, who shone a light on the issue of genetic testing and its implications on life insurance, an issue which until now has received too little attention. Currently, insurance companies are allowed to use genetic test results to discriminate against applicants for life, permanent disability and income protection insurance with little independent oversight or consumer transparency. This information seems to only be used against insurance customers, not for their advantage. This discrimination can deter people from getting genetic tests and being involved in medical research that could prove useful in their own future health as well as for scientific understanding of diseases. In the course of our hearings, we heard the story of a woman who had discovered that she was born with the BRCA gene, which is known to increase a person's risk of breast cancer. She elected to have a double mastectomy in order to reduce her risk. When she later applied for life insurance, the outcome of the woman's original genetic test was taken into account, but her consequent significant risk reduction wasn't. Ultimately, the insurer chose to exclude any cancer coverage from her policy and imposed a 50 per cent premium loading for death cover. The effect of this and many other instances is that Australians will be less likely to access lifesaving genetic tests so that they do not limit their access to affordable life insurance. Indeed, an oncologist remarked to me recently that, in her consultations with patients, even more time is spent—and indeed wasted—on the ramifications for insurance from the tests that they discuss than on actually discussing the health ramifications themselves. This report recommends that the Financial Services Council, in consultation with the Australian Genetic Non-Discrimination Working Group, assess the consumer impact of imposing a moratorium on life insurers using predictive genetic information unless the consumer provides genetic information to a life insurer to demonstrate that they are not at risk of developing a disease. We also recommend a number of changes to the life insurance code of practice to support this. This borrows from the UK model, often touted as global best practice in this space. We propose a moratorium be placed on the use of predictive genetic information while this technology is still in its early stages, and until it is better understood. However, if the Financial Services Council and life insurers are unable to get to this position and achieve compliance, legislative intervention will be required. Indeed, in my view, this should happen in any event and should not just be limited to the predictive genetic information. Another key area of the report's recommendations focuses on the application of the government's Banking Executive Accountability Regime legislation, the BEAR. In particular, we have proposed that the scheme apply to the life insurance industry and that the BEAR scheme be expanded to include consumer related conduct issues, enabling ASIC to take action on these matters, as is the case under the UK senior executive accountability regime upon which the BEAR is supposed to be based. The report also contains progressive recommendations in relation to the accessing and use of medical information as well as expanding prohibitions on unfair contract terms into the life insurance sector. There are many other very worthwhile recommendations; in fact, all of the other recommendations of this report are worthwhile. While this consensus report highlights that it is entirely possible for members of opposing political parties and from different chambers to agree recommendations in a key area of public policy, I have to say I have little confidence that this government will be implementing all, if indeed any, of these proposals. Just six months ago I spoke here on the tabling of this committee's last report, into whistleblowers. The report made a number of key recommendations—including the introduction of a reward scheme, the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority and changes to the powers held by a number of government regulatory and enforcement agencies—none of which were included in the legislation subsequently proposed by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. I commend the report and its recommendations to the House and hope that it is actioned by government and by industry for the benefit of so many Australians that rely on the life insurance sector. 12:16 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I move That the House take note of the report. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 2847 12:16 Mr IRONS HYM Swan I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 2847 BILLS Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 2847

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018

Second Reading 2847 12:17 The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 12:17 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie In continuing from where I left off yesterday, in opposing the original bill and supporting the amendment, I'd like to draw together the comments that I made. The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 would force people to start repaying their student debt when they earn $42,000. In fact, it's part of a broader agenda to cut and cut and cut our education budgets. There's a $17 billion cut from schools, there's nearly $3 billion from vocational education and training and there's $2.2 billion from universities. Of course, this is a government that has to find savings in order to pay for one of its big-ticket items, the $65 billion tax cut to big business. The consequence of that policy is going to be a disaster for education, but it has other ramifications. I think the Australian unions put it best when they wrote: Privatisation hasn't resulted in the cheaper power prices we were promised. Penalty rates cuts haven't resulted in the jobs we were promised. A $65 billion corporate tax cut won't result in the higher wages being promised. What the result will be is that it will be harder for people to get an education; harder for them to make a change in their life that would lead them to possibly maximising what they can offer back to our community professionally. No-one who's invested in improving a society would sacrifice education to big-business tax cuts that deliver absolutely nothing back to society. I always think context is important, and when we're talking about students it's particularly important to remember where Australia sits in terms of the contributions that graduates are already making. Our students, whether or not they've finished a degree, already make the sixth-highest contribution in the OECD to the cost of their degrees. In the context of my local university, the Hawkesbury campus at Richmond of Western Sydney University—and, of course, students from my electorate attend Western Sydney University's other campuses in Penrith, Parramatta and Campbelltown—we're talking cuts in the 2018 to 2021 academic years of $93 million. This is at a time when the government talks of a science and innovation focus, where it wants to upskill people, yet at the same time it's cutting the very institutions which will equip people to be ready to face those changed working demands. So, when you combine this with the university funding cuts and with the disincentive to students because of the early demands to pay their loans back, you're setting our education system and our young people up for disaster. 12:20 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne People are under enormous pressure at the moment. If you finish university, you enter a world of insecure work where many of the jobs are available on a casual basis or on a contract basis. These often count as full-time and non-casual work in the employment stats, but can belie the fact that we have teachers who are getting employed on contracts which finish at the end of the term and they have to go and get work at Bunnings over Christmas because they don't have work to keep themselves going all year round. Many people are being told, 'You'll only get a job to be an Uber driver or a Deliveroo driver for us if you call yourself an independent contractor.' We know insecure work is growing, and it's increasingly becoming a reality for many people, including those who finish university. Not only are they facing a world of massive insecurity on the job front; if they get a job, they'll find that their wages buy a lot less than they used to. Wages growth is now at record lows and in some years is, in fact, going backwards. So what you get for the money that you have is much less. Meanwhile, at the same time, the cost of housing is going through the roof. Back in 1990, the cost of an average house was, on average, six times an average young person's income. Fast forward a couple of decades, and it's 12 times an average young person's income. That is the world facing young people, in particular, at the moment. And that's the world facing them even if they do the right thing—if they do all the things this government asks them to do: finish your school, go on and get further education and equip yourself for this changing world. You do all of the right things and you still find yourself facing massive insecurity, unaffordable housing and incredibly low wages. There's a direct correlation when you look back over the reforms of the last 30 years and the situation people find themselves in now. To deal with this, not only are people getting much more anxious—anxiety and mental illnesses are on the rise—but people are left with no option but to go into debt just to try and stay afloat. So now we have the shocking situation in Australia, that's gotten worse under this government, where the ratio between disposable income and the amount of debt a household has has blown out. In other words, this is about how much money people are bringing in versus how much debt are they in. Back in the late 1980s, it was 60 per cent—your debt was 60 per cent of your average income, which was eminently serviceable. Sometime around the 1990s, the two started balancing out and the amount that households on average owed was about the same as what they were bringing in. The ratio now is up at 200 per cent. It is nudging 200 per cent. People are in debt more than they ever have been before, and this government rails about government debt. Well, it's much easier to service government debt than it is for households to service personal debt, and part of the reason that we have governments is so that we can share the burden. We can share the burden for things like education, because it's much easier when a government, through taxes, says, 'We're going to ask the rich to pay a little bit more, because they can, and then we will use that to spread the burden and fund good public education and share the cost, share the risk and share the burden.' But over the last few decades we've seen, under governments of both stripes, this idea that we can't have government debt anymore, even though it's much easier to service and you get a better bang for your buck when you have things like universal public education and universal health care and you keep the costs low, if not free. Instead, they're pushing all the costs and all the risks onto everyday people. So now, compared with a couple of decades ago, young people graduate from university and find themselves in debt and facing a world of insecure work, owing more than generations ever have before, and being unable to get themselves into a house. And what's this government's response? It is to come up with this bill to put these young people into even more debt and take away even more of their disposable income by saying that if you've done the right thing and gone to university then they want you to have even less money in your pocket on a weekly basis. If you couple that with the government's other reforms that are about putting students into even more debt by increasing the cost of higher education, you start to understand why people around the country are saying, 'Enough is enough.' We are on the verge of being the first generation in peacetime history to leave a standard of living for coming generations that is worse than the one that we inherited. That will be in large part as a result of this government. I feel deeply about this issue of the cost of education, because my dad was the first person in his immediate nuclear family to go to university. His dad—my grandfather—worked in the post office, served in the war and did a number of other odd jobs. His mum did what many people in that generation do, which is look after and raise the kids and raise a great family. When my dad went to university, that was something that was unusual for people in his immediate family to do, and he went off and became a social worker and contributed greatly to Lifeline in South Australia, the community that he came from. But he was able to do that because education was free. And we all make mistakes in our youth. I'm happy to admit that my mistake when I was at high school and at university was that I joined the Labor Party. I joined the Labor Party because that's what people in my family did; that's the background they came from. The reason I left the Labor Party was that in the nineties I could see the Labor Party making education more expensive, beginning the process of HECS—and then increasing it—and putting people into more and more debt. And you could see, as surely as night follows day, that once you start saying that education isn't a public good that the whole country benefits from but is instead a personal commodity and a personal debt, then the door that the Labor Party opened the Liberals was going to open even wider—and walk through it and trample all over people—and that's exactly what has happened. But once you start making it a personal burden, then that personal burden is only ever going to increase. And because Labor has swallowed the same lines about government debt that the government continues to promote as part of this trickle-down troika of Labor, the Liberals and big business, we have this approach where we can't possibly ever borrow more on the government books, and we have to shift the burden onto people. People need to understand: every time someone from the Labor or Liberal parties stands up and talks about getting government debt under control and cutting it, what they're talking about is shifting it away from the government and onto households. That is why the household debt-to-income ratio is 200 per cent now, when it used to be 60 per cent, back in the 1980s. We need to stop and turn this ship around. If this keeps going, people are going to break. There is a much better way of running society, and that is by saying that these individual burdens of debt and risk are something that we're not going to push onto people, to make them suffer and try to navigate a world of high electricity bills, high housing costs, insecure work and high levels of debt. No. We say that is a system that breaks people, and we're going to do one of the things only government can do: spread the risk and the burden. We could fund our universities even more and get rid of the debts that people have if we had the guts to stand up to big corporations and the very wealthy, who are enjoying unfair tax breaks that are now completely unaffordable and unsustainable. At the moment, most people who put petrol in their car are paying 38-odd cents per litre in excise tax. When the likes of Gina Rinehart and her wealthy companies put diesel in their trucks on their mining sites, they pay the 38 cents and then get a rebate, courtesy of the Australian taxpayer, and pay zero. It costs us a couple of billion dollars a year so that the likes of Gina Rinehart can get cheap petrol. Australian taxpayers are spending $2 billion plus to subsidise cheap fuel for Gina Rinehart. Why don't we get rid of that unfair tax break and put the money into higher education so that people are no longer in debt and we continue to have a world-class education system? Why don't we ask the mining companies to pay a fair share of tax by getting rid of some of the tax lurks that they have around accelerated depreciation? There are so many ways in which the top end of town, the billionaire class, are getting away with financial murder by having negotiated from Labor and Liberal these incredible tax lurks, because they have managed to patrol the corridors of parliament and get these slices of the national pie brought to themselves in the budget. In an attempt to balance the books, governments are now coming up with outrageous plans like putting students and former students into more debt. No. The time has come to say that this place should be about standing up for the public interest, not succumbing to sectional powerful groups who have the ability to negotiate tax breaks for themselves and not doing what the Liberals have tried to do in this term of parliament by making people pay more to see the doctor or what Labor did in their last term by cutting payments to single parents. No. This place has to stand up for the public interest. A good place to start is education, because, if we don't ensure that everyone in this country, like my dad, can go to university without having a debt the size of a small mortgage hanging around their neck by the time they graduate, and if we don't say to every graduate, 'We're going to make life easier for you when you leave, by making sure you have enough disposable income in your pocket rather than dipping our hands in and taking out more,' then people are rightly going to say: 'What is the point of parliament if you are making my life worse and worse and putting me under even more pressure at the same time as giving tax breaks to big business and continuing the unfair tax breaks they already have? What is the point of government if you can't stand up for the public interest?' The Greens will be opposing this bill because it's a continuation of an attack that we've seen for several decades, where education is increasingly treated not as a public good, the key to our national prosperity and something we want every person in Australia to have, but simply a way of making money and shifting debt onto individuals and households. If you don't want to be in any more debt, you will oppose this bill. If you want to take away people's income, as the government wants to do, then you will support this bill, but, if you want people to have more money in their pockets, then you've got to oppose this bill. At a time of low wages growth, a time of high housing costs and a time of record personal debt, there can be no justification for saying to people who are on below average incomes, 'The government is going to put its hand in your pocket and take out even more.' Let's do what we're meant to do and stand up to those big corporations, who are getting away with financial murder. If we do that, we can fund education and take the pressure off students and former students. 12:35 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce The avid listeners at home may get a sense of deja vu from this debate. Here we are again, six months on, arguing the case against the government's ongoing attacks on education and young people, especially those from disadvantaged or middle-class backgrounds. The best you could say about the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 is that it's a little bit less awful than last year's efforts to lower the repayment thresholds to force people to repay their education loans even earlier. It's a reheated version of last year's leftovers—sloppy seconds, as they say. Of course, the midyear financial update package is the fourth attempt by the Liberals to cut universities and make students pay more and pay earlier. So Labor is, rightly, again opposing this bill. It is still unfair and it's still unnecessary. There is a risk of just repeating oneself in speaking on these bills. There's a pattern we've seen this year, in every sitting week, of the government proposing bad legislation, it being defeated by the Senate and the government serving it up again, a bit less awful, with a few tweaks. We had the bill to repeal the bereavement allowance yesterday. We've got the ongoing attacks on pensioners, the pensioner education supplement, the pensioner energy supplement, making you work till you're 70, changing the indexation rates for pensioners, drug testing people on social security—better known as the 'drive up crime bill'—the English grammar test to become an Australian citizen and the list goes on. The same stuff which was defeated last year represents the government's ongoing agenda. So the thrust of my speech in September still stands, but I'll summarise it briefly and then in the second half of the speech I will build on a particular aspect and respond to some of the comments made in the debate yesterday by the member for Tangney, who's sitting opposite. To summarise the key arguments, which still stand, this bill makes it even harder for young people from everyday backgrounds to climb the ladder of opportunity through education. Rather than helping young people fulfil their potential, to climb that ladder of life and opportunity and secure a better future, except for the very few amongst us who happen to be born into wealthy families, last year the government tried to make young people repay their education loans when they started earning $42,000. This year they picked a different number: it's $45,000. If we knock it off, maybe they'll come back with $47,000. The point is it's still too low, and there are a few fundamental truths that remain about lowering the repayment threshold from where it is now. Firstly, it still makes it harder—for many people, impossible—to buy a house and provide for a family. We hear in the speeches of those opposite, prattling on, 'It's only $10 a week;' 'It's $5 a week;' 'It's $20 a week.' The point remains: it makes things more unfair and more unequal and it's the wrong way to go, especially at a time of stagnating wages, poor graduate employment outcomes and spiralling house prices fuelled by regressive tax breaks for the wealthy. The point still remains: this bill will worsen inequality in this country. Good luck saving for a deposit for a house, saving for a family, repaying your uni debt, paying off a car, paying your rent, paying your phone bill, paying for food and paying for electricity and any other costs that come up. You'd better hope you don't get sick. The point remains: what have young people done to deserve this? If we want Australia to remain the land of a fair go, as they say, we have to do more to address inequality, especially that which is of an entrenched and intergenerational nature. We know that education is the best single tool that governments have to encourage social mobility. People in my electorate get it. It was the No. 1 issue over 18 months of doorknocking that came up from grandparents, parents, young people and, particularly, migrants. Fifty-five per cent of people in my electorate were born in another country. They come here seeking a better life for their kids, with that laser-like focus on education. So Labor is opposing this bill because it sells out the country's future as well and takes us in the wrong direction. The dissenting report of the inquiry into the bill by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee sums it up well: … the changes to HELP repayment thresholds are simply driven by budget cuts. They are simply driven by budget cuts in this government's ongoing attempt to cut education. We should not be cutting higher education or making more barriers and disincentives for people to take it up. It's not just a tool for social mobility or to curb inequality but critical to our future economic success. I outlined in more detail why that is in my speech in September. Again, to summarise, our region is the fastest growing in the world. This century holds enormous opportunity, but the world does not owe us a living. We're at the bottom of a region of 4.5 billion people, and we can choose to innovate and compete or get left behind. Right now, Australia has the second-lowest level of public investment in universities in the OECD. So while our neighbours, partners and competitors in Asia are increasing investment in education, our government spends month after month, year after year, thinking of new ways to cut funding for higher education and make it harder for young people. We need an equitable higher education system if our best future is to be realised, so that the smartest and brightest get the same access, no matter where they're born, how much their parents earn and their capacity to pay. The last time I spoke I made a few remarks about HELP debt levels and repayment. I want to build on those and respond very positively to some of the comments made yesterday by the member for Tangney in his speech on the bill. The government is concerned about growth in unpaid debt. To be clear, I mean unpaid debt by students, not unpaid debt because of your terrible budget management. Overall, student debts are increasing significantly for a range of positive reasons—there are more people going to higher education and so on—but over the last four years we've seen the number of students with debts grow from 1.7 million to 2.5 million and the total debt grow from $25½ billion to about $48 billion, and 23 per cent of those people are not expected ever to repay their debts. The fact is unpaid debt is largely with people who haven't earnt above the income threshold for long enough to repay, and that debt is written off when they die. I outlined last time that there are still three broad options you can choose, philosophically, to deal with that fact. The first option is that you could just accept that writing off a huge chunk of the debt is an essential part of the scheme—an equity measure if you like, an investment in human capital, some of which will be lost as people never repay the debt. That's one option, and that's got an argument. The government's approach of course is option two, to lower repayment thresholds so as to push young people, effectively, in my view, into a poverty trap. That's their choice. There is a third, interesting but politically very difficult, option, which is to explore recouping unpaid debts from deceased estates when people die. In September I gave a gentle nod towards option three, floating the idea that it's time to review the current and very peculiar rule, when you put it into context, that HECS debts, HELP debts, are written off completely when you die, no matter how wealthy you are and no matter how big your estate is. It is a fact that the major reason for the high doubtful HELP debt is that it's not collected from deceased estates when people die. The Grattan Institute did some very thoughtful and detailed work on this in 2014. It's also a fact that many people who die without repaying debts will actually be from wealthy households. That's because their family arrangements are such that they may never have personally earnt above the threshold or paid off much of the debt, but they will have married and will end up inheriting a lot of wealth from, often, a husband or wife who dies and who has a lot of wealth. By the time they die they may not have ever earnt enough taxable income to pay their debt, but they will pass away with a lot of wealth. It's politically difficult, mainly because it's very easy to carry on and call this a death tax and such nonsense, but there is a case to look more closely at it. I'm very conscious that it's not my party's policy, and I am just a humble backbencher, so I am able to explore things more freely, and I think there's a case to do so here. The case for it will only grow over time as we see more debt written off, pressure to pursue more regressive and unfair options, as the government feels necessary to do, and concerns about growing wealth inequality. This could be explored as a small but progressive measure. In that context, I was surprised and pleased to hear the remarks of the member for Tangney yesterday welcoming my speech, quoting me even, and offering to explore this in a bipartisan way. I welcome that offer and I would be pleased to do so. I say I was surprised because my speech was given six months ago and you're never quite sure whether anyone listens to anything you say in here during legislative debates. The Australian newspaper picked up on it and wrote something on it. I say for the record that I did not send it to them. They must just have been listening or reading Hansard or someone opposite thought they'd give us a poke. Also, it's a good reminder of some advice that the member for Watson gave me when I was first elected: never underestimate the impact that something thoughtful, sensible or silly that you say in here can have in unpredictable ways. I am also pleased because, as I said in my first speech, I want to be someone who is prepared to work across the aisle and find compromise without compromising our values. I talked about structural deficits and fiscal challenges, acknowledging the community's desire for more bipartisanship. I'm committed to doing my bit to listen and learn and stay true to those words, so I will accept the offer. We can flesh it out, run some numbers and see if the case does stack up, and then we can garner some broader support across the parliament. In the remaining time, I will precis the 2014 Grattan Institute work because it is a good starting point. They explored one approach—this was their approach—which was a system of asset contingent repayment to ensure the eventual recovery of most outstanding HELP debt but, importantly, protecting the estates of HELP debtors with little wealth so you don't cause hardship. That work highlights that debts are really discharged at death. Tax debts, personal debts and social security debts all have to be repaid from deceased estates—no-one objects to that: we understand that—but just not education loans. The repayment of education loans is income contingent when someone's alive to smooth the income and consumption over a person's life, but: Once their life is over that policy goal is no longer relevant. They're dead. It is in that context difficult to understand why government collects tax debts and social security debts but writes off education loans, even for very wealthy estates. Grattan makes the point that the vast majority of people actually die late in life—about 95 per cent of women and 90 per cent of men die quite late in life—and partnered people earning less than the repayment threshold tend not to be the main earner in the household. In effect then, writing off all HELP debts gives a windfall gain to partners who are higher income earners or adult children, with no obvious public policy or equity rationale. Grattan's proposal—I'm not saying I agree with this; we'd need to look at it—was to require HELP debts to be repaid just like tax or social security debts from estates over $100,000 in value. This would raise up to around $2.8 billion over three years and flow from there. They proposed, obviously, that we would need to craft any such policy carefully. You'd need a reasonable threshold. They thought $100,000. We can model and look at scenarios a bit higher. But importantly—and this is important—there have to be appropriate exemptions or delayed payment provisions to protect people. For example, families with children where a parent dies young or people with surviving partners and cashflow issues where capital is tied up in a house—you don't want to force someone to sell a house. There are a lot of practical issues to be worked out but they could all be done. The Grattan's work also points out that the ATO already has a lot of discretion simply to waive debts where collection would cause financial hardship, and this is important. Aside from the death tax furphy, there'd be lots of other arguments against it, including one which I've heard before, that HELP, in effect, is a contract between the Commonwealth and the student and addressing the estate exemption is going to be a breach of contract. But really, there have been many changes to HELP repayment rules over the years without any legal concerns—it's a political issue. There's also the argument about pain for gain: it's not worth the political pain as it wouldn't produce any short-term cash. But the reported savings would actually be immediate because of the way the budget accounting rules work. To quote Grattan: … an allowance for estimated non-repayment is made— In the budget— … in the year that the loans are made. So you lend some money and you make an accurate estimate based on the best info about how much is going to be repaid. So $2.8 billion is a worthy, progressive, long-term or structural reform over only three years, if it can be crafted to be fair and progressive. They conclude the write-off of debts to deceased estates 'has very high financial costs relative to its benefits'. In putting that out there, I understand this isn't my party's policy but there's a case to explore it, consistent with our values, as it would be a progressive reform if crafted properly. I understand it's also not the government's policy at this time. But I do note that they did float it in their own discussion paper and it's entirely consistent with the government's objective as stated in recouping more HELP debt. If difficult choices have to be made, to my mind, that's certainly far less regressive and unfair to young people than the government's approach. In plain English, if someone dies wealthy or with reasonable assets, then it seems more reasonable to me to have their estate repay an education debt where it doesn't cause hardship, rather than slugging a low-income young person with higher repayments while they're alive and trying to get a start in life. This morning I telephoned the member for Tangney to make time for a coffee and a chat. We obviously won't agree on the government's ongoing attempts to lower the repayment threshold. We'll see how that goes in the Senate, for people who are alive—by that I don't mean the senators, I mean the young people. I presume the senators are alive and kicking. But it is worth exploring the issue of deceased estates further in a bipartisan fashion, so we'll see what transpires. Thank you. 12:49 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I, too, rise to oppose the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018. I do so because, as we heard the member for Bruce say, it is an attack on students, it's an attack on young people and it's especially an attack on people from the lower socioeconomic group—people who need help and assistance, people who are willing to get an education to better their lives. As we know, there is no better way of getting out of a particular rut or out of poverty than education There is no other tool that is as effective as education to ensure that you go on to get a career, go on and get a decent job, go on and be able to participate in this world and do all the things that we all aspire to. This particular bill is one that attacks all those things. Increasing participation in universities and reducing barriers to higher education should be a priority of governments. It should be a priority but, instead, what this bill will actually do is decrease participation at universities and bring barriers upon people who wish to undertake a higher education. As I said, the priority of governments, whether they be Labor, Liberal or Callithumpian is to make sure we get more participation and reduce barriers to higher education. But instead, we see a government that's doing the exact opposite. We're seeing a government that's having another attempt, after six months, at cutting funding to universities. We see a government that, through this bill, would make it harder for people that perhaps won't get an opportunity to go to university thereby ensuring that they don't get to better their lives because of their social background, because of their circumstances, maybe perhaps because of their parents' circumstances. So that's the reason we, on this side, will not be supporting this bill. We know that every dollar spent on education is an absolute investment in this country's future. Whether it be through industry or through technologies, investing in education ensures that we make this place a better world. This, I think, is the government's fourth attempt at cutting university funding. This time around it is to a tune of $2.2 billion. You can't cut $2.2 billion out of a system, out of a particular area and expect that it would not have an adverse effect. Those adverse effects will make it harder for people to get a higher education. But the government still remain committed. The government are cutting $2.2 billion from education but they are absolutely committed to supporting a $65 billion tax cut for Australia's richest people—that's a $65 billion cut to their mates on the other side of town. At the same time, on the other side of town, they are making it harder for kids and young people to go to university to better their lives and perhaps get out of a particular situation that they are destined to be in because of where they were born, for example. We know they have also cut penalty rates. Students have lost a considerable amount of their income yet they are still the most likely to work those antisocial hours on weekends—Saturdays and Sundays. We saw the Fair Work Commission hand down that dreadful recommendation to cut penalty rates. We had a proposal in this place to overturn that. The government refused to do so. That will have an adverse effect on students as well. We've seen the mismanagement of Centrelink. Waiting times have ballooned out. One in five calls to Centrelink are made by students and young people. The government have removed the student start-up scholarship and installed a student start-up loan. They have done nothing about the wage stagnation in this nation and the casualisation of our workforce. And now they are saying that students and graduates will have to repay their HELP debt when their earnings have reached a lower rate, making it harder for those students who are already struggling, who are already working hard to balance study, home life, education and work—in many cases low-paid work, where students depend on the penalty rates on the weekend to get through university. The members opposite recognise these significant social issues. It's not hard to recognise these social issues. But instead of addressing them they intend to make the system more unfair for those people on the other side of town and take from the back pocket of vulnerable Australians while at the same time pursuing and insisting on that $65 billion tax cut to Australia's richest people. This government has already done its damage to students, and they're saying that there's still more to come. And that doesn't surprise me one little bit. Why would it? They cut from pensions and they cut from working people, and we have the worst wage stagnation in the history of Australia. We have enormous casualisation and part-time work. Why wouldn't you be surprised? This is not a government for students or graduates. This is not a government that is committed to investing in education. And that is a real shame, because when you invest in education you're investing in this nation's future, you're investing in the next generation of Australians and you're investing in the stability of the nation. Pricing people who are seeking qualifications or retraining out of higher education, as this bill would do, is not the reform that this nation requires or needs. And of course we've seen the other path as well—the $100,000 degrees that they have been pursuing for many, many years in this place. Higher education represents an opportunity for many in my electorate of Hindmarsh and many other electorates around the country, and I want to support those people who want to take up this opportunity—people who are committed to bettering their lives through education, people who want to turn it around—and this bill will not help this one little bit. I've recently been contacted by constituents from my electorate, and I'll give you a bit of an idea of what they've been saying. One constituent who recently reached out to me is a first-year university student at the University of Adelaide. She started university only a month ago and already this government's reforms are affecting her ability to successfully engage in her education. Under financial hardship provisions, my constituent was able to have her youth allowance claim processed faster. However, reforms for the start-up scholarship have become a challenge for her. The start-up loan which has replaced the scholarship requires student payment applicants to opt in to receive the grant. The issue for my constituent is that the start-up funding is no longer processed automatically. So, despite my constituent's youth allowance claim having already been processed, this start-up funding is yet to reach her bank account, causing enormous hardship for her. Universities deliver increasing amounts of their content online, and my constituent also was dependent on this loan to acquire a laptop for her tertiary studies. I anticipate that when she's able to get this laptop, at some stage in the future, it won't be long before she encounters problems with this government's NBN as well—another burden for this particular student because of the NBN rollout and its poor connectivity. In the meantime, accessing courses and textbooks is an issue for this person as well. This two-part processing for student start-up funding is disadvantaging low-income students by delaying their access to study resources. Completion of a tertiary qualification absolutely puts a lot of responsibility on the student. We see university students working unsociable hours and balancing family, work and study commitments. Due to deadlines, working commitments and financial stressors, tertiary students are becoming increasingly vulnerable to health issues, especially mental health issues, and this bill will do nothing to alleviate that. The National Tertiary Student Wellbeing Survey of 2016, which was completed by the National Union of Students and headspace, found that only 1.6 per cent of the students who participated in the survey had reported no symptoms of mental health problems that impacted their studies in the previous year—only 1.6 per cent. So, we see that students struggle to cope with tertiary stressors and demands. Psychological distress for tertiary students has become an issue internationally. And we're aware that mental health is a serious problem in this country and certainly for our younger populations and students. Suicide rates in Australia are at an all-time high. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for Australians aged between 15 and 44, many of them students. The 2017 federal budget allocated $115 million in new funding over four years to mental health, one of the smallest investments in the sector in recent years. Sometimes major family issues impact upon a student's ability to complete a degree. Recently a constituent who had been formerly enrolled at the University of South Australia contacted me. They left study a few years ago to help out with a family situation that wasn't working that well at the time. Four years later, now that family situation has changed and progressed to a more healthy state, my constituent sought to return to university. It was four weeks before he could even find out if he was eligible to return to study as he'd originally hoped for and was planning. It was to be some time before the university accepted him as a student again. Even if they had said he could return, he'd still be four weeks behind all his colleagues. To return to university again, he'll have to undergo a lengthy process and test, and if successful he'll have to apply for recognition of prior courses completed. You can see some of the hardships they go through and how this particular bill will have an adverse effect on these people. Staying at university is hard, but this government is making it harder for people to even get their foot in the door, let alone go to university and complete a degree. Labor made it possible for 190,000 students to access higher education, and many were the very first in their family to do so. The Liberal government froze university funding at the end of 2017, at levels that hadn't been seen before. They're already making it harder for students to get a place at university, and this bill will make it even harder. Freezing university funding is cutting university funding. It's no different. When you freeze something, it's a cut. You can polish and dress it up in any way you like, but it's a cut. These cuts, delivered in late December last year, were a kick in the teeth for year 12 graduates who worked hard to get into university and now may not be able to do so. It's estimated that 10,000 students missed out. The majority of those would have been from low-income families and perhaps won't get that opportunity ever again. There are reports that some universities are already turning away students and cutting programs. We see it every day. What does this mean for university services, like on-site counselling, that don't bring in revenue? What does it mean for all the other services at university? The university sector needs certainty, and funding to the sector needs to be stable. On this side, Labor and I are committed to fighting these cuts. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 2859 MOTIONS Billson, Mr Bruce 2859 Censure 2859 13:04 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner by leave—I move: That the House censure the former member for Dunkley, Mr Bruce Billson, for failing to discharge his obligations as a Member to the House in taking up paid employment for services to represent the interests of an organisation while he was a Member of the House, and failing to fulfil his responsibilities as a Member by appropriately declaring his personal and pecuniary interests, in respect of this paid employment, in accordance with the resolutions and standing orders of the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? 13:04 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I second the motion to censure Mr Billson, and I do so with a sense of gravity. Parliament censuring someone—expressing severe disapproval of their actions—is a very significant course. It's a course that the Privileges Committee recommended to the House, in this instance, based on the failure of Mr Billson to give primacy to acting in the public interest and ensuring that there was no actual or perceived conflict of interest. The committee found that that did not occur. I want to say to people outside of this chamber that censuring someone is an incredibly serious course of action. Ultimately, when we leave this place, our greatest and most lasting asset is our reputation. This motion goes to that, so it's a very serious course of action for parliament to take. It's very rare for a motion of censure to originate from a recommendation of the Privileges Committee and then be adopted by the House, and I want to stress that the recommendation was from a bipartisan committee with over 150 years of parliamentary experience on it. I support the motion. Question agreed to. BILLS 2859 BILLS Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 2859

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018

Second Reading 2859 13:06 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the amendment be agreed to. 13:06 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin We have a Prime Minister who talks about an innovation nation but then undermines the very education system that will lead us to an innovation nation. He does that through the various and many cuts to the education funding that has been provided for years in the past. The dominant purpose of this legislation, the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018, is to reduce the income threshold at which Higher Education Loan Program repayments commence. Currently, once a person who has borrowed money under that scheme earns $54,869 they begin repayment of that loan. The government wants to reduce the amount from $54,869 to $45,000 from 1 July 2019. The first question that needs to be asked is: what is the basis on which the government warrants and justifies a lowering of that figure of $54,869, established years ago? One might think that, if anything, over that period the figure would increase rather than decrease. We need to go back to the original proposition for setting that figure in order to understand why the government is on the wrong path when it wants to reduce the amount to $45,000. The changes will save the government some $245 million over the period from 2017-18 to 2020-21. A further $32.3 million in savings will be made through changes to the Student Financial Supplement Scheme. I add my voice in opposition to this legislation. Amendments to legislation usually arise because of unforeseen consequences of laws that have been brought in, changed circumstances, or problems that arise with the administration of a particular piece of legislation. But those things are not the case with this legislation. This legislation, and the resulting change, is driven by the government's mismanagement of its budget and the Australian economy. This legislation is about the Turnbull government's economic incompetence, which ironically this very legislation compounds. The Turnbull government has reverted to its ideological mantra of making the poor pay much more. That's what this legislation does: it transfers more cost, more burden and more pain onto poorer people. People with $45,000 of annual income are far from rich. It is not a high income. As other speakers have made clear, it is just $9,000 above the minimum wage. This legislation takes Australia back in a direction where those who can afford higher education get it; those who can't afford it miss out. That is exactly why the scheme was brought in—to try and reverse that discriminatory trend, and it was intended to reverse that trend because it was in the national interest to do so. To give every student a chance to get a university education is something that this nation should aspire to. Every nation that understands the value of a good education does exactly that, and yet we know from statistics that we have seen, time and again, that children from low-income homes are still less likely to go to university. In fact, I don't have the latest figures, but I can recall some statistics being done in the region that I represent some years ago, when the University of South Australia established a campus in Mawson Lakes in my electorate. One of the purposes for establishing the campus there was that children from the northern suburbs of Adelaide were less likely to go to university, and one of the ways that we were hoping to encourage them to do that was by establishing a campus in close proximity to them. It had the desired effect. The statistics at the time showed that the children from those low-income families were much less likely to go to university. Indeed, that was a loss to the whole state and to the nation because the truth of the matter is that many of those students had the ability to go on to professions and make a real contribution to the country, if they were only given the chance to do so. We saw from statistics that were presented in the Labor senators' dissenting report, when this legislation was sent for inquiry by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, that between 2008 and 2016 there was a substantial increase in the number of disadvantaged students who took up university education as a result of this very scheme. I want to quote some of those figures because, whilst some of my colleagues have already done so, I think they are worth re-emphasising. In 2008, 24,311 students with a disability were enrolled in university; by 2016 the figure had more than doubled to 50,206. In 2008, 7,038 Indigenous students were enrolled; there were 13,320 by 2016—again, almost double. For students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, 90,467 were enrolled in 2008; there were 140,462 in 2016. For regional and remote area students, 110,124 were enrolled in 2008; that figure was up to 163,292 by 2016. Those figures confirm that the system is working to do exactly what it was intended to do, and that is to give everyone, including low-income families, a chance to send their children to university. Every smart nation knows that. We know that the best investment that we can make in our nation is to invest in our children through having them educated and having them achieve some professional qualification. The fact is that students from poor areas are just as capable as others—and I want to stress that point because it seems to me that there's something being missed by this government. If we can ensure that we capitalise on the ability of everybody in this nation, then the nation will prosper. Yet this bill is really saying, 'If you can't afford it, you won't go to a university and, therefore, what you might have otherwise been able to contribute to this country will be lost forever.' I think that that is a very foolish approach to take. This legislation also comes at a time when every nation in the world is competing in a global economy, where Australia's best hope of remaining competitive is through education and innovation. It's something the Prime Minister, as I said at the outset, acknowledges, and yet he does the opposite when it comes to the funding. It is not just about education in the higher education sector because, when you look at this government's record, it goes right through—$17 billion having been cut to our education system in our primary and secondary school areas, $3 billion cut from TAFE and vocational education and training by this government, and then the $2.2 billion now cut from education. So it doesn't matter which sector of education we're looking at; this government wants to cut the funding which, in turn, will cut the outcomes. For my state of South Australia, it means $160 million will be cut from universities in that state. That comes on top of the $210 million that was already cut from schools over the next two years, which we have spoken about in this place on previous occasions. Now, to add insult to injury, the government is telling students that they will have to start making their repayments at a much lower level, at a time when they know that penalty rates are already under threat, when they know that unemployment is already high and when they know that the South Australian economy has already been hit by the devastation caused by the closure of the car manufacturing industry. At a time of other hardships, to then say to young people, 'You now have to start making repayments at a lower level,' I think is a very cruel blow indeed. The government does that, as other speakers have quite rightly alluded to, at a time when this government says that it can't afford funding education programs in this country but it can afford $65 billion of tax cuts to corporate businesses. This government has its priorities wrong and its understanding of the benefits of what it does is completely wrong because, as we know, and as the government's own studies have shown, the $65 billion of cuts to the corporate sector will result in a minuscule addition to our economic growth. Yet the cuts that are being made to higher education will make an enormous difference to the economic growth of this country because our economy will only prosper if we are a smarter nation. That kind of logic, quite frankly, astounds me when I hear the government and its members speaking about why these cuts are necessary and why the $65 billion of corporate tax cuts are also necessary. There haven't been too many members opposite who have spoken on this legislation, which just highlights that they don't feel comfortable with it because they know it's a retrograde step but, nevertheless, arguments have been made by those opposite. The HELP debts, which have blown out from $23 billion in 2010-11 to $55 billion in 2016-17 have to be reined in. Lowering the repayment threshold will reduce the debt, and the income generated by reducing that debt will help support other education initiatives is a flawed argument and does not withstand scrutiny. The debt blowout can be attributed to several factors. The first one of them is the mismanagement by this very government of the shonky operators of vocational courses in this country, costing Australian taxpayers billions of dollars that will never ever be collected because those people that were listed in those courses never completed them. If they got their certificates, they were not worth the paper they were written on and they will never be employed under the so-called profession or qualification that they supposedly undertook. That's the first reason and that was again bad management by this government. The second reason there is a blowout is that we have universities taking on students for courses for which there is already an oversupply of graduates and that results in the graduates then not being able to get work. And if they can't get work then obviously they can't repay the money. And so there is, in my view, a responsibility on the universities to ensure that if they offer courses, there's a reasonable expectation that those students who undertake those courses are likely to get work at the end of completing their courses. And the third reason is that it seems to me that if you're going to have a system which enables students from low-income households to go to university whereas in the past they didn't then, of course, the numbers of students going to a university will increase. We saw that through the statistics that I quoted earlier. If we're going to get more students going to university, then of course the cost to the budget will increase in the short term. That's a fact, if you get more students and we have a loan scheme that they can tap into. The last point I want to make is this. It seems to me that the government is effectively acknowledging that the students who complete their courses are unlikely to get work in the professions for which they have studied, because there would be very few professions that would pay just $9,000 above the minimum award wage. So, if the expectation is that the repayment starts at $45,000, there is an underlying expectation that those people are not going to be working in the very areas for which they have studied and have become qualified in. If they did, one would expect that the income level would be much higher. So the government is effectively saying, 'We know that you're going to do courses and we know that you're not going to get a job from them, but if you get any work of any kind then you will have to start making the repayments towards the funding for which you took out the loan.' That goes entirely against the very principle for which the loans were established in the first place—on the basis that loans would be provided so that young people could acquire qualifications in universities, which they would otherwise not be able to do, and when they had qualified and then secured work in that area, which would have in turn given them a higher income, the Australian taxpayers would—quite rightly—say, 'Since we helped you get to that level of your profession and that level of income, it is now time for you to start making some of the repayments.' That's the very principle on which this scheme was established, and that's exactly what this government is trying to undermine and why we on this side of the House will oppose it. 13:21 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank those members who spoke on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill. The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and other legislation that underpins student loans, including the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, and the Student Financial Supplement Scheme, or the SFSS. It introduces a new set of repayment thresholds for student loans, changes indexation arrangements for repayment thresholds, amends the order of repayment of some student loan debts and introduces a combined loan limit for HELP. The policy measures that are the subject of this bill will ensure that Australia's world-leading income-contingent student loan system can continue to be available to future generations of students. Australia must face up to the task of putting our higher education system on a more sustainable, responsible path for the future. The measures in this bill are proportionate, and they help achieve that goal. I wish to advise the House that there was an error of fact in my second reading speech, and I wish to correct it. The error does not go to the substance of the bill or its provisions. It was an error in descriptive material about how VET student loans course caps operate. The second reading speech stated that VET student loan caps apply per year rather than per course. In fact, with the VET student loans program that was introduced in 2017, the Turnbull government put in place loan caps on the amount of financial assistance available to be borrowed per course. To be clear, 2018 indexed course caps for VET student loans ranged from $5,075 up to a maximum of $15,225, depending on the course, with an exception for specified aviation courses, which have a loan cap of $76,125. A revised second reading speech has been prepared and will be tabled with the bill when it is introduced in the Senate. In summing up, I also present a correction to the explanatory memorandum that was tabled with the bill on 14 February 2018. The original explanatory memorandum stated that the changes to the combined HELP loan limit would have a cost of $22.9 million of fiscal balance over the forward estimates, or a cost of $10.3 million in underlying cash. In fact, the financial impact of the bill as introduced is a saving of $3.2 million in fiscal balance terms over the forward estimates and a cost of $9.9 million in underlying cash terms. Today I am tabling a correction to the explanatory memorandum in those terms. I note that the amendment I am moving today will have an additional minor financial impact. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Griffith has moved as an amendment that all the words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question now is that this bill be now read a second time. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of a matter of public importance. The debate on this item is therefore adjourned until that time. Debate adjourned. Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017, Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 2864

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2864 13:27 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill and on the rates of charge bill, as well. At the outset, I say that Labor will support these bills. The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill is an omnibus package of reforms aimed at deregulating the migration advice industry. The migration agents rates of charge bill amends the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997. Australia's migration framework includes the Migration Act 1958, which is an extremely complex and often confusing system of law for those prospective migrants or visitors who have to navigate its complexities. Given this, people turn to migration agents to assist them through the process of applying for a visa. People seeking the help of a migration agent in Australia are by their very nature vulnerable customers. Often they are people seeking help to process a humanitarian visa, an opportunity to reunite with family, assistance to take up a job offer in Australia or to visit for an extended period of time. Often people are faced with language or cultural barriers which further compound what can be a stressful, confronting and expensive process. In my work as the federal MP for Blair and shadow minister for immigration and border protection I'm acutely aware of how difficult it can be for people facing what is often for them an overwhelming process. One of the strengths of Australia's migration system is its non-discriminatory nature. It would be good for the Minister for Home Affairs to remember that from time to time. It's important that we do everything we can to ensure everything we do in this place maintains the integrity of Australia's migration program. Regrettably, as some media reports have indicated, there are some unscrupulous migration agents who have exploited vulnerable people trying to obtain visas. This is completely unacceptable. These people are very vulnerable. They should not be treated this way, nor should their families. It's incumbent on the Turnbull government to investigate every complaint and take appropriate action to protect would-be migrants and their families who are already in Australia. People who are offering migration advice, such as migration agents— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 2864 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Ljubic, Mrs Maria 2864 13:30 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I rise to pay tribute to Maria Ljubic, who is soon to celebrate her 30-year anniversary as a cleaner here at Parliament House. Maria came to Australia from Croatia in 1970 and started cleaning at the new Parliament House on 23 April 1988. She was the first cleaner to work here. During the opening of Parliament House in 1988, Maria rolled out the red carpet and vacuumed it just prior to the Queen arriving to open the building, and her picture was subsequently in the newspaper. Maria says this is a beautiful place to work, and she loves talking to members of parliament and feels privileged to be here in the building. She really enjoys getting the place ready when dignitaries from overseas are visiting. Maria has been involved in photoshoots, interviews and the recent ABC series The House. It is a family affair. Maria's sister Anna started working as a cleaner at Parliament House on 3 October 1989—so we'll shortly be celebrating her 30th anniversary too. I note that contract cleaning services at Parliament House are to be tendered in April, below their current rate of pay and with no guarantee of job security. It is a real pity that cleaners like Anna and Maria have this uncertainty hanging over their heads when we should be celebrating their amazing loyalty and the contribution they have made over 30 years here. On behalf of members in this place, I want to thank Maria for her all her work and congratulate her, her husband, Peter, and their daughter Ana on this 30-year anniversary. Taxation 2865 13:32 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax If Labor were to win government, all Australians would have to pay more. Looking just at my electorate of Fairfax, I ask the Leader of the Opposition—and indeed all those members opposite—why should young families looking for a home in Bli Bli or Brightwaters have to pay more for their properties? Why should nurses working at the Nambour Hospital pay more because they're denied a deduction for costs to manage their tax? Why should innovative businesses and young entrepreneurs in Maroochydore or Coolum pay higher income taxes? Why should family business owners in Kunda Park or Eumundi be targeted for holding discretionary trusts? Why should farmers in Kenilworth and Yandina be slugged with more capital gains tax for selling off a parcel of land? Why should retirees in Buderim and Twin Waters be forced to pay double taxation on share dividends? Why? Why under a potential Labor government should people in my electorate—indeed, why should all Australians—have to be forced to pay more? Because that is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party are proposing. Thank you. Surf Safety 2865 13:33 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Last summer, unfortunately, two international students from the University of New South Wales, fresh from Nepal, went for a swim at Maroubra Beach. Tragically, they never went home; they drowned in difficult seas at the northern end of Maroubra. We have had an increase in drownings in Australia over the last summer once again: 291 Australians have drowned. Unfortunately, an increasing number are from multicultural backgrounds. They don't get the surf- and water-safety education that many Australians get. In the wake of the drowning of those two Nepalese students, I approached the University of New South Wales and Surf Life Saving New South Wales, requesting they consider running water- and surf-safety seminars for their new crop of international students each year to teach them the importance of swimming between the red and yellow flags at the beach, obeying the instructions of lifesavers and how to identify rips. I'm very pleased to say that recently two of these seminars were run with a new crop of students from international backgrounds at Tamarama and Maroubra. In the course of their O Week this year, 7,000 international students received a basic education in surf safety. I call it the ocean classroom. It's just as important as their normal classes in ensuring that their time in Australia is rewarding, fulfilling and, importantly, safe so that they can enjoy Australia's beaches. I want to thank the University of New South Wales and Surf Life Saving New South Wales and all their volunteers for putting on those important seminars. Inverloch Jazz Festival 2866 13:35 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan It is a privilege at any time for a local member to be asked to open a festival, especially the Inverloch Jazz Festival. I've waited a long time to be invited to open the Inverloch Jazz Festival. I would like to thank Clive Budd, Jennie Deane, Graeme Morris, Patsy O'Neil, Carol Young, Kerrie Giles, Kate Lance and Tom Bennett for the invitation. It's a magnificent weekend at Inverloch. Everybody should attend once in their lives, if they possibly can. It's not just the three venues that are operating over the whole weekend, it's not just the great opening night that we all experience but it's the fantastic country buskers that are on the street every day. There's a festival atmosphere for the whole weekend. The best part is that you get the musicians. They have the opportunity to display their wares in a way that they love to do—the presentation they make, the efforts that they put in and the singers that are there. Yes, I had a bit of fun opening it, as you can imagine. I had a lot of fun. Give me a microphone and give me an audience and it is a lot of fun. We had a lot of fun opening it. I thank everyone of them, especially Clive Budd, for giving me the opportunity to enter into this amazing Inverloch Jazz Festival. I hope that every member in this place gets to open a jazz festival or something important in their electorate. You make it very special. These people not only made it special for themselves, but they made it special for me, because I really, really enjoyed the opening night. Lindsay Electorate: Country Women's Association 2866 13:36 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Today I rise to congratulate my local chapter of the Country Women's Association. It's hard to believe that in my electorate I have a Country Women's Association, but they had a 90th birthday, which tells you just how much my part of the world has changed in the last 90 years. I rise today because I missed out on their birthday celebrations—we were here sitting last month—and I want to say thank you to them for all of the work that they do. In addition to all of the great things that they do in supporting women, being the largest women's organisation in the country, they support many local charities and community projects as well as aid to the Asia-Pacific countries. There are 400 branches in New South Wales, probably in more remote and regional parts than downtown Western Sydney Lindsay. Our local branch of dedicated women provide a voice for women, networking opportunities and aim to improve conditions and welfare for women and families. They've donated to medical research into Lyme disease and Rett syndrome; supported the flying doctors mental health program; Mama Lana's community kitchen, which is for the relief of homelessness in my area; and local school scholarships. Internationally they have supported women in PNG and East Timor to purchase sewing machines and fabrics, so they can give back to their communities and support their own families. Ruth Shanks AM, the international president of the Associated Country Women of the World, was the special guest in my electorate, and I am so sorry that I couldn't be there. Congratulations to the Country Women's Association of Penrith—the president, Caroline Wong, secretary Alison Christie and members of the local chapter, who are doing a fabulous job. These volunteers reinforce why I'm so proud to be the member— (Time expired) Defence Procurement 2867 13:38 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Deputy Speaker Hogan, congratulations on your new appointment as Deputy Speaker. I was delighted to join the Prime Minister and the ministers for Defence and Defence industry a couple of weeks ago at the Gallipoli Barracks at Enoggera in Brisbane to announce that the Land 400 Defence contract's been afforded to Rheinmetall. This is the Army's biggest ever Defence commitment and it marks the next chapter for our growing Defence industry in Australia and also, specifically, for Brisbane. Rheinmetall is committed to working directly with over 40 other local Australian businesses, meaning that we'll see this growing industry creating opportunities and high-value, high-worth jobs. This project will create hundreds of jobs, not just in Queensland but right across Australia. They will include advanced manufacturing, engineering and highly technical roles. Over the 30-year life of these vehicles, the Australian industry will secure two-thirds—that is a little bit over $10 billion—of the total investment in acquiring and maintaining this fleet. The 26 federal coalition MPs and senators who came to be dubbed 'Team Queensland' fought very hard for this project, and it cements our state's reputation as Australia's home of Land Defence, given the presence of so many ADF personnel in both Brisbane and Townsville. This is good news for Australia and Brisbane. We look forward to the innovation, the opportunities and the economic activity this project will bring, which will help the people of Brisbane and Queensland to prosper— (Time expired) Xavier Catholic School 2867 13:39 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Earlier this month the state member for Armadale, Dr Tony Buti, and I joined many of my fellow former students, teachers and parents of St Francis Xavier Primary School, now called Xavier Catholic School, for its 80th anniversary mass and morning tea. Established in 1938 on the corner of the South Western Highway and Thomas Road in Armadale as the convent school, it is now located just down the road in Hilbert. Xavier Catholic School has a proud history of being a strong, community minded school and is a cornerstone of the Armadale community. It was great to share stories and catch up with so many long-time friends in our community, including some of the school's original students. The Keogh family has been educated at St Francis Xavier and part of its school community for around 50 of Xavier's 80 years. Congratulations to the principal, Catherine Bauer; board chairman, Damien Slattery; Father Joe and all the students and staff for their fantastic work in organising this celebration and continuing to build upon such an already strong community school spirit. It is schools like this in low socioeconomic areas, where a large proportion of students don't pay fees or pay reduced fees, that make a significant difference in the lives of children and provide the legitimate opportunity for a religious education and that are being unfairly disadvantaged by the Turnbull government's education funding changes. Independent analysis shows Catholic schools will face funding cuts under this government's plan. These students deserve better. They have my and Labor's support; they deserve the support of this government too. La Trobe Electorate: Roads 2868 13:41 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I have some fantastic news. The Beaconsfield Interchange will finally be underway this year, together with the O'Shea Road extension. This will open up Minta Farm, which will create 10,000 jobs. Part of this package will include the extension of the Monash Freeway down to Cardinia Road and up to Warrigal Road. We previously made this announcement with the Prime Minister in March 2016. The federal funding was left over, sadly, from the East West Link project. The great news—after many petitions and speeches in parliament, and lots of media attention—is that the state Labor government under Daniel Andrews has finally agreed to use that money. This is such an important project, which my side of the House has been so passionate about. It is going to relieve travel times for people travelling into the CBD. There will be 36 kilometres of new lanes along the Monash Freeway. This is absolutely fantastic news. The Beaconsfield Interchange works will start this year, together with the extension of O'Shea Road, plus the Monash going down to Cardinia Road and up to Warrigal Road. It will create local jobs and ease traffic congestion, including on Clyde Road. Mental Health 2868 13:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Congratulations on your appointment, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan. Australians for Mental Health represents four million Australians suffering from poor mental health, and their family and friends. This week they have called for a new national mental health culture of timely, high-quality care for all Australians. A grassroots approach to delivering mental health reform is not new to my electorate of Indi. A predecessor was a campaign to win a headspace centre for young people on the border of north-east Victoria. Reform will involve community and government leadership. A recently announced Senate inquiry into access to mental health services in regional and remote Australia asks why rural Australians access mental health services at such a low rate. The inquiry will make recommendations to improve the delivery of mental health services in regional areas. I encourage all individuals, organisations and mental health professionals to make submissions before the closing date of 11 May. In closing I acknowledge and welcome to Canberra the members of this year's Alpine Valleys Community Leadership Program—so gorgeously displayed here. I encourage you to understand what can be achieved when local leaders stand up and act on important issues in their community. If you take one message from this meeting in Canberra, it should be that leadership is not an optional extra. We need you to stand up and do what's right, and if you could do it around mental health, I'd be really pleased. (Time expired) Lathlain Precinct Redevelopment Project 2868 13:44 Mr IRONS HYM Swan On Saturday morning the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment visited my electorate of Swan. I took the minister to Lathlain Park to formally present the West Coast Eagles CEO and members with a cheque of $10 million in funding that I secured for the redevelopment of Lathlain Park, which is the traditional home of the mighty Perth Demons. This federal funding will go towards the construction of a new $65 million home for the West Coast Eagles, right in the heart of my electorate of Swan. The redevelopment has a focus on community use and supporting great organisations such as the SAS Trust and the Wirrpanda Foundation. It was a great opportunity to see how construction is going. I'm pleased to report that it's well underway and is due to be completed by this time next year. I then took the minister to Perth's brand-new Optus Stadium to see the state-of-the-art infrastructure, which is already a major tourism attraction. Being the eve of the first Eagles' game at the stadium, the minister and I also caught up with Nic Naitanui and the team during their final pre-game training session. Although the Eagles weren't able to win against the Swans on Sunday I'm certain they have a bright future ahead, both at Lathlain Park and Optus Stadium. Later that evening the minister took the first direct flight from Perth Airport, which is also in my electorate of Swan, on the QF9 Dreamliner straight to London. The 17-hour flight is the only direct flight from Australia to the UK and Europe, and is certain to boost WA's tourism. Already the bookings are showing that 70 per cent of the people who have booked are staying in Perth for an average of three days. Education 2869 13:45 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Leah is a member of my local community and a proud early childhood educator, and she has been so for over 31 years. Leah understands how precious the early years of a child's life are to the development of the adult who emerges thereafter. Leah does it because she's passionate about making a difference in the lives of others, like so many other teachers who are here today. Sadly, this out-of-touch Turnbull government does not share Leah's passion for early education. Rather than investing in the 108,000 early childhood educators in Australia, the prince of Point Piper would rather sit idle and undermine these critical years in a child's development. Metalworkers with a certificate III qualification are paid about $40 an hour—which is, of course, thoroughly deserved. In contrast, early childhood educators are paid as little as $21 an hour despite also having a certificate III qualification or even a bachelor's degree. Perhaps it is telling that 97 per cent of them are women. Today, early childhood educators across Australia are bravely taking a stand to protest against the gross underpayment of this highly skilled and vital role in our community. As part of the United Voice Big Steps campaign, educators will walk off the job. In doing so they are taking a stand for fair and equal pay. Labor stands united with women in the pursuit of fair pay, and Labor stands united with the early education seconder too. If we're not prepared to pay our educators what they deserve then the future is bleak. We'll continue to lose quality educators with enormous passion for our kids— (Time expired) Bennelong Electorate: Harmony Cup 2869 13:47 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong On Saturday I participated in sixth annual Harmony Cup at Eastwood Oval. This soccer tournament is organised each year by the Australian Asian Association of Bennelong to coincide with Harmony Day. It's a wonderful event that brings our diverse and multicultural community together through sport. Despite being a warm day, there was some great talent on display. The teams that competed included Medibank Private, Korean Church FC, Club Eastwood, ANZ Bank, United Community Cultural Centre @Ryde, the Commonwealth Bank Team, the Australia Chinese Soccer Association and the Ryde Police LAC—an arresting team! Well done to everybody who participated for the friendly atmosphere and good sportsmanship. I competed in the friendly match, playing for the AAAB Celebrity team, against the AAAB United. I'm too modest to say who won 2-0. One goal was scored by my colleague in the state government, the Hon. Victor Dominello, the member for Ryde. No doubt he can expect a call from the Socceroos' coach, Bert van Marwijk, any day now. The Ryde councillors—Trenton Brown, Jordan Lane, Chris Moujalli, Simon Zhou and Bernard Purcell—were also magnificent. Congratulations to Hugh Lee, Justin Li, the AAAB and everyone else who helped on the day. The event was a great success. Your hard work continues to strengthen our community spirit. A special thanks also to those involved in the fixtures draw: Jason Xu, Felix Lo, Ste Lin, Joe Yu, Merling Zhou and Stephen Lee. Bendigo Electorate: National Broadband Network 2870 13:49 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo During 2017 complaints about the NBN rollout skyrocketed across the Bendigo electorate. On a daily basis we were receiving phone calls and complaints from constituents and businesses about their experience with NBN and the rollout. That prompted the launch of an electorate-wide survey asking people to detail their experiences. Remarkably, over 3,000 surveys were returned via post, with central Victorians complaining about their experiences. The results are presented in this report that I have in front of me. The findings are damning and highlight the government's complete failure to deliver the NBN speeds that central Victorians need and the reliability that central Victorians both need and were promised. The summary of the findings include: three out of four people complained about their internet connection; 73 per cent of those surveyed said that the connection to the NBN resulted in an unreliable service, slow service, unusual speeds and dropouts; 27 per cent of the electorate is still on ADSL, refusing to connect to the NBN until it's a more reliable service; 80 per cent of people on Sky Muster have said that they've experienced slow speeds; and 25 per cent said that they've had an increase in bills. This is from one electorate—a damning report on the Prime Minister's failure to deliver the internet speeds that central Victorians need. OneSKY Project 2870 13:50 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I was delighted to attend last week the headquarters of Thales Australia in Melbourne for the next stage of the rollout of the OneSKY project. OneSKY is a major project. It was launched by then transport minister Warren Truss and myself as then defence minister in 2015 to put in place a modern air traffic control system for all of Australia. Currently, Australia operates under two separate air traffic control systems, and that is in a country which splits those two down the middle on the second busiest aircraft network in the world—namely, the flight path between Melbourne and Sydney. Bringing these together and bringing together the air traffic control of both civil aviation and military aviation under the OneSKY rubric will, in fact, put us in a situation of having, hopefully, the best air traffic control system in the world. This new system will control something in the order of 11 per cent of the global airspace not just over Australia's land mass but obviously in areas around Australia as well. This has already created some 450 skilled jobs in engineering and like skills in Melbourne, and this next stage will see a further 200 skilled jobs coming to Melbourne. It's a great project for Australia and, indeed, for Melbourne itself. Wills Electorate: National Disability Insurance Scheme 2871 13:51 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I held an NDIS stakeholder forum in my electorate of Wills to coincide with the rollout of the scheme in the area. I was pleased to be joined by Bill Shorten, champion Paralympian Dylan Alcott and representatives from the Brotherhood of St Laurence. The NDIS is Australia's biggest social policy reform since Medicare. I'm reminded of the Productivity Commission's recent report which described it as a once-in-a-generation, groundbreaking reform. It is that, but it's also about making sure people with disability have the care and support that they need to lead strong and independent lives. But this rollout hasn't been without issues. At the forum, we had the opportunity to hear from participants, users, carers and family members about the issues around accessibility, casework consistency and planning. Many were struggling to be heard. Labor created the NDIS in 2013 after strong leadership from Bill Shorten when he was parliamentary secretary for disabilities. He, from the start, was determined to make a real difference to people's lives and, through his interactions with carers and disabled Australians, he developed a deep empathy for their needs. I think it was that combination of ambition to do something and empathy that led him to being such an effective and passionate architect and advocate for the NDIS. It's a reform that, if implemented correctly, will transform for the better the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. People with disability have waited their whole lives for the NDIS, so it's vital that we all work together in this place and put aside our partisanship to make it a success. Chisholm Electorate: Dividend Imputation 2871 13:53 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm This speech is a caution to my constituents in Chisholm. Beware, because Bill Shorten and the Labor Party are coming for your money. I want my constituents to remember two things: nobody's savings are safe under Bill Shorten and Labor, and everything will cost more under Bill Shorten and Labor. They've come out today to try and fix up their latest economic mess by saying Labor's message to pensioners is: 'Don't worry. Trust us.' These are empty words for my constituents in Chisholm, many of whom I have spoken to and written to, particularly about the Labor Party's retirees tax. It can be best summed up by Pam from Burwood: I am a self funded retiree who paid tax all my life the same as my late husband, and now "Bill the Unionist" wants to take away our tax refund that we are entitled to. We made sure we put extra away for superannuation when we were working so that when we retired we would be able to look after ourselves and not rely on the Government for a pension but the Labor Party now look upon us as privileged. And the Labor Party treat Pam and her late husband with contempt, alleging they're doing something wrong by saving and investing. Pam from Burwood's words are echoed by so many in Chisholm. Pam summarised by simply saying: I cannot believe Bill Shorten and the Labor Party will hit us retired people in the guts. Lalor Electorate: Water 2872 13:55 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor As people in this chamber know, I proudly represent an agricultural area called Werribee South, where we have growers who proudly grow vegetables to supply the state of Victoria. It's an area of national significance. And I was proud to go cap in hand to the Minister for Water in Victoria some two years ago to talk to her about the regeneration we need in our irrigation area. The Victorian government's come good. It's committed $10.4 million to the Werribee irrigation district. The growers have come good through Southern Rural Water. They've funded $10.4 million for the Werribee irrigation district. All that's left is for this government to come to the party and fund the growers of Werribee South what they deserve. Our infrastructure is losing 40 per cent of its fresh water every day because this government sits on its backside. We originally wrote to the member for New England. Then it was the Prime Minister's responsibility. Now we're not sure. We're not sure now whether it's the responsibility of the member for Riverina or the member for Maranoa. But somebody promised that they'd get back to us in February. What month is it? What month is it today, Mr Deputy Speaker? We are still waiting to see if we've been successful in the second round of the water infrastructure fund. I call on the government to get serious, do their day job—stop fighting amongst yourselves—and get some funds to Werribee South. Outback Way 2872 13:56 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to welcome to parliament some very important constituents who are here in Canberra representing an amazing road infrastructure project, the Outback Way, Australia's longest shortcut. I give a big shout-out to the chair of the Outback Way, Pat Hill, who's also the Shire of Laverton president; Outback Way general manager Helen Lewis; my good friend Bruce Smith, who's over here to work with me to get more Indigenous employment on these projects; the Regional Development Australia Goldfields-Esperance chair, Lee Jacobsen; and the past chair, Julia Shadlow-Bath. Welcome, guys! It's great to have you here. The team is literally paving its way to a new trans-Australian highway connecting Laverton in the northern goldfields of O'Connor to Winton in north-west Queensland. At 2,700 kilometres long, the Outback Way will almost halve the journey time for tourists travelling from the beaches of the golden west of WA to reef-fringed North Queensland. In my electorate of O'Connor it traverses the open rangelands, the mineral-rich northern goldfields and Indigenous lands, with opportunities to stop and explore Aboriginal art trails along the way. It pushes deep into the harsh desert to Central Australia, where you can wonder at Uluru and the Olgas before travelling on to Alice Springs. It crosses the expansive cattle country of the Northern Territory into fossil-rich western Queensland. But this extraordinary journey is not just for tourists. Logistically, it provides a shortcut for the movement of livestock, mining equipment, fresh food and agricultural produce, removing over 50 per cent of freight from other well-used routes. I thank the Outback Way team here today and look forward to seeing the road sealing commence at Laverton in the very near future. Schools 2873 13:58 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Today 60 teachers and principals from around Australia came to Canberra to speak about something that my Labor colleagues and I are incredibly passionate about—that is, giving every Australian child the start to life they deserve by properly funding our schools. I want to acknowledge the educators who are here today with us. There were no teachers from the electorate of Hotham here today, but there were teachers from Brandon Park Primary School and John Monash Science School in the electorate of Chisholm. They came all the way to Canberra to speak with their local representative about the deep funding cuts and the impacts they will have on their students. The member for Chisholm would not meet with these two teachers— Opposition members: Shame! Ms O'NEIL 140590 these teachers who devote their working lives to educating the students that the member for Chisholm represents in this chamber. Because of the Turnbull government's cuts to education, schools around Chisholm—public schools—will lose $9.3 million over this year and next year. That's $9.3 million that could have helped fund more students, more teachers to help students with disability, and more one-on-one time for the students that need it. The AEU has done some polling that the member for Chisholm might be interested in. Seventy-nine per cent of Australians say that proper funding in schools is more important than a $65 billion handout to our businesses. I want to thank the teachers for being here today. Perhaps your local member will have a chance to meet with you when you're back in the electorate. Trade 2873 13:59 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Last week I was fortunate to travel to South America on a self-funded trip. I was very impressed to see the agricultural soils of Argentina and to see the opportunities there but, in contrast, they had a government that shut down their beef exports. In contrast, they lost democracy. They had a government that did not capture the opportunities that were before them. Thirty per cent of the population of Argentina still live in poverty. I just want to say to the people in this House that the decisions that are made in this House mean whether or not we can capture prosperity. It is not just a matter of being lucky, it's not just a matter of having good soils and it's not just a matter of having good resources. It's actually a matter of having good government and of believing in democracy, of defending the things that we must uphold. So I say to the people in this chamber: we have a massive responsibility to ensure that we have market opportunities. This government has signed free trade agreements with Korea, Japan, China, and signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We now have a free trade agreement with Peru that will allow us to export wheat to South America. It is the governance of this government which determines whether we will be lucky, whether we take an opportunity and turn it into prosperity. That's what our government is doing and why you can only trust us. Australians do not trust that side, do not think that prosperity just happens. It happens because of the decisions we make in this chamber, and the coalition government is delivering those decisions. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2874 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 2874 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Research released today demonstrates that 79 per cent of Australians would rather see our schools properly funded than give away corporate tax cuts. So, Prime Minister, how is it fair that the Prime Minister is cutting billions from schools to pay for his $65 billion handout to big business? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Mr Speaker, how is it fair to have a school funding policy that Labor had when they were in government which had special deals from one part of Australia to another, which had special deals between students in one system and another without any consistency? For years the Labor Party have said that they hold up David Gonski's report as the gold standard but they never implemented it. What did David Gonski call for? He called for national, consistent needs-based funding and that is exactly what the government has delivered. By 2023, every state school, every government school, will be receiving from the Commonwealth 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Everyone right across the country, they'll all be getting that on a fair basis. Now that's fairness; that's consistency; that's transparency. The total school funding expenditure from the Commonwealth government, under our policy, will increase spending by $23 billion over that period, over the decade. That's a substantial increase in spending and, above all, it is needs based. What did we see during the Batman by-election? Much to the horror— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. Mr TURNBULL 885 We saw the Leader of the Opposition rushing out with a special deal for the Catholic school system—oh, yes! He did. He was there. The Leader of the Opposition was there, denounced— Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Gorton. Mr TURNBULL 885 by parents and teachers of government schools around the country because what he was doing was proving that he is addicted to special deals. He will not engage in a consistent fashion. The reality is this: as we know, we are increasing school funding right across the country. And I just remind honourable members that over the 10 years of our plan Commonwealth funding for government schools will increase by 5.1 per cent; for Catholic schools by 3.7 per cent; for independent schools by 4.3 per cent per annum—a total average of 4.2 per cent. That is consistent growth in funding. We are bringing the underfunded schools up to the right parity, so that they're at that level of 20 per cent of the SRS for government schools, 80 per cent for non-government schools. That is being done over six years. That is a consistent message entirely in line with Gonski's recommendations. (Time expired) Russia 2875 14:05 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Will the minister inform the House what action the government has taken in response to the use of a Russian nerve agent in the United Kingdom on 4 March this year? 14:05 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Menzies for his question. The Prime Minister and I have announced that two Russian diplomats will be expelled from Australia. This follows action that I took earlier today in making a determination pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of persona non grata against two Russian diplomats who are working as undeclared intelligence officers in Australia. The Russian ambassador was advised that they have seven days to leave the country. This is not a decision that we take lightly, but Australia stands in solidarity with the United Kingdom and with the 23 other countries that have also expelled Russian diplomats in expressing our outrage at the deployment of a Russian military-grade nerve agent in an attempted assassination in the United Kingdom, an attempted assassination that, in fact, could have affected the lives of hundreds of other people. This is a serious breach of the international rules based order. In fact, it is the first time that a chemical agent has been deployed offensively in Europe since the Second World War. Russia is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and as such has a special particular responsibility to uphold global peace and security. Australia condemns the use of chemical weapons anywhere, anytime. In fact, the last occasion that diplomats were expelled from Australia was in 2012 when the Australian government expelled two Syrian diplomats in relation to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons in Syria. Australia is a member of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and we are the permanent chair of the Australia Group—that's 43 nations that work to prevent the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. In those capacities as well, Australia must take action, for this act was intolerable. I remain in direct communication with the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, and we will continue to work with the United Kingdom and other countries in condemning this act, which is a blatant breach of the international rules based order and is an affront to our collective humanity. 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the communication from both the Prime Minister and the security agencies this morning to the opposition to brief us on the decision to expel these two Russian diplomats—so-called—from Australia. I think it is important that all Australians know that, when matters such as this arise, it doesn't matter which party is in government or opposition, leaders work together. Labor supports this decision. We think it appropriate, we think it proportionate and we think it right for Australia to stand together with our friends in the United Kingdom and the international community. In conclusion, we have not forgotten 2014. We have not forgotten the 38 Australians who were murdered on flight MH17. I acknowledge Prime Minister Abbott's standing up for Australia then, with our support, and we must continue to stand up to thuggery and criminality on the international stage. President Putin and his government must understand there are real consequences for engaging on attacks on foreign soil and for refusing to tell the truth about it. The global community is united on this and so is the Parliament of Australia. Dividend Imputation 2876 14:09 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the government's policies a wealthy retiree couple will get a cash bonus from dividend imputation despite the fact that they have $2.9 million in super, have $290,000 worth of Australian shares, draw $120,000 a year in super income and receive $17,500 a year of dividend income and pay no tax? How is it fair that they will get a cash bonus from the government of $7,500? 14:10 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question, and of course the honourable member is the one who has now announced a pensioners guarantee. It's designed, he says, to protect pensioners. But who is he protecting them from? He's protecting them from his own leader. The shadow Treasurer is flinging himself into the breach to protect pensioners from the policy that he designed himself, which he said again and again was carefully calibrated, well targeted and well designed. Oh, yes, this economic genius understood exactly what he was doing. This was not an unintended consequence, but he did think they could get away with it. They did think they could get away with it. They've gone out there and they've said today that no pensioner will be affected. They've said that no pensioner will be affected—completely and utterly untrue. It is totally untrue, because anyone who becomes a pensioner not years from now, not five years from now but tomorrow, after 28 March, will be liable for the cash grab from their self-managed superannuation fund—really. So they have gone out there and they have said they're protecting pensioners, but only pensioners who don't have self-managed super funds or become pensioners after 28 March. It is just another example of a shambolic policy on the run from an economic team that has one bungle after another. And, of course, there's no justice there. They say how unfair it is for people to get the cash benefit of a franking credit. But a big company or a wealthy investor can use that franking credit to reduce their tax liability on other income. That apparently is fair. That's fair, but people on low incomes are not able to do so. This is a combination of avarice, malevolence and incompetence, classic Labor, going after the savings of people that should be supported and respected, not fleeced. Public Policy 2876 14:13 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister advise the house of the importance of carefully developing policies so that there are no unintended consequences for Australians, including pensioners and retirees? Can the Prime Minister describe how alternative approaches will affect Australians now and in future generations? 14:13 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the member for her question. What we're seeing is record growth in jobs: 420,700 jobs created in Australia last year, the highest annual growth in our history, and the longest run of monthly jobs growth—17 months—in our history. That is happening because businesses are creating jobs, including the businesses that are already benefiting from the tax cuts for small and medium businesses that we have been able to legislate. Our goal is to have more jobs and better-paid jobs for Australians and their families. That's why all of our policies are designed to encourage investment and employment. That's the focus of our policies, and the jobs numbers demonstrate that they are having success. The enterprise of Australians is responding to the incentives and encouragement from government. On the other hand, we've had a long run of policies designed principally by the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer now, which have had to be wound back or scrapped altogether. Fuelwatch—remember Fuelwatch, the full-time petrol cop? The member for McMahon said that would bring down petrol prices, but it was scrapped after it failed. And then, of course, there was Grocery Choice. That was another textbook example of policymaking from the shadow Treasurer. It was dumped before it was fully set up, costing taxpayers millions. And then, of course, there was the mining tax. I have to give the member for Lilley credit for that as well. They said it would raise $12 billion; it raised $300 million. That's the type of chaotic, shambolic policymaking we get from the Labor Party. And, of course, with the retiree tax, they said they were cracking down on a loophole for the very rich. They accused the government, only today, of running a scare campaign suggesting it would impact on pensioners. Well, if it was a scare campaign falsely suggesting it would impact on pensioners, why, in a week, did they turn around and change it and say they were protecting pensioners? They were protecting them from the truthful reality that Labor were going after their savings. The member for McMahon, of course, said that policy was carefully designed, properly designed, beautifully calibrated. And now, in a scene right out of Yes, Minister, he says he's fixing it, and he's turned around and imposed new arrangements which guarantee that any pensioner with a self-managed super fund after 28 March gets hit. It's a complete shambles. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 2877 14:16 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. In its first budget, this government tried to cut pension indexation by $23 billion. The next year, this government made changes to the pension assets test that left 370,000 pensioners worse off. The year after that, the government tried to axe the energy supplement of $365 a year, and today the government still wants to increase the pension age to 70. Will the Prime Minister rule out making any further cuts to the— The SPEAKER 00APG The member's time has concluded. I don't think there was a question there by the time the clock ran out. No, I don't think there was. An honourable member interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The question when the clock ran out—you've got 30 seconds, I've said. It's not a target; it's a limit. I'm doing the same on both sides. The question that was asked was, 'Will the Prime Minister rule out,' as the clock ran out. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Yes, that was later. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Well, I'm watching the clock. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG We can have an argument, but we might do it afterwards. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection 2878 14:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, I note your recent statements in relation to your personal intervention to prevent the deportation of two foreign intended au pairs. Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs? 14:18 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson The answer is yes. I haven't received any personal benefit. I don't know these people. They haven't worked for me. They haven't worked for my wife. I repeated all of that yesterday, and I repeat it again today. I point the honourable member to the facts in relation to ministerial intervention. The member for McMahon—we were just talking about his successful record when he was last in government. Remember, he was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. At one point in 2012, there were 218 cases referred for consideration. In 2013, the honourable member for McMahon was there, along with the member for Watson. There were 228 cases in the year 2013; in 2014, 193 cases. What really stands out here is that, whilst the Greens have been out there criticising the use of ministerial intervention powers—and, as I say, these go back many, many years; the minister of the day exercises powers under the Migration Act—as it turns out, the two people who have criticised me most in the last 24 hours, Senator McKim and the honourable member for Melbourne, who just asked the question, happen to be the two members from the Greens highest in referring cases for my consideration. I don't know whether hypocrisy escapes the honourable member for Melbourne, but I can tell you the Australian public have worked out long ago that the Greens are the biggest hypocrites in Australian politics. They stand in this place saying one thing; they say something completely opposite when they go out. The reality is, if the honourable member has some allegation to put, go outside into the public domain, put the allegation and I'll deal with it in the usual way. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 2878 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:20 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd like to advise the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Dr Michael Wooldridge, former minister and former member for Casey. On behalf of the House, a warm welcome back. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2878 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Dividend Imputation 2878 14:20 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the Treasurer. Alan is a retiree from Greenfields in my electorate who is proud of his financial independence. He has planned for a total yearly income of $40,000. Under Labor's retiree tax, however, he will lose $10,000 a year. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! Mr HASTIE 260805 Treasurer, why is it important to have a carefully designed taxation policy that incentivises savings— Opposition members interjecting— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Can the member resume his seat. Members on my left, I'm trying to hear the question. You're preventing me and you're wasting your own question time, which I would have thought is important to you. The member for McEwen is warned for whatever he said—it doesn't matter. Member for Canning, could you repeat your question again, from the beginning. Mr HASTIE 260805 Treasurer, Alan is a retiree from Greenfields in my electorate of Canning who is proud of his financial independence. He has planned for a total yearly income of $40,000— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume his seat. The member for Griffith will leave under 94(a). I presume she's got some other appointments to attend to. The member for Griffith then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Canning, I'm wanting to listen very carefully to this question. Mr HASTIE 260805 Treasurer, Alan is a retiree from Greenfields in my electorate of Canning who is proud of his financial independence. He has planned for a total yearly income of $40,000, and under Labor's retiree tax he will lose $10,000 a year. Why is it important to have a carefully designed taxation policy that incentivises people to save and remain independent in retirement? What are the risks of alternatives? Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the Treasurer, members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr Conroy interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If the member for Shortland could stop mindlessly interjecting. Members on my left, if they can contain themselves, may be interested in why I was trying to listen to the question closely. I suspect the Manager of Opposition Business will agree with me. The last part of that question is in order. The first part of that question is completely out of order. Questions cannot be asked about opposition policies, because ministers are not responsible for them. The Treasurer will address himself to the second part of the question. I hope members realise why I want to listen to questions. 14:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. For constituents like Alan, it is incredibly important that we have a tax design in this system that doesn't go and steal the tax refunds of hardworking Australians. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I notice the interjections of those opposite, who say he hasn't paid any tax. Alan has paid tax all of his life, you muppet. He's paid tax all of his life. Beaker over here— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides! Mr Morrison E3L They have just shown the tell, Mr Speaker. Alan has worked hard all of his life and he has put a nest egg together and he is now a victim, like another 850,000-plus Australians, of what Labor would propose to do by abolishing commonsense, good principles of tax design. And pensioners are not immune either, as the Prime Minister has reminded us. Ms Owens interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Parramatta is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L Pensioners will be hit if they dare to want to manage their own superannuation funds and not be extorted into putting it into industry funds with Labor mates, like the Leader of the Opposition wants to demand of them. Alan should get the same tax benefit, the same tax relief, as every other Australian for the tax paid by the company he's invested in. Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lindsay is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L What we have learnt again about the shadow Treasurer today is he has a capacity for stuffing up like no-one in this place. Honourable members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The shadow Treasurer has completely muffed this one, and we're used to it. I'm particularly used to it. In the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government this bloke was the prince of failure amongst a royal family of failures on that side, which has no limit. We know, as the Prime Minister reminded us, about GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch and the employee share ownership schemes. They were the warm-up for the worst immigration minister we have ever seen in this country. Honourable members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L He is the worst of all time: 25,000 turned up on illegal boats on your watch; $5 billion in budget blowouts. Do not let this shadow Treasurer do to the economy what he did to our borders. Dr Mike Kelly HRI Better take your medication! The SPEAKER 00APG I heard that interjection. I'm not sure who it was from. It needs to be withdrawn immediately. Did the member for Eden-Monaro make an unparliamentary remark? Dr Mike Kelly HRI I withdraw. The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition might want to resume her seat, because her colleagues behind her seem intent on delaying proceedings. Mr Chester interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm just going to say very briefly: the Minister for Veterans' Affairs is warned. I'm not going to have people continue conversations when I'm trying to address the House. The level of interjections was again ridiculously high. I'm not going to address this point at length. There were so many loud interjections I'm giving a general warning. I am going to remove people from the House, whether they are serial offenders or not. The level of noise is ridiculously high: I can't hear the minister's answer and on occasion can't hear the questions as well. A number of people have been warned already a number of times. If they interject at all they'll be out. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Taxation 2881 14:27 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning the finance minister twice refused to endorse the Prime minister's claim that a $65 billion big business tax giveaway will increase wages. Why won't the Prime Minister admit that his $65 billion of handouts is for the benefit of big business and not for the benefit of workers? 14:27 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I want to be very clear about this. The analysis that shows that the result for wages will be an average $750 more in the pocket of Australian workers as a result of these company tax cuts is exactly the same analysis that was done back in 2010 when the member for Lilley, as Treasurer, boasted that the increase that would come from the cut in company tax in the 2010 Labor budget would put an extra $450 a year into the pockets of workers on average earnings. This is the most conventional economic analysis, which has been recognised again and again, not least by the honourable member's leader, the member for Maribyrnong, who in 2011, standing right here, said: Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. They were his words and the Treasury's analysis. They are the conventional economic consequences of reducing business taxes. You talk about surveys. If you did a survey of past Labor treasurers, beginning with the member for McMahon and continuing with the member for Lilley, you would find they would all be on a unity ticket agreeing with exactly what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was in government in 2011. It reminds us why you simply cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition. He says one thing one day, another thing the next. One thing, in 2011, makes very plain what the consequences of cutting company tax are: more investment, more productivity, better wages, more jobs and so forth. Now, of course, they're all in denial about that. It is about time the Labor Party stopped trying to deceive and delude the Australian public into thinking that the laws of economics have been suspended. They haven't. The fact is, we know. That's why Paul Keating cut company taxes, it's why Peter Costello did, it's why the member for Lilley sought to do so in 2010, it's why the member for McMahon wrote a book about it—so enthusiastic was he to do that. The reality is our company tax cuts will deliver more jobs and better-paid jobs, and the cuts we have in place already are part of the reason we are seeing the highest jobs growth in Australian history. The Labor Party wants to campaign on less investment, fewer jobs and lower wages. That would be a disaster for Australian workers. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 2881 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:30 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Sri Lanka. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2882 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Infrastructure 2882 14:30 Mr GEE 261393 Calare My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's infrastructure program will deliver positive outcomes for regional Australia, and are there any alternative approaches? 14:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Calare. I was in the member for Calare's electorate the week before last, visiting Orange and seeing the great infrastructure rollouts that the Liberals and Nationals are doing in his electorate. He's a fine advocate for rural and regional Australia, a fine advocate indeed. The Liberals and Nationals have a positive plan over the next decade, with $75 billion on infrastructure—a record rollout. For Inland Rail there is $9.1 billion, for the Bruce Highway duplication there is $6.7 billion, for the Pacific Highway there is $5.6 billion, for the Black Spot Program—enabling local councils to make local decisions on behalf of local people—there is $684 million, for Northern Australia Roads there is $600 million, for Beef Roads there is $100 million and for the National Rail Program, overall, there is $10 billion. We are pumping money into the economy. Sure, they are big figures, but what it's doing is easing congestion. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 You might find it funny, but it's also saving people's lives. It's building community capacity. It benefits regional Australia and cities alike: supporting local families and workers, stimulating local economies, building local communities and creating local jobs. This is in stark contrast to Labor, stark contrast indeed. They don't understand regional Australia—couldn't find it on the map. Today there was yet another Labor backflip, the latest in underdone policy on the run. How could we forget the napkin-designed NBN, the back-of-the-envelope school halls, cash for clunkers, pink batts schemes, grocery watch and Fuelwatch? Who could forget 2012 budget night on this very spot? The member for Lilley is sitting up the back, but he was right here then. He said: The four years of surpluses I announce tonight … He wouldn't know how spell 'surplus', let alone produce one. Poor planning and thought bubbles—business as usual. That's what it equals—business as usual for Labor. Labor is now coming after workers' wages and retirees' pensions. That's what you're doing, member for Maribyrnong—coming after retirees' pensions and superannuation. The opposition think they know how to spend someone else's money better than the people themselves. Opposition members interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 That's right. You've just said that's right. They want to snatch the coins from the piggy banks, they want to pinch the notes from people's wallets and take the money out of people's purses—indeed they do—and raid business tills. Why? Because they have an addiction to spending. They have an addiction to spending and to chasing inner-city Greens votes and trying to placate the Greens, whilst at the same time abandoning regional Australia. The opposition leader will say anything, he will do anything and he will backflip on anything just to get votes. The people of Australia know that under Labor they will pay more. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 2883 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:34 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we also have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Israel. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you as well. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 2883 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 2883 14:34 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports of a leaked survey of big businesses in Australia, which confirms that more than 80 per cent of big businesses surveyed have ruled out increasing wages or employing more staff in response to the Prime Minister's $65 billion big business tax cut. With wages growth at record lows under this Prime Minister, why won't the Prime Minister admit that his $65 billion business tax cut is for the benefit of big business and not for workers? 14:35 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I will ask the Treasurer to add to this answer. This is a question from a man who wrote a book calling for company tax to be 25 per cent precisely in order to make Australian businesses more competitive with the rest of the world, and on the basis that it would result in more investment, higher wages and more jobs. Those are precisely the same arguments that the member for Maribyrnong made when he was in government, standing right here, and precisely the arguments that Paul Keating made when he was Treasurer. Now, suddenly, for political convenience, all of that economic logic evaporates. The Labor Party cannot suspend the laws of economics. Their latest policy on company tax is no more well calibrated than their shocking cash grab on pensioners. I will ask the Treasurer to add to the answer. 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm glad that the shadow Treasurer is doing some research. He may be interested in this research by the Centre for Independent Studies, which surveyed 640 businesses in 2016. It found that—this was in relation to tax cuts for business—53 per cent of businesses said more investment is their first, second and third most likely response to a company tax cut; 43 per cent of businesses said they were likely to increase wages; and 45 per cent of businesses said they were likely to hire new staff as their first, second, or third highest priority. Reducing the tax burden on businesses means they are in a better position to pay workers more. The only people who are standing between a wage increase and workers is the Labor Party. The Labor Party think that if employers have to pay the government more they'll be in a better position to pay workers more. It doesn't work like that. If we allow businesses more room to invest and grow their businesses they will be able to pay their workers more, and the Labor Party used to believe that. They used to believe that. The shadow Treasurer, as the Prime Minister reminded us, used to write books about it. This is a shadow Treasurer who has walked away from every economic principle he has ever believed in. In the same way, just two weeks ago, he walked away from a policy that was well calibrated and properly designed. This shadow Treasurer is not up to shadow Treasurer 1.0. or 2.0; he's up to about 17.0. The number of changes in the positions that he has had has rendered him an absolute economic incompetent incapable of doing his job. Defence Industry 2884 14:38 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister explain why it is important to develop and implement well-considered policy like the Defence Export Strategy rather than alternative approaches to policymaking? 14:38 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Bonner for his question. Of course, it's critical that policy be developed methodically and carefully in government and, of course, in opposition, and not have any unintended consequences. A good example of careful and methodical delivery of policy is the Defence Export Strategy of the Turnbull government, which we announced on 29 January. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PYNE 9V5 Well, it is. I am actually responsible for the Defence Export Strategy. It did leap to mind. The person who should get the credit is the Prime Minister, of course. One part of the Defence Export Strategy is the Australian military sales catalogue, which we released only last week, which is very interesting reading for people. I should say that it's six times the size of the first edition, which is about 12 months old. What it shows is that defence industry is getting behind the government's defence industry policy in the defence of our nation. I was asked about examples of good and poor policymaking. There is a bad example of policymaking around right now, and that is, unfortunately, Labor's plan to steal the tax refunds of pensioners and retirees. It is a very, very bad policy. They should be ashamed of developing a policy to rip the tax refunds out of the pockets of pensioners and retirees. But I'd like to thank the shadow Treasurer and the member for Rankin for reminding me and the rest of the country why Labor lost in 2013. They've managed to remind everybody about the incompetence, the stupidity, the jealousy, the distrust, the shiftiness and the mendacity of the previous government, which we dispatched in 2013. It was exactly this level of detail that they brought to policymaking that ruined the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. There are so many fabulous examples: the mining resources rent tax, which collected no revenue. It was the first tax in Commonwealth history that collected no revenue. And then there was the Building the Education Revolution school halls: $16½ billion, in many cases to put school halls next door to school halls or to put libraries next door to libraries. They had schools pretending that they didn't have a library because they'd been told they had to have the money. And there was the pink batts scheme that the Minister for Health pursued so relentlessly in opposition and the social housing that ended up being overseas student housing. But my favourite and the foreign minister's favourite was always 'cash for clunkers'. We loved the cash for clunkers scheme. It didn't even get off first base. That's the level of incompetence that we've come to expect from the Labor Party, and we should be thanking the member for Rankin and the shadow Treasurer for reminding the Australian people why not to vote Labor. (Time expired) Taxation 2884 14:41 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time yesterday the Prime Minister guaranteed that lower business taxes result in higher wages. But today a leaked survey from the Business Council of Australia reveals that more than 80 per cent of big business have ruled out increasing wages or employing more staff because of the Prime Minister's $65 billion business tax handout. Why is the Prime Minister still claiming that his big business handout will put money in workers' pockets when even big business says it won't? 14:42 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Well, that was a ferocious peroration. I will have to gather my wits to deal with it! The Leader of the Opposition knows exactly what lower business taxes do. It's been the same for as long as anybody has looked at the matter. It was the same in 2011 when he stood here—and I'll repeat it again—and said that cutting the income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment and that more capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages. That is exactly why Labor advocated for or justified the company tax cut—a modest one, only one per cent—in 2010. It's why Keating did it. It's why Costello did it. It's why Donald Trump has done it in the United States. It's why Theresa May has done it in the UK. It's why Emmanuel Macron is cutting company tax in France. It is a very well-worn path, and the fact is that we know that if businesses get a better return on investment then they will invest more. Recently we have also had advice from the Leader of the Opposition on portfolio management. What he's proposing to do to retirees with his pensioners cash grab is going to basically encourage people not to have Australian shares, which pay franked dividends, in their portfolio but to instead have property, bonds or bank deposits that pay income that is not franked. That's what he's done. And he acknowledges this. He was asked about this the other day and said, 'Property investment is a good bet.' So what he's now doing, at the same time as he claims to be concerned about first home buyers not being able to get into the market—notwithstanding that first home buyers are taking up a larger and larger share of the home market now, thanks to the genuinely carefully calibrated reforms that we've overseen in the property sector, which has seen a cooling in the residential sector—is saying to all of those self-funded retirees, 'Look, get out of all of those Australian shares. Buy some foreign shares, because there's no franking credits there. Put some money into a property trust. Buy some real estate and get some unfranked income,' because he knows that means they'll then be able to use the franking credits to offset the tax liability on their other income. What a joke of an opposition leader, who is now trying to give portfolio advice to self-funded retirees while he fleeces their savings. (Time expired) National Security 2885 14:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman I have a question for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the Minister update the House on the importance of strong and consistent border protection policies? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:45 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and he, like all members on this side of the House, supports a government with strong border protection policies. We are not going back to the days where the people smugglers were in charge of people coming on boats into our country. We aren't going to go back to the Labor days where 1,200 people drowned at sea and 50,000 people arrived on 800 boats. We are not going to go back to that dysfunction where 8,000 children ended up in detention. But that is what is being proposed by those opposite in their watering down of our policies around Operation Sovereign Borders. There are people flooding into the Labor Party who support a watering down of policies which have restored integrity to our borders and have stopped the people smugglers in their tracks. If the Australian public believes that the people smugglers have gone away, look no further than what is happening in Europe. So a consistency of policy is absolutely essential. It's essential, as we've demonstrated over the course of the last few years, where we've been able to get all of those children out of detention, we've been able to close 17 detention centres, we're getting people off Nauru and Manus—that Labor put there—and we are making sure that there are no more deaths at sea. Who was one of the key architects of the dysfunction within the Labor Party in the Rudd and Gillard years? Let me guess. He's the 'man of the moment' at the moment who is trying to slug 300,000 Australian pensioners with a new tax; he's the Shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon. Under his watch, as minister for immigration in this country, 25 of the 50,000 people arrived on 400 boats and he was personally responsible for putting 4,000 children into detention. It didn't stop there. If you have a look at the track record of this man and this man sitting here, who wants to be Prime Minister of this country, they were in lock step in the dysfunctional policies that they presided over when they were in the Rudd and Gillard governments. The Australian public remember well what happened in the Rudd and Gillard years. I can say about this Leader of the Opposition, as we used to say about Mr Rudd, as we used to say about Ms Gillard: 'Don't look at what a Labor leader says, look at what they do.' They presided over massive debt. They are proposing a tax on housing. They are proposing a tax on small business. They are proposing a tax on 300,000 pensioners and, through their reckless actions, they are proposing to restart boats where people will drown at sea again, where kids would be back in detention and where detention centres would be reopened. And this Leader of the Opposition knows that the Australian public has worked him out as being completely duplicitous. (Time expired) Taxation 2886 14:48 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. Less than a week ago, the Prime Minister told Australians, 'There's no question that you will see a rise in wages with a reduction in company tax.' But more than 80 per cent of big businesses have now ruled out increasing wages or employing more staff because of the Prime Minister's $65 billion big business handout. When the Prime Minister said there would be a rise in wages, was he referring to a rise in wages for senior executives and CEOs? 14:49 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I will invite the Treasurer to respond to that, but before he does, talking about things that were said a week ago, the honourable member was asked by Kieran Gilbert, 'Is Labor considering a top-up payment to help those retirees and investors adversely affected by your dividend credit changes?' Government members interjecting— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will cease interjecting. Before I call anybody, I'll just say to the Prime Minister that that part of the answer was not relevant in any way to the question that was asked. The Treasurer now has the call. 14:50 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the Prime Minister for the opportunity to respond. The member for Rankin refers to what was said last week, if I rightly recall the question that he posed. Well, what I remember was said last week by the shadow Treasurer in relation to his completely discredited Labor retiree tax, was, 'We stand by the policy, it's a very important policy'. That's what he said last week—just last week! Mr Burke DYW Point of order. The SPEAKER 00APG The Treasurer can resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat. I'm doing that for a particular reason, so I haven't accepted a point of order yet. I'm making it very clear that answers need to be relevant to the question. Picking out one phrase said about a week ago and then trying to use that as a way to talk about any other policy area is several bridges too far. I'm saying now that I won't be upset about it; I just won't put up with it. The Treasurer can address the substance of the question, which is about company taxes and wages. The Treasurer has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm happy to address the question about business taxes, because earlier today this is what the Leader of the Opposition said in relation to the government's enterprise tax plan. He said: Labor, regardless of what legislation has passed this week, Labor will repeal this corporate tax giveaway of $65 billion to the biggest companies in Australia, the banks and the multinationals. What the Leader of the Opposition has confirmed today is that he will reverse the tax cuts for small- and medium-sized businesses already legislated—some $30 billion of tax cuts already legislated for small businesses. If I'm quoting the Leader of the Opposition incorrectly—well, he said quite specifically that he was reversing the $65 billion in tax cuts. That is the same thing that the economic champion, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, also has referred to. They're out there promising to spend money all over the place. But the other thing I wanted to make reference to is this: the Leader of the Opposition refers to a tax cut as a giveaway. This is the thing the Labor Party do not understand. They think a tax cut is a welfare payment. They think all the money in the economy belongs to the Labor Party when they're in government and they get to decide how much you get to keep. What we've seen from this Labor Party is a total disrespect of the hard work and earnings of Australians, and they dare to ask a question about wages. The only thing they're interested in about wages is how they can tax them more. Superannuation 2887 14:53 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister please update the House on the importance of providing economic flexibility for all Australians in retirement? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:53 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Petrie for his question. Like the member for Petrie, the government recognises how important it is for people to have flexibility to be able to choose how they save for their retirement. We on this side of the chamber recognise it is, after all, their money, and they should be able to decide where they put it. Ms Husar interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for Revenue and Financial Services will resume her seat for a second. I refer members to my earlier remarks, particularly about members who have been warned. The member for Lindsay will leave under 94(a). The member for Lindsay then left the chamber. Ms O'DWYER LKU I know it upsets them to remind them that it is, in fact, members money and they should be able to choose how, in fact, they save for that money and how they ultimately spend it. The government believes it's important to have flexibility in superannuation. Right now, we have legislation before the Senate that will allow around one million Australians the freedom to choose where to direct their superannuation contributions. It will allow people, regardless of an enterprise bargaining agreement or a workplace determination, to make an active choice as to where they put their money. It probably won't shock you to learn that this is bitterly opposed by the CFMEU, the ACTU, the Industry Super Funds and, of course, the Labor Party who want to restrict that choice, presumably so they can continue to see the kickback arrangements that currently occur where union officials are paid money as superannuation liaison officers. But their contempt for people making choices about their own money and their own savings does not stop there. The shadow Treasurer has done away with all pretence, and he has made it clear that their retiree tax 2.0 is a policy that is designed to crush self-managed superannuation funds. That's right. Their retirement tax 2.0 will not only hit those people with low incomes—85 per cent of whom have a taxable income of less than $37,000—not only will it bring back double taxation, it is designed to make SMSFs less competitive. We learn that 350,000 members across 190,000 SMSFs will lose the ability to have their own taxes refunded to them as a result of Labor's latest tax grab. Based on Labor's own material, it appears that any pensioner who chooses to set up an SMSF from Thursday this week will also be hit. Their so-called 'pensioner guarantee' is good for less than 48 hours. Why is it that they want to hit people in SMSFs? After all, the ATO figures show the median SMSF balance per member is a touch over $360,000. They are hardly the millionaires that those opposite claim, and that the Leader of the Opposition would have you believe. We've heard that Mr Bowen has said that their measure is well targeted. Well, it is a well-targeted strike against SMSFs. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the minister to refer to members by their correct titles. Taxation 2888 14:57 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand My question is to the Prime Minister. Wages growth is at record lows and 80 per cent of big businesses have ruled out increasing wages or employing more staff because of the Prime Minister's $65 billion big business handout. Isn't it clear the Prime Minister has no plan to increase wages for Australian workers, and only has a plan to help the top end of town? 14:57 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. I refer to my earlier answers on this topic. The reality is simply this: just as the Leader of the Opposition said in 2011, if you reduce company tax you increase the return on investment. You get more investment. You get more investment and you get higher productivity. You get higher productivity, you get higher wages and you get more jobs. That's the bottom line. It was the case when Labor was in government and it is the case when we're in government. There used to be a mutual recognition that the laws of economics applied to company tax, and that is why the member for McMahon wrote a book about it calling for Australia's company tax to be competitive. The honourable member has got to ask herself this very simple question: how are Australian businesses going to compete with the highest company tax in the world? That is where we are heading. We already have the equal highest company tax in the OECD, and there is a global trend to reduce company tax. The question the honourable member has to ask, and all honourable members opposite have to ask, is: will the employers in their electorates be able to compete for capital when the returns on capital in Australia are markedly less than they are in other countries, including, of course, the United States? It's very straightforward, and that's why the logic was recognised by both sides of politics, until economics was thrown aside for political populism by the honourable member's leader. Royal Adelaide Hospital 2889 14:59 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Health. Minister, can you outline to the House the findings from the critical safety report at the Royal Adelaide Hospital that was kept secret by the former Weatherill Labor government in South Australia? Minister, what impacts does this report have on trust within the health system? 14:59 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Barker, who's been a great advocate for hospitals in his electorate in Mount Gambier, Millicent and Penola—all of whom suffered power outages at critical times under the previous state Labor government. He's also been an advocate for better health funding from the Commonwealth in South Australia, and on his watch we've seen an increase from just over $1 billion a year of Commonwealth funding to $1½ billion at the end of the current forward estimates. What we see is a 47 per cent increase in Commonwealth funding to South Australia. One of the other things he's been very focused on is about quality, safety and transparency in relation to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. We heard rumours that there was a secret report into the Royal Adelaide Hospital in the days leading up to the South Australian election. And guess what? There was. That report was released on the first full day in office by the new Premier, Steven Marshall, and the new Minister for Health and Wellbeing, Stephen Wade. They released the report that Labor hid from the South Australian public. That report from the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards into the Royal Adelaide Hospital found 24 breaches, including seven fundamental or core breaches. Those areas included: a failure on reviewing medication management; a failure to provide GPs with the list of medicines on discharge of patients; a failure to provide GPs with general discharge summaries; a failure on quality management systems; and, above all else, a failure to minimise risks to patient safety, particularly in relation to mental health. All of this has been dealt with from day 1 with a level of honesty and transparency which compares Labor's approach to hospitals and health care and our approach as Liberals across the nation. This lesson from South Australia also translates into what we see as two different approaches at the federal level. On their side, they were utterly dishonest about their approach to private health before the 2007 election, and they are equally dishonest now. They took an axe to private health under the Keating government, which former minister Mike Wooldridge had to fix up. They took an axe to private health under Rudd-Gillard-Rudd, and they will do it under the Leader of the Opposition. That's their approach. They don't care about health. They care about false actions, and so, ultimately, the message from South Australia is very clear: they're not just 'Medifrauds'—you can't trust them with your electricity, you can't trust them with your savings— (Time expired) Age Pension 2890 15:03 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Minister for Social Services. How many Australians will be affected by this government's plan to increase the pension age to 70? 15:03 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the honourable member for her question. When the age pension was introduced, the average male life expectancy was 55. To ensure the pension was sustainable, the then Labor government moved to the higher pension age of 67. We supported that. Do you know why? Because, as the member for Lilley and the member for Jagajaga said at the time: Increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians. … … … Australia must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade. And guess what the member for Fenner said: A better approach would be to index upper age limits in all laws, … … … … How might age indexation operate in practice? One approach would be to mandate that all elderly age limits should increase by 3 months every year … We won't be lectured by you on that side about what we will do for pensioners, because we want to make sure that pension payments go up. We don't want to raid the pensioners. We don't want to go after grannies with a tax grab. We don't want to do that. We want to make sure that everything we do is ensuring that pensioners will continue to get fortnightly payments which increase twice a year. Pensions and Benefits 2890 15:05 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is for the Minister for Human Services. Will the minister update the House on the government's efforts to crack down on overpayments of taxpayer-funded welfare to wealthy welfare cheats? Are there any alternative approaches? 15:06 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Moore for that question. We have a very generous welfare system, but he knows, as everyone on this side of the House knows, it only works when it operates with integrity and when people only get what they're entitled to. We don't have any tolerance for people who are doing the wrong thing or who are defrauding the Australian taxpayer. And we're using the latest technology to help us identify people who are doing the wrong thing and we are then taking action to punish those people who are stealing. The latest weapon that we're using is an agreement for data matching with AUSTRAC, our financial intelligence unit, which helps us to identify and track down wealthy welfare cheats. We're identifying those people who have significant unexplained income, who have significant unexplained assets or in some cases who are even operating businesses that they have failed to tell the department about. In around two years, we've identified over 1,000 people who are doing the wrong thing and we've already achieved savings of over $43 billion by targeting those committing significant fraud against the Australian taxpayer. The average debt that has been raised under these data-matching arrangements is over $43,000 per individual and, in some cases, we've identified people who have been over claiming hundreds of thousands of dollars. These people, who should be supporting themselves, are reliant on the goodwill of Australian taxpayers to fund their lifestyle. I'm asked by the member for Moore about alternative approaches. Under Labor, compliance—the integrity of the welfare system—was not a priority. They only conducted 16 per cent of the compliance checks that we undertake today. We're doing six times more compliance work than the Labor Party when they were in office. And that's why they routinely attack our compliance efforts. Under Labor, the value of debts raised was about half of what we raise today, and we see this attitude continuing with the sorts of comments and interjections that we're hearing. While Labor's busy raiding the retirement savings of hardworking Australians, we're doing the hard work of making sure the welfare system operates with integrity and that people are only getting what they're entitled to. By creating a fairer system, a more sustainable system, the government is ensuring that help only goes to those who are in real need, like our age pensioners, and we will continue to look for ways for people to only get what they're entitled to through the welfare system, including using the latest technology like we are with this data-matching program we are running through AUSTRAC. Turnbull Government 2891 15:09 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Today, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah declared that the only way the coalition can win the next election is to harvest Hanson preferences. Is that what the Prime Minister meant when he told the House in question time in February last year that parties will reach preference deals in order to maximise their chances of success? Is this why the government did a deal with One Nation to give multinationals and the big banks a $65 billion handout? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, that question is a very, very long bow to draw in relation to the Prime Minister's responsibilities. The two issues that the Manager of Opposition Business raised have no connection with each other at all. There's never been a suggestion that they have; in fact, it's a smear, but it's also not part of the Prime Minister's responsibilities and, therefore, he can't be asked about it. And the Manager of Opposition Business didn't even name the person that the question was directed to. Mr Shorten 00ATG You clearly knew what he meant. The SPEAKER 00APG I heard that interjection from the Leader of the Opposition, but that does not insert itself into the standing orders just by mere declaration, unfortunately for him. The Leader of the House is quite right. There are a number of problems with the question. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. The first problem with the question is that it wasn't a question to anybody. It did attribute, part way through, a statement to the Prime Minister. That leaves the Speaker in a very difficult position as to who the question is to, but I stress, before the Manager of Opposition Business speaks, that that moment's passed. Also, as I've said before, the question asked about the comments of a private member. The Practice is very clear on this. The Prime Minister's not responsible for the statements of private members and he's not responsible for decisions of parties, so I'm struggling. I'm a reasonable person—I can't find a single word that's relevant yet, but I'll let you have a go. Or do you want to give it up? It might be quicker! I call the member for Fairfax. Taxation 2892 15:11 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain why it is important to back hardworking Australians who invest by ensuring that our tax system remains fair? Treasurer, what are the risks of alternative approaches that penalise Australians who carefully plan for their future? 15:11 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. We do need to back Australians in who work hard over the course of their lives and pay tax over their entire lives to build up their nest eggs so they can live as independent people in their retirement. I refer particularly to people like Bruce, who lives in the electorate of the member for Fairfax. He served 20 years in the Army. He will retire on 26 May. His total income when he retires, including a defence pension, would be around $38,000. Labor's retiree tax will take $4,000—swiping the tax refund of $4,000 from Bruce, a serviceman. You'd think Labor would respect Bruce's service. Instead, they have labelled Bruce a tax cheat. They have labelled him a millionaire, apparently, who's dipping his hands into government coffers, taking payments from other Australians. You'd think they'd respect his service. No. The Labor Party think that Bruce is the problem. They think Bruce is the person you have to deal with in the tax system. They think he's the one taking the tax system for a ride. Remember, this is the opposition that voted against the toughest multinational tax reform laws that this country has seen. They voted against them. The problem that Labor have is that they don't understand that a tax refund is not a welfare payment. If you get the way dividend imputation and franked dividends work, all Australians should be able to offset and get the full value of the tax that has already been paid by the company. And what Labor's proposal does is say it's okay if you earn $500,000; you can get the full tax benefit of dividend imputation, but not if you're Bruce, not if you're a self-funded retiree and not if you're a pensioner who chooses to manage their own money in their own self-managed superannuation fund. The other thing we need to understand about why Labor is imposing this tax refund theft on Australian retirees is that Labor can't control their expenditure. Labor can't put savings into a budget, so they are coming after the savings of Australians with this theft of retirees' tax refunds. It was okay two weeks ago for the shadow Treasurer to put his hand in the pockets of pensioners and it's still true today. This is an ill-considered proposal from the prince of failures on that side of the House, the shadow Treasurer. Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 2893 DOCUMENTS Presentation 2893 15:14 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. COMMITTEES 2893 COMMITTEES Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 2893 Membership 2893 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition Relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. 15:15 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That Mr Leeser, Ms Ley and Mr L. S. O'Brien be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 2893 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Schools 2893 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's cuts to schools. I call upon all those honourable 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— 15:16 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney We have today with us in Canberra parents, teachers and principals from all over Australia—dozens of them—who've come here to send the strongest possible message to the government that the $17 billion of cuts from education will not stand. They'll be opposed by teachers, by parents, by principals and by anybody who cares about education every day between now and the next election, because they know that, if we are successful, every dollar of those $17 billion of cuts will be restored. We know that this government continues to claim that it is increasing funding for schools. The trick in what they're saying, the absolute lie in what they're saying, is that they're increasing funding against what Tony Abbott the member for Warringah, and his former Treasurer, Joe Hockey, tried to do to school funding. But their changes never went through the parliament, so we quite rightly say that the six years of funding agreements that were legislated by this parliament and were agreed to by the states and territories are what stands. Against Labor's agreement, what those opposite are offering schools is $17 billion less over the course of the decade, and we will not stand for that. On top of the $17 billion of cuts, those opposite have introduced a new funding system that is not fair, that is not sector blind and that is not needs based. How can those opposite say that their funding model is sector blind when they bake in a maximum 20 per cent of a fair funding level for public schools? How can it be sector blind when public schools will never get more than 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard and additional loadings, while private schools will get 80 per cent of their fair funding level? How can it be sector blind when public schools and private schools are treated completely differently based only on their school system? That's not sector blind. I tell you what: it's not needs based when the Northern Territory and Tasmania, which have two of the neediest public schools systems in the country, get two of the worst deals under those opposite. It's not needs based when we know that disability funding has been cut for children in five states. Disability funding for students in five states has been cut. That's not needs based. I tell you what: our agreement with the states and territories that those opposite try to complicate was a very simple agreement. We said that every school in every state and territory should get to their fair funding level, and some states and territories were further away from that fair funding level. We would do two-thirds of the heavy lifting to get them to their fair funding level, and the states and territories would do one-third of the heavy lifting to get them to their fair funding level. That's fair, because it means every child in every state in every system is treated fairly. Public schools have been the worst hit by the cuts of those opposite. Across years 5 and 6 of the funding agreement the total difference between what they would have received under a Labor government and what they get under those opposite is almost $2.2 billion, but the biggest cut is $1.88 billion from public schools. Public schools are the worst affected over the next two years, despite the fact that they teach two out of three of our children, 74 per cent of students with disabilities, 82 per cent of kids from the bottom quarter of socioeconomic advantage and 84 per cent of Indigenous children. How is it fair that almost $1.9 billion of a $2.2 billion cut is from public schools? We think our schools should be the best in the world. That's why we are so pleased to have with us in Canberra today teachers, parents and principals from all over Australia. We want to reassure them we will restore every dollar of the $17 billion cut by those opposite. Ordinary Australians get it: 79 per cent of voters think increasing public school funding is better for Australia than cutting company tax rates, 72 per cent think federal funding for public schools is too low and only 24 per cent of voters think the Prime Minister is focused on ensuring public schools are in good shape. How shocking is it that people have worked out this government is completely not interested in fair funding for public schools! Their formula means 87 per cent of public schools will never get to their fair funding level, because those opposite have baked in 20 per cent for public schools and 80 per cent for private schools. Today we've heard fantastic stories from all over Australia about the great work that was done with the early years of extra investment through needs based funding. Nicole Mottlee is a parent from Brisbane Water Secondary College Umina Campus—a fantastic school I visited with Senator Deborah O'Neill and Liesl Tesch, the state member for Gosford—where nearly half the kids are in the bottom quarter of socioeconomic advantage. Nicole's school is losing more than $960,000 over the next two years. Imagine what a school like Brisbane Water Umina could do with that. They have a fantastic Aspire program that has been helping their disengaged young people, particularly getting boys before year 9 who've been exhibiting challenging behaviour to stay in school and supporting their families. Kids who are playing up at school often have challenging family situations, so Family Referral Service workers are helping the kids stay engaged at school and overcome the high unemployment in their local area. Upper Coomera State College in the electorate of Forde will lose $1.8 million over the next two years. Laurie, a parent from that school, came to talk about her child's autism. She has a son who attends the school. He's 10 years old. He has autism. He was at a private school that wasn't properly able to support him. Laurie's family looked at seven other schools and finally found Coomera. She is so happy with that school. The principal of the school, Mike O'Connor, has said he used the needs based funding to invest in leadership development programs, employ reading coaches, implement a new literacy program, and improve mentoring of teachers and curricula development, but for Laurie's child, this has meant special education support, a case manager and a teacher aide, as well as meaning the usual teacher is able to teach her child. All 280 students at Bwgcolman Community School on Palm Island are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. English is a second language for the majority. In 2016 the school introduced a new read-to-learn program for prep students. Within one year, 75 per cent of students were at or above the national benchmark for reading for their year level. What an amazing achievement! Imagine what more this school could do if it continued to receive proper needs based funding instead of having that funding ripped out of the school by those opposite? This school has also been able to employ extra teacher aides from the island, which has meant positive flow-on effects right through the community, as well as community education counsellors to provide wraparound support for families to strengthen school attendance and engagement. We believe that every Australian child deserves the best possible education, for their own benefit and for the benefit of all of us. We cannot be a wealthy, successful nation if we don't invest in our children. That's why, if a Labor government is elected at the next election, we will restore every single dollar of the $17 billion cut by those opposite. And under a Labor government public schools will be the biggest winners, because the schools that have the greatest need will see the greatest benefit in the shortest time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I call the assistant minister. 15:26 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As this is the first time that I have spoken whilst you have been in the chair since your election as the Deputy Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge that and congratulate you on your elevation to this very important role. I know that you'll do a great job. Well done! I relish the opportunity to speak about schools. I relish the opportunity to speak about education, because it is one of the most important things that I believe this parliament can debate. It's important when we speak about education to do it in totality. Certainly, funding is very important—a key part of that. But we also need to look at schools and education in their totality. What are schools intended to achieve? How can we create the best possible opportunities for our young people and for our children into the future? Contrary to what we have just heard, the Turnbull government is delivering record Commonwealth investment in Australian schools. There are no cuts to school funding, and those opposite are well aware of that. But they do continue with their arguments, saying that there are cuts but knowing that there aren't—that there clearly aren't cuts to funding. In today's MPI, I'd actually like to do two things. I'd like to start by talking about the record levels of funding that the Turnbull government is delivering and then I'd like to move on and talk about the importance of making sure that we focus on a good quality education outcome for our children. So let me say that under the Turnbull government's policies, by 2027 students with the same needs in the same sector will attract the same level of support from the Commonwealth. That's regardless of the state or the territory in which they live and regardless of their background or the choice of the school that their parents make. Under Labor there were actually 27 separate funding agreements. What we have done is address some of the issues that were evident when we looked at those separate funding arrangements that had been put in place by the Labor government. We have developed a very comprehensive policy. The Quality Schools package has done away with the special treatment that meant funding was determined based on which state a school was in or who ran a school rather than the students who studied in it. The Quality Schools package is going to deliver an extra $25.3 billion in recurrent funding for Australia's schools over the next 10 years. That's from 2018 through to 2027—an extra $25.3 billion. And that's on top of the 2016-17 budget settings. That brings the total Commonwealth recurrent funding to close to $250 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. And, for the first time ever, the coalition government is going to deliver real needs based funding. We're going the make sure that it is delivered and that funding will actually grow, from $17.5 billion in 2017 to $31.1 billion in 2027. Now, it is important always to understand the context of schools funding, and I've said this in a number of the MPIs that have been debated in relation to school funding. States and territories are responsible for the overall quality of school education in their jurisdictions, and states and territories are also the overall major funders of schools. While they provide the majority of funding to public schools, it is the Commonwealth government that provides the majority of funding to the non-government schools. But overall, the majority of the funding for schools comes from state and territory governments. When we look at it at the sector level, current government funding—when you put together both the Commonwealth and the state and territory funding—accounts for 94 per cent of funding for government schools, 73 per cent of funding for Catholic schools and 42 per cent of funding for independent schools. And it's important that as we discuss education in a very holistic and total manner we're aware of how the funding is actually set up between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories and how it is then divided across the various sectors, be that government, Catholic or independent schools. If we start to break this down into dollar terms for each of the sectors, the government sector will receive a total of $33.65 billion over the period 2018 to 2021. That is over $2 billion extra going into the government sector, and that is growth of 27. 6 per cent, which is significant growth. So over the next decade the government sector will receive a total of $104.5 billion, which means an additional $5.9 billion, which in itself is growth of 79.6 per cent. The Catholic sector will receive a total of $28.44 billion over the period 2018-21. That's over $1 billion extra going into the Catholic sector, and it's growth of about 15 per cent. So over the next decade the Catholic sector will receive a total of almost $81.9 billion, which is just over $3 billion additional and, again, a significant growth—48.8 per cent. The independent sector will receive a total of $21 billion over the period 2018 to 21, which is over $1 billion extra, a growth of 22.8 per cent. They will receive a total of $63.42 billion. That's an additional $3.16 billion, a growth of 66.9 per cent. They are significant increases, and it's clear from that that there are no cuts to school funding. In the time remaining I'd like to speak about some of the reforms the Turnbull coalition government has implemented for schools, because we understand that achieving better outcomes for our children isn't just about how much funding we provide. It matters, and it matters a lot, how that funding is actually used. We know that at the same time that funding is increasing Australia's performance in national and international testing is declining—or, at the very best, standing still. Now, that's not acceptable to me, and it's not acceptable to those on this side of the House, and I'm sure it's not acceptable broadly across the community. We need to make sure that our students have the opportunity to reach international benchmarks in things such as science and mathematics—areas that are going to be critical for their future job prospects. And I must say, in terms of developing opportunities for our young people into the future and the careers and the career paths that will be available, science and mathematics are crucial, because, whilst we don't know exactly what the jobs of the future are going to be, we do know that 75 per cent of the jobs of the future are going to require skills in science and maths. So it's very important that we are lifting the standards of our students in science and maths well above what the international benchmarks are so that our students, our children, have the opportunity to be competitive. The message is clear: we need to act now to ensure that our children do have the best possible chance to succeed in a changing world, and that is what the Turnbull government has done. I indicated earlier something about the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes program, and there's evidence that the ambitious reform agenda that has been embarked upon is making a difference. It's strengthening teaching, it's strengthening school leadership, it's developing essential knowledge and skills, it's improving student participation and parental engagement and it's building better evidence and transparency. Some of the key reforms that we have put in place—I'll be very brief, given the time—include the year 1 reading, phonics and literacy assessment, which will assist in early identification and intervention; initiatives to keep our best teachers in the classroom; and reforms to strengthen literacy and STEM skills, such as requiring minimum literacy and numeracy standards for our school leavers and ensuring English or humanities subjects, and math or science subjects, are studied to get an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank. We are committed to developing and implementing a quality outcome for our future here in Australia. 15:36 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Let us be very clear about this: Labor believes that every Australian child deserves fair schools funding, so they get every chance to fulfil their potential at school, which means their potential in life. It is also clear that this government does not believe in this, and they express this in two ways. They seem to have two approaches to the issue: bluff or bluster. We saw bluff on the part of the PM in question time today, as on so many other occasions when he fails to engage in any of the issues which go to the future of our schools and, indeed, the future of young Australians, and bluster from the assistant minister, who's, sadly, not here for the rest of this debate. What all this amounts to is a failure to take responsibility for what has to be a national priority. For Labor—again, I want to be clear—it is a national priority. In the Labor caucus room and when we come into this place—our parliament—we ask ourselves what we're here for. Today, all of us in Australia's parliament should reflect on how we can discharge our responsibilities to ensure equity today and equity tomorrow. I am so grateful in that regard that I had the opportunity to hear today from principals, teachers and parents brought here by the Australian Education Union. I thank them for the opportunity to bear witness in this place to their stories, to their experiences. Every time I engage with teachers, every time I hear from principals about school funding and, particularly, every time I hear from parents I learn more about what we can do to set the standard and ensure that the standard is maintained across the country to give every child every chance. But what about government members? I was shocked to hear that so many government members couldn't find the time to meet with teachers or parents from the electorates they represent. This is absolutely shocking. It shows an extraordinary disrespect for teachers and students, and the communities they are here to respect. But it is entirely consistent with this government's attitude to this issue, which seems to be much more concerned with deflection than engagement with any sense of responsibility. I heard the assistant minister talk about reaching the fair funding standard by 2027. That won't happen for too many Australian students. Let's think about that. A child in grade 3 today would be finishing school in 2027. That is walking away from any sense of a responsibility to ensure that that child gets an equal chance to a high-quality schools education. It is a fundamental abrogation of responsibility. For Labor, we understand, because we've been listening to the lived experience of teachers, students and parents and having regard to academic evidence. Fair funding is the key to a fair future for individuals and for all of us. And that's what's so shocking about this government, which has one plan for Australia—a $65 billion give away—but which does not have the confidence to invest in young Australians or those charged with imparting them in the skills to succeed in education and in life. It is so defensive and so unacceptable. The soon to be shadow assistant minister talked about context. This really is the context. It is fine to talk about declining ranking levels. That is of concern to all of us. But what's of bigger concern to me is the increasing equity gaps within Australia. I see the shadow minister at the table here. The government is compromised of the Liberal and the National parties and what is particularly egregious is the National Party's abandonment of regional kids. The now Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie, boasted over a year ago, in 2017, about the two years of work she'd put into assisting regional education outcomes yet we haven't even seen her report. What's been happening is regional and remote kids have been going back, and government members won't even hear from people about this. I'm so grateful I heard from Cassandra from the Northern Territory, who spoke to me about her concerns about these cuts impacting on kids in remote Northern Territory communities. Because it isn't just the maths of the cuts; it's the formula which has been baked in, as the deputy Leader of the Opposition said. This government isn't just cutting education today; it is constraining the future of young Australians through locking public school students out of a fair chance of education. They stand condemned for that. 15:41 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Here we go again—Labor bleating about the so called cuts to education funding. They pull a political stunt for their union audience and then leave the chamber. Once upon a time, when Labor were in government, they promised a golden Gonski model for funding of our schools. They introduced a whole raft of legislation, like the minerals and resources rent tax, to pay for their golden model, their panacea for educational advancement, but the goblin of reality swallowed it all up and stashed it in the pot at the end of the rainbow. If this sounds like a fairytale, so it should. Because that's the nature of the imaginary funding put forward by Labor as the level of funding they would have allocated if they had been in government. It's about as mythical as Thor, Neptune or the leprechaun. What amazes me is that some talented and brilliant people are convinced of this Labor representation and really have no concept of how to dissect the reality of true and proper funding. There are no cuts to school funding. Our needs-based funding means students who need the most support will get the most support. Investment is growing fastest for public schools at around 6.4 per cent per student each year for the next four years. The Quality Schools package will deliver an extra $25.3 billion in recurrent funding for Australian schools over the next 10 years. Non-government schools will receive only 4.4 per cent per student. Education funding is calculated using a complicated model that references a base amount plus loadings to target student and school disadvantage, students with disabilities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and students with low English proficiency. Commonwealth funding to government schools in New South Wales has been growing faster than state funding. Under the coalition government, New South Wales schools have received $7.2 billion, an increase of 43.7 per cent, and the second-largest increase across government schools in Australia. Our funding growth means that there's no reason for schools to stop supporting their teachers, introducing new initiatives or extending existing successful programs such as specialist teachers or interventions. The teachers and principals want to know the time they have spent developing new programs or having the training opportunities to grow the professional development and deliver great programs for our children, that that will continue. And even if the funding remained exactly the same from year to year, they would have that certainty. But they are going to get more money. Let me ask anyone—parent or practising teacher—just how much money will make a difference? We have seen statistics that reflect a reduction in literacy levels, a reduction in numeracy yet Labor says more money will fix it. Well, it won't. There are stand-out cases where the schools have used their needs-based funding for special and great programs. These programs have really made a difference to the children. We need to have certainty of funding, not imaginary funding. As a parent and past teacher, I certainly know this will win over fake promises. But I despair, I truly do, when members in the opposition benches talk of the funding difference between state and federal government. State and territory governments are the responsible level for state and territory schools. Surely they know that. Buildings, playgrounds, equipment and yard maintenance are all the responsibility of the state government. Teachers, student funding allocations, schools formulas and federal government distribution are the responsibility of the state and territory governments. Overall, the coalition government is growing these investments—not cutting but growing. In Gilmore, every school will be getting an increased amount of funding. The mighty dollar is not the mechanism for educational improvement. It is a tool, but only part of the toolkit. The calibre of the teacher and the inspiration of the school principal are the catalysts for students to be their best and for teachers to adapt and be flexible in their teaching methods. I'd like to take this opportunity to make special mention of Jeff Ward, of Sanctuary Point Public School, who was exactly that type of principal. Jeff recently retired but, sadly, has passed away. He leaves a legacy of educational endeavour that money could not have bought. He was a major motivator for that school. I was deeply honoured to have known him and send all my best to his family. The students and teachers of that school are an absolute legacy of the energy and the amazing projects that he did in a school where, before he came, the young children walked around looking at the ground, not interested in what they were doing or in being in a classroom. That man inspired his teachers, trained his teachers and gave them opportunity. Each and every person in there, parents included, grew, developed and changed, and it wasn't due to the mighty dollar. 15:46 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Let's be clear, the Turnbull government will cut $17 billion from schools in Australia in the next 10 years. Most of this will come from public schools. Today I have heard from parents, teachers and principals brought here by the AEU, the Australian Education Union. They are here because they know that funding matters. They are here today because they want to see fair and equitable funding for public education. In the next two years alone, public schools in my electorate of Dobell, on the Central Coast of New South Wales, are expected to lose $19.1 million. That's not sector blind. Public schools in the neighbouring electorate of Robertson, also on the Central Coast, are expected to lose $18.6 million. How is that fair to students in regional Australia? That is nearly $37.7 million from public schools in the Central Coast, a region where schools need all the support that they can get. Needs based funding makes a difference to every child in every school across Australia. It has already made a difference to schools in my electorate on the Central Coast. At The Entrance Public School extra funding has provided a teacher for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander program and a dedicated classroom for coding and robotics. At Wyong Creek Public School extra funding has led to the employment of extra teachers aides. At Valley View Public School an instructional leadership program is developing and mentoring teachers. At Wadalba Community School, a K to 12 school, they now have a speech therapist. And at Kanwal Public School they have an additional six student learning support officers. Funding matters. It makes a difference. It's making a difference in regional Australia. Incredibly, these are the schools that will lose most under this government's cuts, because, perversely, the schools most in need are the schools losing out. How can this government talk about needs based funding when it's turning its back on students in regional Australia? Needs based funding is making a difference in these schools. It means the principals and schools are leading changes, not just in their school but in our communities. Sadly, this government is not invested in our schools, nor is it invested in universities. It is cutting $2.2 billion from universities and raising student debt. This government is not invested in TAFE or vocational education. It has cut $3 billion from TAFE and vocational education and training. Cuts to schools, cuts universities, cuts to TAFE: this government has a sorry record on education and an even sorrier outlook. Education is making a difference in the Central Coast. We have no choice about where we are born and very little choice about the level of education we receive. Needs based funding matters. Schools on the coast are set to lose nearly $38 million in the next two years. The Central Coast campus of The University of Newcastle is going to be part of the government's estimated $69 million cut to that university alone. That's a campus that has produced more Aboriginal graduates than any campus in Australia. Our TAFE has been decimated. Last week, we lost our outreach program for Wyong TAFE campus. This is the second chance at education that has helped 1,000 students a year for 40 years—students who our education system has failed and is continuing to fail. On the Central Coast of New South Wales, only half of students have the opportunity to finish high school and nearly half—45 per cent—of the working-age population have no post-school qualification. Access to education, to quality schools, to quality vocational training and to quality higher education is making a difference. It's vital that the door that has been opened isn't slammed shut in people's faces. At the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, this year 55 per cent of new students are the first in their family to go university. This number grows each year. We must resource them adequately and according to need. I was troubled to learn this week that the Central Coast ranks eighth in the report mapping youth unemployment hotspots Australia-wide. One in five young people in my community are looking for a job. We have the eighth-highest youth unemployment rate in Australia—18.6 per cent—and it's growing. Australia-wide, if you're under 24 you're three times less likely to have a job. It's staggering and it's not fair. What's the government's answer? Slashing school funding, increasing student debt and tax cuts to the big end of town. It's not fair. 15:51 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about education and education funding. I'm pleased to stand on this side of the chamber because of what this government is actually doing with education funding. I will take on notice the comments from the member for Sydney. When she spoke she happened to mention one of my fantastic schools, Upper Coomera State College. For her edification, I did take the opportunity today to meet with Laurie and also with Natalia, who is one of the young terrific teachers at Windaroo Valley State High School, to give them the correct information on what's happening with education funding in the state of Queensland, in particular for those two schools but, more importantly, for public schools across the electorate of Forde. I will say that both of them spoke about the programs that they are running at Upper Coomera State College and also at Windaroo Valley State High School. I'll educate those opposite as to why those schools and many others in the electorate of Forde and across Queensland can actually fund those programs. Those programs are funded under a program called I4S—Investing for Success and for excellence. That money was actually provided by this coalition government after we came into government in 2013. Under the old funding model that existed with those opposite when they were in government, that money did not exist and the schools in my electorate and the schools across Queensland would not have been able to run these programs. So the very programs that Laurie and Natalia are speaking about—and speaking so positively about that the member for North Sydney mentioned it in her contribution to this debate—are purely in existence because of the investment and the funding of this coalition government in the schools of Queensland. I note the member for Moreton, opposite. He's a good friend on the soccer field. We enjoy a round of football every now and again. But I want him to explain in his contribution to this debate—which I am sure he is going to make next—how his schools actually received the extra funding that they're using under this I4S program. That is federal money that this government has invested in state schools in Queensland. Those opposite, once again, are launching a campaign, at the behest of their union masters, which is completely disingenuous and in no way whatsoever reflects the facts of what's happening on the ground. The reality is that this government is investing record amounts of money in schools across this country and, in particular, in schools in Queensland. And what we have seen as a result is a simpler, fairer and more structured education funding model that everybody can follow and understand. And it is needs based, which is what David Gonski himself recommended. In Queensland over the next 10 years—or even over the next four years—funding to state schools is growing at an average of nearly six per cent; funding to non-government schools is growing at some 4.4 per cent. So we are continuing to fund and grow the public school sector. In reality, at the moment we fund about 17.7 per cent of the schooling resource standard for government schools in Queensland. That will grow to 20 per cent. It's a growth of some 13 per cent over the next 10 years. In comparison, for the independent and Catholic school sector it's some five per cent. So the argument that we are preferencing the independent and Catholic school sector over and above the government school sector is complete and utter nonsense. I can't believe the hypocrisy of those opposite. In the recent Batman by-election, they said nothing about funding for government schools, but they said everything about funding for Catholic schools, for a purely political motive. They had no interest in what was good for students or what was good for teachers, but they had a purely political motive to win a seat because they were under pressure from the Greens. They are common bedfellows with hypocrisy when it comes to a whole range of issues. It is this government, on this side of the House, that is providing the funding necessary for our schools. 15:56 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Let's be up-front. Fundamentally, those opposite do not care about fair education and good education. They do care about elite education—I will give them that. However, the nation is best served when we invest in education for all, as we see it as giving people an opportunity and creating economic benefits. Those opposite might forget that the reason the name 'Gonski' is known and quoted by the Prime Minister is that Mr Gonski was part of an expert panel that looked at the economic benefits of education—benefits that we know. The government are happy to cling to some thin piece of Treasury advice about $65 billion in corporate top-end-of-town giveaways somehow magically trickling down in workers' wages and the like, but they are not benefits that will flow the way that education benefits will flow. How do we know that? The expert panel looked at it and found that that is the case. When it comes to education and those benefits, you've got to give every student, irrespective of the school, the best possible opportunity. If we stop people from achieving their potential because of the fact that they live in the bush or the fact that they are Indigenous or poor, and prevent those smartest kids from having an opportunity, then we are doing this nation a disservice. We need our best and brightest to be given an opportunity, not just those that are well-off. I particularly ask the members of the National Party to remember this because who did best out of that first wave of resource based funding for schools? The bush. The bush did best from the policy that Ms Gillard started rolling out, as education minister and then as Prime Minister. The bush did best. We know that. It was irrespective of whether you were a state school in the bush, a Catholic school in the bush or a school like the Aboriginal private school at Woorabinda. We didn't care. We wanted funds to go to where there were needs. We wanted funds to go to the school that needed it most, irrespective of what the sign out the front said. We have seen this approach attacked and transformed, zombie-like, into something that now has a set formula, so it's not needs based funding and it's not focused on fairness. Instead, we've got this sort of hybrid that is weaker than was intended by the reforms. I do know a little bit about education. I was a teacher for 11 years and I've got kids at school as well. Most of my friends are still teachers. In fact, I was in a band; there were five of us and we were all teachers. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP You can Google that! The band still plays every three years as a fundraiser, but the other four band members are all teachers—John Carozza, guitar and vocals; Brenden Ballinger, lead guitar; Sharon Weir, vocals; and Brendan Logan, drums. They're all still teaching, all throughout Queensland, doing their bit. I know that it's been a long time since I was in the classroom. I know it because one of the kids I taught, Nathan Jarro, has just been appointed a District Court judge. Hello to Nathan Jarro! He's the first Indigenous District Court judge in Queensland, actually, and was appointed by Yvette D'Ath. I do know what a cut in funding will mean for schools. I saw it when I went to Sunnybank State School the other day with the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader. They had prep classes where 65 per cent of the kids were ESL kids—they spoke a language other than English at home—yet by year 3 they were at the national average. Why? Because they had invested that resource based funding early on so that the kids got intensive support. Those kid will be the doctors, lawyers and teachers of the future—possibly—because they're getting that extra support. We know that state schools do a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to educating kids, because they take every kid in the catchment and then some. That means 74 per cent of the students with disabilities, 82 per cent of the kids from the lowest quarter of socio-economic advantage and 84 per cent of Indigenous kids, and some of the challenges that come with that. So when the Prime Minister stands up and says, 'We have a formula,' appropriating Mr Gonski, he is forgetting what fair education is and the economic benefits that flow from investing in education. He should be ashamed of himself. 16:01 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I rise today to speak on the matter of public importance raised by the member for Sydney. I refer to the article in The Age newspaper this morning revealing that the union tail is again wagging the Labor dog. This is a campaign by Labor's union to try to get the Leader of the Opposition to pay attention to public schools, after he has spent weeks running around stitching up special deals for other schools as well as targeting our retirees and our pensioners. It is disingenuous to say that we are making cuts, which makes parents, teachers and others believe that funding levels as they currently exist will be reduced. The Australian Education Union's polling failed to inform voters of the record and growing funding that is going to Australian schools—that is, they asked half questions to get the answers they wanted. We are seeing again with this MPI the attempt to control debate with Labor's campaign of misinformation. The Turnbull coalition government, in fact, are presiding over record investment in Australian schools. We were at $6.8 billion last year, we are at $7.4 billion this year, and we will be at $8 billion next year and $13.3 billion in 2027. These are not just vague promises like those opposite have given, which only reach to the next year. In fact, when we compare ourselves with Labor in 2009 and 2010 we see only a bit over 10 per cent of government school funding was coming from the federal government, whereas under us that will be increased to 20 per cent. We are taking school funding seriously, even if Labor aren't. We are introducing true Gonski needs based funding. The states, of course, provide the rest, based on the traditional division of powers between the levels of government. But we are committed to quality school education. Needs based funding means students that need the most support will get the most support. We've also announced the new review into quality education, to be run by Mr Gonski. In fact, unlike the claims of those opposite about cuts, investment is growing fastest for public schools, at 6.4 per cent, while growth for non-government schools is at 4.4 per cent. The Turnbull government is introducing equitable, needs based funding, as opposed to the opposition's ad hoc deals. Let's look at it locally in my electorate of Dunkley. All 51 of my Dunkley schools are receiving an increase in funding, including all public schools, Catholic schools and independent schools. For example, funding for Seaford Primary School is increasing from a bit over $390,000 in 2018 to about $614,000 in 2027. Funding for Nepean School, a specialist school, is increasing from $1.05 million in 2018 to a bit over $1.6 million in 2027. At Langwarrin Park Primary School it is increasing from $1.7 million in 2018 to $2.8 million in 2027. Lastly, the David Scott School, for example, will get an increase in funding from $1.4 million in 2018 to $2.4 million in 2027. I could go on through the list of all 51 schools, and they are all getting increases. Our total funding for government, in fact, in Victoria will increase from $1.6 billion in 2018 up to $2.5 billion in 2027—an increase of almost $1 billion. In Dunkley, in 2018, we have 28,140 funded enrolments, with almost 70 per cent in government schools. Total Dunkley school funding will increase from $2.1 billion in 2018 up to $2.9 billion in 2027—that is, an increase of over $800 million. So it is incorrect for those opposite to say that there will be cuts not only to Dunkley schools but to schools across the nation. And between 2018 to 2027 the Australian government is expected to provide $915 million to government and non-systemic independent schools in the electorate of Dunkley under the Quality Schools funding model. This is an average increase in funding of 45.85 per cent per student in Dunkley from 2018 to 2027. Parents and teachers can see the facts for themselves on the Quality Schools website. They can see through the lies of Labor and the Australian Education Union. I call on those opposite to tell the truth to the members of the public, to tell the truth to my electors in Dunkley and to get on board with education funding reforms. 16:06 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Just to inform the member for Dunkley, you can't have a savings in a budget unless it is a cut, mate. It is really simple. The economist beside me backs me in on that. I stand here today a proud state school teacher for 27 years of my life, finishing as a state school principal in Victoria, and a proud member of the Australian Education Union for those 27 years. I would remind those opposite that the people who attended the parliament today to speak to members of parliament that represent their specific area were principals, teachers and parents. They came to Canberra today to give us heart that they haven't given up on actually fulfilling the hope that was planted when the Gillard government handed down the Gonski reforms. They haven't given up on the hope they have that we might get equity in our education system. They still believe, I still believe, every member on this side still believes that this can be delivered despite those opposite, who believe rhetoric over reality, who believe that they are somehow delivering for state schools, for systemic Catholic schools in a way that Labor has committed to. Those opposite will not deliver it. They have told us they will not deliver it. They said there would not be a dollar difference, but there will be a dollar difference. There's a $17 billion difference in what those opposite perceive to be providing equity in education and what we believe will provide equity in education. The crux of that is about public schools. Those opposite think that the Commonwealth should only provide 20 per cent to schools to reach the student resource standard. They never talk about loadings anymore. They never talk about educational reform or improving school performance. They only talk about money but they never attach it to equity. Do you know why? Because what they've backed in and what they have pushed through this House was entrenched inequality. They are the government for elite schools. It is there in the fine print of their legislation. They are going to fund independent schools to the SRS while ignoring the majority of students in this country that attend public schools. They say, 'That's the state's responsibility.' Well, I worked in state education. I know that funding can go up and down depending on which colour of government walks through the door after an election. The Commonwealth's job is to ensure equity in funding; that's the aim. The aim is that the Commonwealth, which knows the value of education, is responsible for equity nationwide. The Commonwealth government, which can have the most impact on the levers that we need to make this an equitable country, needs to take responsibility for education. That's what this side of the House planned to do and what that side of the House has wrecked. And they have wrecked it. The member for Forde stood there and claimed, 'Well, we funded it in 2013'. Of course you did, because we locked those contracts in as best we could before government was lost on this side. You gave that money because you had to give that money and, as soon as you had a chance, you changed it and you took it away. You changed prime ministers but you didn't change your plans. Your plans were to cut, cut, cut education across this country. And I can't let it go without calling to account Greens members, both here in this chamber and the members in the Senate, who blinked when the going got tough, and opened the door for those opposite to sell the inequity that they are delivering in education at the moment. The children in our government schools need this support. They need the best quality education that money can buy. It is tiring to hear those opposite come in, day after day after day, and tell us that $65 billion in handouts to large corporates that will go in overseas dividends, share buybacks and CEO wages. They tell us how important that is, yet they don't understand how important funding is for public education or for systemic Catholic schools. They are completely out of touch in this space. I'm glad the AEU came today. I'm glad they came and told us that 72 per cent of voters are with us and not with them when it comes to equity in education. (Time expired) 16:11 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn It's my pleasure to speak on school funding 10 years in advance. I'll talk mainly about Flynn but I would also like to point out that in 2018 to 2027, the Australian government is expected to provide $1.5 billion to government and non-systemic independent schools in the electorate of Lalor. Under the quality schools funding model, which is here— An opposition member: 'Lawlor' not 'Laylor'. Mr O'DOWD 139441 I can table this if you like. There's 43,980 funded enrolments in your 54 schools. Now, back to my electorate. Over 2018 to 2027, the Australian government is to deliver $1.1 billion to government and non-systemic schools in Flynn. That's $1.1 billion in my electorate of Flynn under the Quality Schools funding model. That is excellent news for 25,372 students across 126 schools in the seat of Flynn. How will this $1.1 billion benefit the students? Well, it will be for the same needs. Special needs will be added on to these amounts, so we won't have a wishy-washy program like Labor has conducted in their term in government. All schools will be treated equally by the year 2027. It will be gradually changed so they all come together. Under Labor, there were 27 separate funding arrangements. That's ridiculous. It was used as a pork-barrelling exercise when ministers visited the certain area and gave money for jam to the different schools, and that's why we have these 27 different funding packages. When it comes to state schools and public schools, the inefficient states who run inefficient school programs were rewarded, and the people in the states who run very tight, well-run schools were disadvantaged by their funding system. Pleasingly, that will all go. I had the pleasure last week to attend Blackwater State High School. It has 316 students and it increased its enrolments last year and this year. Their actual funding from 2018 will go from $1,376,701 to $1.6 million in 2021. Commonwealth funding to 2027 will be $2.063 million. That translates to $4,359 per student, going up to $5,142. In 2027 it'll go up to $6,534 per student. Funding growth will be 17.9 per cent from 2018 to 2021 and 49.9 per cent from 2018 to 2027. I also noticed when I was at Blackwater State High School—there are other schools in Blackwater—it missed out on BER funding. This school, with 316 students, did not have an assembly hall or anywhere to have a parade. Blackwater is in Central Queensland, subject to very high temperatures in the summertime—sometimes rain; sometimes dry weather—but those students have to stand out in the rain or the sun, or the headmaster or principal has to call the whole assembly off because of the conditions at that school. I say to the state government in Queensland: please look at this school and provide them with an assembly hall like other schools in Flynn. That's a plea on behalf of myself and the principal, Frank Brunetto, whom I met. He is very concerned, and asks me, 'Why did my school miss out?' I have no answer, but maybe the state government knows. Government students over the next four years will receive the following: Catholics— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has concluded. BILLS 2907 BILLS Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018 2907

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018

Second Reading 2907 16:16 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing orders. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time.  

The House divided. [16:21]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 74 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR 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 Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 70 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM 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) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.

 Consideration in Detail 2909 16:26 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (16) as circulated together. Leave is granted. Mrs ANDREWS 230886 I move amendments (1) to (16) as circulated together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 3), insert: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute: (3) Page 14 (after line 4), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A—The FEE ‑HELP limit Higher Education Support Act 2003 1 Paragraph 104 ‑20(a) Omit "$80,000", substitute "$104,440". 2 Paragraph 104 ‑20(b) Omit "$100,000", substitute "$150,000". 3 Transitional—indexation Despite anything in subsection 198‑10(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the FEE‑HELP limit is not to be indexed on 1 January 2019. (4) Schedule 3, item 54, page 27 (line 4), at the end of section 128‑7, add: ; and (c) amounts previously re‑credited to the person's HELP balance (including repayments of HELP debts). (5) Schedule 3, item 54, page 27 (line 19), after "Subdivision 104‑B of this Act,", insert "section 128‑25 of this Act,". (6) Schedule 3, item 54, page 27 (line 33), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (7) Schedule 3, item 54, page 27 (line 34), omit "paragraph (1) (a)", substitute "subparagraphs (1) (a) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)". (8) Schedule 3, item 54, page 28 (line 6), omit "$104,440", substitute "the amount that would have been the FEE‑HELP limit under repealed paragraph 104‑20(a) on 1 January 2020 if it were assumed that section 104‑20 had not been repealed, and section 198‑5 had not been amended, by the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Act 2018". (9) Schedule 3, item 54, page 28 (line 10), omit "$150,000", substitute "the amount that would have been the FEE‑HELP limit under repealed paragraph 104‑20(b) on 1 January 2020 if it were assumed that section 104‑20 had not been repealed, and section 198‑5 had not been amended, by the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Act 2018". (10) Schedule 3, item 54, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of Part 3‑6, add: 128 ‑25 Re ‑crediting HELP balance—discharge of HELP debt etc. (1) If, during: (a) the financial year starting on 1 July 2019; or (b) a later financial year; a payment was made in discharge of the whole or a part of a debt that a person owes to the Commonwealth under Chapter 4, the *Commissioner must: (c) notify the payment to the Secretary; and (d) do so as soon as practicable after the end of that financial year. Note 1: The payment may be a voluntary repayment. Note 2: The payment may be in the form of the application of an amount against the debt. (2) If the Secretary is so notified, the Secretary must re‑credit the person's *HELP balance with an amount equal to the amount of the payment. (11) Schedule 3, item 144, page 38 (line 19), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (12) Schedule 3, item 145, page 38 (line 21), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (13) Schedule 3, item 145, page 38 (line 29), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (14) Schedule 3, item 146, page 39 (line 2), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (15) Schedule 3, item 146, page 39 (line 10), omit "1 January 2019", substitute "1 January 2020". (16) Schedule 3, item 147, page 39 (lines 13 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 147 Transitional—indexation Despite anything in subsection 198‑10(1) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003, the HELP loan limit is not to be indexed on 1 January 2020. I move a government amendment to allow for renewable loan balances from 1 January 2020. This amendment arises out of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. In its majority report, the Senate committee recommended that the bill be passed. In doing so, the committee further recommended that the government consider amending schedule 3 of the bill to introduce a renewable limit on outstanding HELP debts rather than a lifetime limit. The government listened and responded. The introduction of an amendment to make the lifetime limit a renewable loan limit enables interested students to pursue lifelong learning. It provides scope for individuals whose HELP debt repayments for an income year have replenished their HELP loan balance to reborrow those funds. This will enable them to pursue further study in order to retrain, change careers or further specialise in their current profession. The increased FEE-HELP loan limits for students studying medicine, dentistry and veterinary science courses will still apply from 1 January 2019. The limit on combined HELP balances, including HECS-HELP loans for the first time, will commence from 1 January 2020. The renewable component of the combined loan balance will also commence from 1 January 2020. This is to allow for essential systems enhancements in the transfer of loan and loan repayment data between the Department of Education and Training and the Australian Taxation Office. I thank members for their contributions to this important debate about the sustainability of Australia's generous and highly effective student loans. I commend the bill. 16:28 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith Labor will not oppose the government's amendment to change the borrowing cap proposal from a one-off limit to a replenishable limit. I should say that although this amendment improves a poor bill, Labor continues to have concerns about the proliferation of full-fee degrees which cost more than $100,000 in the higher education sector in Australia. Extending borrowing amounts could lead to students taking on a very high amount of debt. More needs to be done to ensure that universities and higher education providers do not charge very high fees for courses. Labor support in principle the idea of a price signal, but we are concerned that universities may continue to charge up to and above the borrowing limit. As the Senate inquiry on this bill demonstrated, there are too many students who must already find ways to cover the gap between tuition fees and the current FEE-HELP limit. It's not good enough that students have to resort to applying for special bursaries or asking their families for loans. Labor wants an accessible higher education system that supports lifelong learning. This could not be more important as the economy changes and the labour market changes. We support a system that allows students to defer fees, but we don't want to see the rise of American-style commercial student loans. Experts have told us that students from poorer backgrounds are more debt averse. Higher fees for postgraduate or further study will deter poorer students from enrolling in these courses. As we become a highly skilled, knowledge based economy we will need to increase participation in post-secondary education. Labor will look at the loans system as well as price signals as part of our national inquiry into the post-secondary education system should we win government. All students across post-secondary education should be treated equitably, and they should all have the opportunity to develop the range of skills they'll need for a lifetime of work. Australia should invest in education for the benefit of the economy and for the benefit of individuals and households. As I said at the outset, this amendment improves what was a very poor bill. We won't be opposing the amendment but we will continue to oppose this legislation, just as we have every single one of the Liberals' and Nationals' sets of attacks on higher education in this country. We opposed full fee deregulation. We opposed the 20 per cent cuts to public funding for universities. We opposed the 7½ per cent increase for student fees. We opposed the funding cut that went with that 7½ per cent student fee increase. We opposed the further funding cut on top of that 7½ per cent cut. We opposed the attempt last time to increase the HECS repayment threshold to $42,000. We oppose today the attempt to reduce it to $45,000. We are gravely concerned about the attacks by the Liberal-Nationals government on higher education in this country. They will have ramifications for higher education, not just as an important service export but as the pillar of our society that it is, in terms of creating the skills and knowledge that people will need for the jobs of the future, of giving people the opportunity to hold those jobs and of improving our economy, as well as mitigating against ever-increasing inequality. As I say, while we will not oppose this amendment, we continue to hold grave concerns about the Liberals' and Nationals' attacks on higher education in this country. Question agreed to. The SPEAKER 00APG The question now is that this bill as amended be agreed to.  

The House divided. [16:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 75 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 69 NOES Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ Hammond, TJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, G Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.

 Third Reading 2913 16:41 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017 2913

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2913 16:42 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair As I said before the break, people who are offered migration advice, such as migration agents, must act in the best interests of their clients and within a legal framework. In June 2014 the then Abbott government commissioned an independent review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, commonly known as OMARA, by Dr Christopher Kendall. The Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority registers and regulates migration agents, who must be registered in order to provide immigration assistance services. In September 2014 Dr Kendall handed out his final report, a very comprehensive and well-considered report. It was titled Independent review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority—as I said, better known as OMARA, and it became known as the OMARA review. The review made 24 recommendations, and recommendation No. 1 stated: The Inquiry recommends that lawyers be removed from the regulatory scheme that governs migration agents such that lawyers: • cannot register as migration agents; and • are entirely regulated by their own professional bodies. The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017 gives effect to recommendation 1 of the OMARA review. This means that legal practitioners, commonly known as lawyers, will no longer be required to hold registration as a migration agent in order to provide immigration assistance to their clients. The legal profession in Australia is already comprehensively regulated under state and territory regulatory laws and arrangements. As at 30 June 2017 a total of 7,006 people in Australia were registered as migration agents; 33 per cent, or 2,292 people, of the total number registered as migration agents have a legal practising certificate. This legislation will mean that these lawyers will no longer be subject to this dual registration, which the Law Council of Australia has described as 'unnecessary and costly' and 'a source of confusion and uncertainty for their clients'. Labor welcomes this provision and the fact that it gives effect to a recommendation of Dr Kendall. In the typical fashion of the Abbott and, now, Turnbull governments, the OMARA review was handed down in 2014 and we're only seeing this legislation debated here in 2018. I don't know why it took the government so long to respond to Dr Kendall's review. These bills were first introduced on 21 June 2017 and we're debating them today. Given that it took the government such a long time to bring this legislation before the parliament, it was necessary, we thought, to refer the bills to a Senate inquiry to make sure the measures were still appropriate to the migration sector. This government has a very poor track record when it comes to clear, well-drafted legislation, particularly in the area of migration. Its reputation is even worse when it comes to consulting community groups, industry peak bodies and businesses that may be impacted by decisions of government and by legislation that's passed by this place. Because of this, Labor believes that usually it is appropriate to refer all amendments to the Migration Act to Senate inquiries, to ensure there are no unintended consequences and to allow stakeholders to have their say. That's our usual practice. Labor referred the bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for a Senate inquiry, and the chair's report was received on 16 October 2017. It made two recommendations. Recommendation 1 was: The committee recommends that the Government consider implementing a formal transition period of two years from the commencement of the bill for registered migration agents currently holding restricted practising certificates, who wish to complete their supervised training and obtain an unrestricted practising certificate. Recommendation 2 was: The committee recommends that the bills be passed. Recommendation 1 came in response to concerns, I might add, raised during the Senate inquiry about the impacts on certain individuals who held restricted practising certificates and are registered as migration agents, and I understand the government will make some consequential amendments. The now Assistant Minister for Home Affairs previously said the government would be amending the bill before the House 'to include a standing two-year transitionary period for migration agents upskilling to become legal practitioners'. This period, it's refreshing to see, is something that the government has considered and consulted with the community and listened to the Senate inquiry in relation to. It is not always common for the government to listen to Senate inquiries, I might add, and to act on their recommendations, but it's a sensible recommendation of the Senate inquiry and the government, to give it credit, has actually agreed to it. I raise the point that if the government had simply consulted in the first place, in relation to this issue, then the problem identified by the Senate inquiry may have been rectified and may never have required amending legislation. As mentioned, the Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill implements the recommendations of the OMARA review. These recommendations fall under schedule 1 of the bill. I note the bill makes some changes to repeal redundant provisions which reference regulatory requirements and arrangements that are no longer in place and the bill allows the MARA, the Migration Agents Registration Authority, to refuse a person's application to become a registered migration agent where the applicant has failed to provide information or answer application questions, either by making a statutory declaration or appearing before the MARA. The bill extends the period of time for the registration of a migration agent after completing a prescribed course, removing the current 12-month time limit. This will complement changes to replace the current required graduate certificate with a Graduate Diploma in Australian Migration Law and Practice and the development of a capstone exam. Finally, there are some clarifications to the definitions of 'immigration assistance' and 'immigration representations'. The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill consists of simply one schedule, and the amendments in this bill will ensure that the higher commercial application charge should be the default charge payable for an application for registration as a migration agent. The charges are set out in one of the sections. These apply unless the applicant can demonstrate they're eligible to pay the lesser non-commercial charge. The non-commercial charge will be available where the migration agent gives assistance solely as a member of, or a person associated with, an organisation that operates in Australia solely as a charity for the benefit of the Australian community, and we agree with that. That's a good thing. I note that schedule 5 requires migration agents who have been registered on a non-commercial basis to notify MARA if there is a change in circumstance and they have gone on to provide immigration assistance on a commercial basis. Again, that's a good thing. Given the lapse of time between the OMARA review being handed down—as I said, we referred it to the Senate inquiry—the stakeholder feedback about the legislative change is worth noting. The Law Council provided support for the government's initiative, removing the significant dual registration of the legal profession. It's worth noting what the Law Council said for the purpose of the public examination of this issue. The Law Council outlined in its submission: The Australian legal profession is comprehensively regulated under robust State and Territory legal profession regulatory laws and arrangements, which include comprehensive complaint handling and disciplinary measures, and consumer protections more extensive than those available under the Migration Act 1958. In its submission, the Law Council addressed concerns that if lawyers were removed from the migration agent's registration it would impact on the quality of service provided by those lawyers in relation to migration matters. In highlighting the extensive tertiary and professional training lawyers must undertake, the Law Council stated: The Law Council is not aware of any evidence of demonstrated deficiencies in legal knowledge or practice competencies among legal practitioners practising in migration assistance … The Refugee Council of Australia recommended the bills be passed also, welcoming the changes to dual registration. They stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry: Lawyers are already required to maintain registration and uphold their ethical duties under their own state-based legal profession regulatory framework. RCOA believes this system is sufficient to ensure lawyers provide sound advice and adhere to their ethical obligations. The Refugee Council highlighted the importance of lawyers being able to provide pro bono legal advice, stating: The provision of legal support is essential for the rule of law and to ensure Australia makes the correct decision in matters such as refugee status determination. As a former lawyer, I'm pleased to see this legislation being passed and the removal of registration barriers for lawyers wanting to offer pro bono migration assistance to visa applicants. Often those are very vulnerable people. I note that I had a meeting today with Community Legal Centres Queensland, and they also advocated the Law Council's position. I was pleased to advise them today that we would be supporting this legislation in the House. I think that's a good thing for pro bono advice in my home state of Queensland as well. I understand and appreciate the concerns raised by the Migration Institute of Australia in their submission to the Senate inquiry. I've met with the Migration Institute of Australia on multiple occasions in my role as shadow minister for immigration and border protection. I was invited to speak at their annual conference in November last year. I thank the MIA for their ongoing advocacy for their members, both in their submission to the Senate inquiry and in the meetings I've held with them. I look forward to further consultation to ensure the ongoing integrity of Australia's migration system. The former Department of Immigration and Border Protection—now the Department of Home Affairs—raised in its submission that the Australian Productivity Commission recommended that lawyers be exempt from registration as migration agents in 2010. Ceasing this dual registration will bring Australia in line with similar countries, which the department noted in their submission. International comparisons revealed that Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which have comparable schemes for migration agents, do not require lawyers to be registered in order to provide immigration advice. The department also provided assurances that these legislative changes will not undermine the protection of vulnerable people, saying: … the Government will ensure that appropriate consumer protections are in place, including mechanisms to ensure that vulnerable consumers will continue to be protected from receiving incompetent migration advice. The Labor opposition will keep the government accountable in that regard. We encourage the Turnbull government to do everything it can to protect vulnerable consumers, especially would-be migrants, from being exploited. In conclusion, it's fundamental that Australia's migration program has integrity and is nondiscriminatory, and that the people who offer migration advice are acting in the best interests of their clients and within the legal framework. For many prospective migrants, their experience with Australian migration agents is their first impression of Australia and its legal system and for that reason we need to ensure that we're getting it right. I do note that the Joint Standing Committee on Migration has launched an inquiry into the efficacy of current registration of Australian migration agents. I'm a member of that committee and I look forward to speaking with migration businesses and migration agents about their experiences. I encourage people to make submissions to that inquiry. We want to make sure we improve the current framework, and Labor is always available and prepared to look at improvements. The case for removing lawyers from the registration process made by Dr Kendall was, in my view, persuasive—an MR review. As such, Labor supports these bills and we look forward to the government's anticipated amendments to introducing transitional arrangements as recommended by the Labor-initiated Senate inquiry. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017, Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017 2917

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Reference to Federation Chamber 2917 16:55 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 2917

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 2917 16:57 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That the amendments be agreed to. This bill introduces a range of new measures designed to build a simpler, stronger and more sustainable welfare system. It will provide incentives and support for recipients to address barriers to finding and keeping a job. I thank all members and senators for their contribution on this comprehensive reform. From 20 March 2020, this bill will replace seven existing payments with one new jobseeker payment. Over 99 per cent of people will be no worse off under this change. Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance and widow B pension will cease from 20 March 2020. Existing bereavement allowance recipients will continue to receive bereavement allowance for the remainder of their bereavement period following 20 March 2020. New applicants will receive bereavement support through the jobseeker payment. Widow allowance will close to new recipients from 1 July 2018 and close completely when all remaining recipients have transferred on to the age pension by 1 January 2022. Partner allowance will also close on 1 January 2022. The bill will also strengthen the employment focus for mature-age jobseekers while still recognising that volunteering can be a valuable stepping stone into paid work. Data shows that mature-aged people are 13 times more likely to find work when actively looking for it. With the amendments, the bill will now ensure everyone who is eligible for bereavement support through the jobseeker payment or youth allowance other will be no worse off and some will be better off under the new arrangements. Following these amendments, intent-to-claim provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances. Vulnerable claimants will include being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant, or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement. For all other claimants the date of claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department. The bill contains two measures to strengthen requirements for jobseekers who have substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from meeting their mutual obligation requirements. These measures better encourage and support these jobseekers to get treatment so that they can find work. From 1 July 2018 a new Job Seeker Compliance Framework will provide more support to those who are genuinely trying to meet their obligations while also introducing strong penalties for the small number of jobseekers who persistently and deliberately do not meet their mutual obligation requirements. The government has also agreed to introduce an additional demerit to the framework so that jobseekers would generally not face a lasting penalty until their sixth failure without good reason. This will mean that penalties are targeted only at those who are persistently and deliberately non-compliant. Under the current framework 93 per cent of penalties for serious or persistent noncompliance are waived, and there is no consequence for the majority of jobseekers who repeatedly fail to meet their requirements or who refuse an offer of suitable work. There will still be discretion for providers and the Department of Human Services when it comes to deciding whether a jobseeker has a good reason for missing their requirements. It is critical to ensure that our welfare system remains strong and sustainable into the future. These reforms will help to do this. They are an important step towards creating a simpler system that is more work focused and more supportive of people who are receiving working age payments. 17:01 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga As I indicated yesterday when we looked at these detailed amendments before they were sent back to the Senate, Labor won't oppose the amendments to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, because they do marginally improve the bill. But I want to reiterate very strongly here today that Labor opposes this bill. It is mean. It will result in around 80,000 vulnerable Australians facing cuts to support. And, as the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service said: We are deeply disappointed that the Welfare Reform bill will pass parliament because— and I really want to emphasise this point— it will worsen the lives of people experiencing disadvantage. This is what the Australian Council of Social Service is trying to say to this government, which unfortunately is completely deaf to their pleas—that this bill 'will worsen the lives of people experiencing disadvantage'. Ms Goldie went on to say: This Bill will increase already shockingly high homelessness numbers. More than 80,000 people stand to be cut off from payments after just 12 months of this new legislation. Yesterday I quoted respected columnist Ross Gittins, and I would say to the government: listen to the important messages in his column. He wrote: You've never seen such a list of pettifogging nastiness, yielding tiny savings to the budget. The unemployed will no longer be back-paid to the day they lodged their claim, meaning the longer Centrelink takes to process that claim, the longer the jobless go without (or have to go cap-in-hand to outfits like the Salvos) and the more pennies the government saves. Labor is extremely disappointed that the Senate has passed this bill, even with these amendments—which do improve some parts of it, but certainly nowhere near enough. We do not think this will make Australia a fairer or stronger place. It will make Australia a nastier and meaner place, and everyone on the Liberal side and the Nationals side who is supporting this bill needs to take responsibility for the fact that that is what they are doing with this bill. Labor strongly opposes this bill just as we oppose the other major piece of legislation that this government is trying to get through the Senate this week. If ever you wanted a description of this government, it's what's happening in this parliament this week. Over in the Senate, the government's trying to hand out $65 billion in the form of company tax cuts to big business and the top end of town, and here we are in this House of Representatives debating this incredibly nasty piece of legislation that will hurt the most vulnerable people in this country. It really sums this government up—give to the top end of town and whack in to the most vulnerable people and that is why Labor is so strongly opposed to both pieces of legislation. 17:05 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to echo and build on the remarks of the member for Jagajaga. My regret in rising now is that I didn't have time after the last division to go back to my office and put on a black suit, because the irony is that this is a funeral and these are the funeral rites, if I can put it in those terms, for the bereavement allowance. We won't have an opportunity again—because these amendments will go back to the Senate where the bill will be finalised—to remark upon the death of the bereavement allowance. So I'll give what is perhaps a brief eulogy, in the context of the amendment, so that we are really clear what these amendments actually do and what the grubby little deal the government has cooked up with Senator Hanson actually means. The bereavement allowance was a payment that's existed for many, many a year. It was paid for up to 14 weeks to someone at the age pension rate when their partner had died. It was subject to very strict income and assets tests so it was a well-targeted payment. If you happened to be a pregnant woman and your partner died, it got paid for a bit more than 14 weeks, until your pregnancy ended. That seems pretty reasonable. We've heard the minister say: 'This is all about consolidating payments. There's nothing to see here. Don't you worry about that. It's just kind of chucking a few things together and changing the name.' In the name of welfare reform, what the government really meant by this is saving $1,300 over 14 weeks through shoving people from one rate of the bereavement allowance into a jobseeker payment. It is entirely unclear of course whether pregnant women would have to go and start searching for jobs while they were grieving their partners, depending on whether they were in their pregnancy. That's what the government wanted to do. Senator Hanson, of course, voted to get rid of the bereavement allowance, then ran around telling Australia that's not what she did—even though she actually did—had a panic and cooked up a completely ridiculous fix, so-called, with the government, which we are now seeing here in the form of these amendments, to make it a bit less awful. That is, to paraphrase the member for Jagajaga, why we are letting these amendments through: because it is a bit less awful than it would otherwise be. Then the minister tried to make us believe in his—what's the right word for his tone, member for Cowan?—calm, reasonable, 'nothing to see here'—that no-one is worse off now because of this weird grubby little deal with Senator Hanson. I think, member for Jagajaga, it took you three or four goes yesterday to finally extract something approximating the truth from him. He finally told us that at least 30 Australians will be worse off because of the way these amendments have been stupidly drafted and conceived. So the government may go, 'Oh, well, we've saved a bit of money.' But I'd look at that and go, 'What on earth are you picking on 30 Australians for? Why are you making them lose $1,300? That's your version of reform? That's going to make an impact on your $23.6 billion deficit, to take $1,300 off 30 grieving Australians? That's your agenda?' I say, shame on you. Vale bereavement allowance. You should be held to account for these kinds of nasty, mean little cuts. I will finish on a moment of solidarity with the minister. When we finished the debate yesterday—which was longer and more robust, shall I say, than expected—we were walking out and the member for Jagajaga said, 'Well done.' I said, 'It's very disconcerting, I must say, verging on terrifying, having you stare at me while I'm talking.' So I think the minister well knows the pain that I was feeling, given your performance in question time and why you're looking at the table now. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM There being no further speakers, the question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017 2927

Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017

Consideration of Senate Message 2927 17:10 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I move: That the amendments be agreed to. 17:11 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner The opposition are pleased that the Senate has agreed to our sensible amendments, which ensure that the junior minerals exploration incentive is subject to an impact assessment. This is a critical measure to ensure that taxpayers' money is well allocated. It is pleasing to see the Senate concurring to this most sensible amendment—reflecting the strong principles of fiscal prudence and high-quality evaluation that characterise this side of the House's approach to public policy. Question agreed to. Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 2929

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

First Reading 2929 COMMITTEES 2929 COMMITTEES Membership 2929 17:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip proposing a change in the membership of certain committees. 17:12 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That: (1) Mr Hogan be discharged from the following committees: Standing Committee on Economics; Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue; and Selection Committee; (2) Mr L. S. O'Brien be appointed a member of the Selection Committee; and (3) Mr Hartsuyker be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue Question agreed to. Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee 2929 Membership 2929 17:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. 17:13 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That Mr Robert be discharged from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity and that, in his place, Mr Broadbent be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 2929 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea 2929 17:14 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn I present the report of the delegation to Papua New Guinea in November of last year and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr O'DOWD 139441 Having spent a large number of years working and living in Papua New Guinea, I was pleased to return with the delegation in November. I would like to thank the members of the delegation, including Senator Ian Macdonald, our delegate leader; Senator Kimberley Kitching; and the member for Herbert, Ms Cathy O'Toole. I thank the delegation secretary, Julia Agostino. I thank officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and representatives from the Crawford Business School at ANU, for some pre-delegation briefings. I make special mention of His Excellency the High Commissioner, Mr Bruce Davis, for his support, and his staff who helped the delegation throughout the trip. The delegation arrived on a landmark day for Port Moresby, PNG. The Rugby League World Cup between Ireland and the PNG team was on—a great introduction to Papua New Guinea. The Kumuls, the national Rugby League team, were victorious. It was a great opportunity to meet many ministers, who celebrated the victory with us and the guests from the High Commissioner. We had the pleasure not only of meeting parliamentarians but also significant administration people in PNG. Our group attended a very productive meeting with the Women in Leadership group at a luncheon. We went to the national museum and art gallery and went to the Western Highland Provincial Administration. We went with the Mount Hagen chamber of commerce. It was a great pleasure that I could greet the crowd in Mul-Baiyer in pidgin English. This moment is captured wonderfully in a photograph in the report I submit today. Thank you. COMMITTEES 2930 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 2930 Report 2930 17:16 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into crystal methamphetamine (ice), final report. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e) Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 by leave—The terms of reference of our inquiry were to: … examine the criminal activities, practices and methods involved in the importation, manufacture, distribution and use of methamphetamine and its chemical precursors, including crystal methamphetamine (ice) and its impact on Australian society. It was quite a disturbing inquiry that we had, and we were presented with a lot of confronting evidence about the problem of ice addiction, its harm to its users, families and friends, our communities, societies, and the overall economy. It is quite disturbing and it's also disturbing because it is growing. We do have the three pillars of our Commonwealth drug strategy: demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction. One of the concerns that came to me during our inquiry was the resilience of the supply chain. Our AFP and our law enforcement officials are doing wonderful work intercepting and trying to reduce the supply of drugs onto the street, but the supply chain for these drugs is in numerous countries throughout the world, involving countless actors. And, sadly, it seems, the interception of drugs that we are making is no more than a mere ullage allowance for many of the gangs involved in the importation and distribution of drugs. When it comes to harm reduction there are very strong arguments that we need to invest more of our nation's resources in harm reduction. But, ultimately, the best form of harm reduction we can have is abstinence from the use of drugs in the first place. And that's where I believe we should try and use more of our resources, on that demand side. As one of our law enforcement officials said, 'We will never be able to arrest ourselves out of the problem of drug addiction.' I believe that we need to try new, inventive and more creative ways of educating people about the harm of drug addiction, the harm that they cause to themselves from taking drugs. The committee also made a visit to Portugal, from 24 to 30 September 2017, to look at what is often referred to as the Portuguese model of decriminalisation. There are quite a few myths surrounding that particular model. It is often thought that the Portuguese model means that all drugs have become completely lawful, but actually we found that it was almost the opposite. Under the so-called Portuguese model there are thresholds for every form of drug, whether it be heroin, methadone, opium, cocaine, cannabis or LSD. In Portugal if you are found to have more than what is deemed 10 times the supply of a casual user, the criminal penalties are in many cases actually higher than they are here in Australia. If you are found with less than that level, you are still arrested. It is still an offence under Portuguese law. But, rather than going through a criminal system of law enforcement, people are taken through drug dissuasion court, and in Portugal that has had success. I will note some of the successes that we detail in the report. They include that Portugal's level of drug use is currently below the European average. The most at-risk population of people between ages 15 and 24 has shown a decline in drug use since the implementation of the Portuguese method. Lifetime drug use amongst the general population has increased slightly but remains comparable to that of nearby countries. Past-year and past-month drug use amongst Portugal's general population has decreased. The continuation of drug use and the proportion of the population that have reportedly used drugs and continued to do so has decreased. So, in fact it was the opposite of what was thought would happen. The concern was that if you did go down the track of decriminalising drugs for small quantities and take people through these drug dissuasion courts then this would result in rampant drug use throughout Portuguese society, and in fact the exact opposite was found. There is no easy solution to the problem of drugs in our society. We need to continue to support our law enforcement officials and those who work in the harm reduction field. But, most of all, we need to work on the education of our young people—improving education standards and informing people of the serious detrimental effects to their lifestyle, to their health, to their economic wellbeing and to their overall prosperity if they go down the track of taking these illegal substances. With that, I refer the report to the House. I'd also like to thank the secretariat and thank the other committee members, especially from the Labor Party, who attended the hearings. We worked together in a bipartisan spirit. I think it's good that we can do that in this place, and we should try to do more of it. I thank the House. 17:24 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan by leave—First of all I want to very briefly commend the committee, the chair and the committee secretariat for the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into crystal methamphetamine. As a Western Australian I feel that it would be remiss of me if I didn't bring the House's attention to the parts of this report and the findings of some of the hearings here about the inequitable distribution of funding for services, particularly for Western Australia. Of the Primary Health Network funding allocations per state and territory, Western Australia gets a total of $20 million—that represents 3.4 per cent for the northern suburbs, 3.4 per cent for the southern suburbs and 4.1 per cent for country Western Australia. The committee came to Western Australia and heard there concerns that the National Ice Action Strategy funding had failed to meet target areas with the most severe illicit drug problems. The Palmerston Association said Western Australia is: … not receiving a fair share of the national funds. We work on the basis of about 11 per cent of the share, given our population. We believe—and I am sure that the Department of Health could confirm this, because I may be wrong—that we are getting about nine per cent. That two per cent difference is a significant amount of money. Indeed, it is a significant amount of money if you only consider per capita funding. But what this inquiry revealed was that Western Australia has a severe problem with crystal methamphetamine use, much higher than the national average. Usage figures in WA are actually double the national average and they are particularly high in regional areas of Western Australia. The report notes that National Ice Action Strategy funding for Western Australia for the four years totals around $27 million compared to around $74 million for New South Wales and around $57 million for Queensland. The report draws very significant attention to this. This leads to one of the recommendations of the report, recommendation 11, where the committee recommends the Department of Health consider using 2016 census and the National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program data to determine the allocation of National Ice Action Strategy funding for 2019-20 because that data very starkly shows the extent of the situation in Western Australia comparable to other states in Australia and comparable to the Australian national average. I commend this report to the House and, once again, thank the chair for his hard work on this report as well as the deputy chair. Indeed, I reiterate the words of the chair in his presentation of this report and in the tabling of this report that it was done in a very bipartisan manner and I commend also the committee secretariat. Human Rights Committee 2932 Report 2932 17:28 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 3 of 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—In this week's report, 16 of the new bills have been assessed as promoting, permissibly limiting, or not engaging, human rights. However, to complete its technical assessment of compatibility with Australia's international human rights law obligations, the committee has requested further information in relation to eight bills and 14 legislative instruments. The committee has also provided six 'advice-only' comments to legislation proponents. A number of bills examined in this report are scheduled for debate this week, including in relation to: higher education (student loan repayments); the Australian Signals Directorate; social services ( newly arrived migrants); the drug testing trial bill; and treasury laws amendment (2018 Measures No. 3). The report also contains the committee's concluded examination of nine bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant legislation proponent, the committee has concluded that three of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law. In relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017, questions arose about the right to privacy and whether, in the circumstances, civil penalty provisions should be accompanied by criminal trial safeguards; however, more information was needed to finalise this assessment. Following a response from the minister, it was assessed that adequate safeguards will be in place to sufficiently circumscribe limitations on the right to privacy. The further information also clarified the particular regulatory context and intended application of the civil penalties, enabling the committee to conclude that they were unlikely to be considered 'criminal' for the purposes of international human rights law. In relation to the national security, espionage and foreign interference bill, information requested from the Attorney-General about proposed amendments addressed a number of issues going to compliance with Australia's international human rights obligations, though some concerns remain. The Attorney-General also foreshadowed the potential for further amendments. The committee has requested a copy of these and supported the Attorney-General's suggestion for a five-year review of the operation of relevant provisions. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's report 3 of 2018 to the House. BILLS 2933 BILLS Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017 2933

Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 2933 17:31 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I say that, while one could never ever complain about one's participation in our democratic processes, I do lament the fact that while waiting to make a contribution I have missed the first speech of new New South Wales Senator Kristina Keneally. I apologise to her from the despatch box and say to the House that I have no doubt that she made a very fine speech and that she will make a very fine senator for the state of New South Wales. She comes with a lot of talent, a lot of experience and certainly a commitment to Labor ideals and values. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I remind the House that I'm in continuation. The bill that we are debating, at the risk of oversimplifying it, strengthens the capacity of statutory research and development corporations to raise or secure funds for marketing activities. Labor is supporting the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017, although I will now move a second reading amendment, which I understand the member for Shortland will second at the conclusion of my remarks. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Turnbull Government has failed to develop evidence-based policies to support primary industries through appropriately targeted research and development, and the efficient allocation of funding". In fact, the timing of the debate is more fortuitous than would have been the case if we'd continued back on 1 March. I have moved this second reading amendment to broaden debate on this bill to reflect more broadly on the government's performance on agriculture policy over the course of the last 4½ years, but I say it's more timely because just recently, I think only a number of days ago, the Prime Minister launched what I think is a very good document for the National Farmers Federation. The document is entitled Talking 2030. It was produced and published with the assistance of Telstra and KPMG. I make that point because I think the PM's decision to launch the document is an admission of the failure of the government's agriculture white paper. All this time afterwards the PM has decided that we need to hit the reset button and has agreed to launch this report. I welcome the fact that he has done so, because this is a quality report and, I would suggest, something more like what you'd expect an agriculture white paper to look like. I assume that by launching the report—it's not always the case; I accept that—the PM has in effect given his approval to most of what, if not everything, the report says. I'd like to quote from the President of the National Farmers Federation, Fiona Simpson. In the forward to the document, she says, 'Each of these is a momentous task'—she's referring to the key points or conclusions of the report—'requiring a willingness to embrace new ideas and cross-industry collaboration.' And I couldn't agree more, because it is true, as I've said here many, many times before, that the opportunities ahead for Australia's agriculture sector are very, very significant—the least not being, of course, rising demand for high-quality, high-value food in Asian markets. But it's also true that the challenges before agriculture are also very significant. I want to paraphrase and draw out some of the key points of the document. We are facing a growing global population—to state the obvious—and that of course flows on to growing global food demand. We are also facing dramatically changing consumer preferences. Members of the House will be familiar with those. The third point I make is that new and higher value markets are emerging, as are market segments. And there is an important difference between markets and market segments. Fourth, we are facing a more challenging and a dramatically changing climate, which makes our task all the more challenging and difficult. The fifth point is that we're facing strengthening competition. I was having a conversation only today about the emerging strength of producers of grains in the Black Sea area and what that means, what implication that brings for Australian growers and exporters. And the sixth point I make—not that I assume these points to be exhaustive—is that possibly we are also facing an emerging protectionism, with what has originated in the United States in particular and some of the implications and consequences we are already seeing as a result of that. I don't want to repeat them all at length here again this evening, but I have recently talked about what I believe an agriculture minister needs to be focusing on. The NFF document goes more broadly. It goes to all the other important things that will be critical to agriculture's success: connectivity, trade agreements, transport, improved roads and rail links and better and more efficient ports. But none of those things are directly the responsibility of the agriculture minister. An agriculture minister has to work with his or her colleagues in those other portfolios for the greater good and for the good of the agriculture sector. I've talked about the need for high-level policy guidance, the need to re-kickstart the COAG process, the need to do more to protect our greatest competitive edge, that is our reputation as a provider of clean, green, safe and high-quality food, and what that means for our investment in our biosecurity and traceability systems. I've talked about the need to develop and embrace a productivity agenda, without which we cannot hope to be successful, and the need to embrace better land-use practices in response to our changing climate. Then there is the further pursuit of mechanisms to ensure that we are efficiently allocating our limited natural resources; the pursuit of higher value markets; a greater concentration on non-tariff barriers that so many of our growers and producers face; a bigger effort in research and development, innovation and extension. These are the things we need to be concentrating on. I welcome the NFF report because it touches on each and every one of those, unlike the government's failed agriculture white paper. The other thing I'll say about the NFF's report—or, more particularly, the Prime Minister's embrace of it—is that the embrace and launching of a report is fine, but the sector needs more than reports and papers now. In 4½ years the Prime Minister has embraced an agricultural white paper and an NFF report. We've had report after report on the forestry sector but still no action or policy of any great note in agriculture or the forestry sector. Meanwhile, other concerns are emerging. At the beginning of my speech—on 1 March, before I was interrupted—I think I said that in recent times we've had the outbreak of white spot in Australia's prawn sector, blueberry rust in Tasmania, fruit fly more recently in Tasmania, and more recently again the outbreak of listeria in our rockmelons, a serious issue for the producers in that sector. I don't want to be too critical of governments—plural, because the rockmelon issue is largely a matter for New South Wales in the first instance—but what concerns me is a lack of urgency in helping sectors affected by these outbreaks when they need it most. It is very relevant to this bill, because this bill is about helping research and development corporations that are statutory corporations, unlike industry owned corporations. I make that point because the bill's talking about statutory RDCs, and in horticulture the RDC is industry owned. Still, the capacity to raise funds when things go wrong is very important. I again contrast the government's response to the outbreak of hep A during the berry scare. Everyone will remember that; it was on the six o'clock news for days on end. The government's response was a very robust one, because it was an area where the government had very little control. Rather than fix it, they tried to switch the focus of the electorate to country-of-origin labelling, which was completely irrelevant to the issue, because the berries which had allegedly carried the problem were a clearly marked product of China. That was, from my perspective, a distraction by the government to rid themselves of any responsibility. What has been happening with rockmelons is very much an Australian problem which will need to be overcome with a certain degree of marketing and public reassurance. It is relevant to this bill, because we're looking at how we might help research and development corporations in those marketing efforts. I again signal to the government that we're very happy to work with them in any way we can to restore confidence, because people out there are devastated by the outbreak in the rockmelon industry. They will need help, and we should be standing with them. I close by reminding the House that the opposition will be supporting the bill. We think it's a worthy initiative, and I again appeal to the new minister for agriculture to accept my invitation to work on a bipartisan basis to overcome the significant challenges agriculture faces so that we can take up those enormous opportunities and meet our aspirations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 17:44 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Primary industries, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, have always been an essential part of the Australian economy. From our early history of Australia riding on the sheep's back, our primary industries have innovated, changed and grown exponentially. A critical part of this growth has been investment in research and development, as well as in extensive marketing. As a farmer myself, I know that it is one thing to produce a product; it is entirely another to find profitable long-term markets for that product. This is why trade and our free trade agreements have been, and will continue to be, so important to the primary production sector. When we look back to what's been asked of us as a government repeatedly, it's been the No. 1 issue that farmers have raised—the market access issue. Some of the challenges for those of us who are farmers and primary producers is to continue to extend Australia's competitive edge in the global food and fibre market; to tackle challenges such as competition in both domestic and export markets; the employment in our towns that goes with our primary production; and the long-term impacts of the change of climate on ag productivity and sustainability. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences forecast our farm exports at $48.7 billion for 2017-18. It's a massive earner for our country. And you know very well, Mr Deputy Speaker, how it underpins so many regional communities—the small businesses and local economies right around Australia. Since 1945, when the government established ABARES, we have seen increased productivity—constant increases, constant innovation and some amazing farmers. They are some of the best in the world, without a question. This is mostly because of continuous research and development. There are industry-specific development corporations, as we know, from the Australian Egg Corporation, Meat & Livestock Australia and Horticulture Innovation Australia to the very well-known Australian Wool Innovation and many others. These corporations also have a marketing function. And the R&D isn't just into more efficient ways to produce their respective commodities but also into the marketing of the products. Relevant industries invest in their R&D corporations through levies on the production itself, and the Australian government invests by matching the industry R&D levy expenditure. It is a real partnership and a unique model in Australia and in the world. According to ABARES estimates, for every dollar invested in agriculture R&D our farmers, our primary producers, actually generate a $12 return within 10 years—for every single dollar. It's a great return on investment: strong agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries are a massive benefit for all Australians and underpin so many of our rural economies, as I said. It is those local jobs and small businesses. As I mentioned earlier, there are 15 rural R&D corporations. Out of those 15, 14 can carry out marketing activities but only 10 do. They provide a very valuable service to their industry sectors in both R&D and marketing. This has helped to build our pork, wool and red meat industries, for example, and expanded Australian access to international markets. This is particularly relevant with the free trade agreements delivered by this government with Japan, Korea, China, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Peru and Singapore. The coalition government has worked hard to open international markets for access by our primary producers. As I said, the most common thing said to me—and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—was about markets access, 'We just want a fair go into the market.' That's what this government has worked over time to deliver. I've said previously, and I'll say it proudly every single time: our primary producers in Australia are some of the most efficient in the world, in spite of operating, often, in much harsher and more extreme weather and growing conditions than many of our international competitors. Much of that capability and capacity to manage environmental challenges comes from continuous research and development. For instance, Dairy Australia is an R&D corporation that defines its role as: … to build a sustainable and internationally competitive industry and to provide solutions that help farmers adapt to an ever-changing operating environment. That's the world we live in. It doesn't stand still for us on the farm. And it acts as the collective investment arm of the dairy industry and invests in research, development and extension as well as industry services. In my electorate of Forrest, Western Dairy assists farmers with many programs made possible from R&D contributions. Western Dairy helps farmers with programs in relation to compost, financial analysis and farm safety, as well as one called Stepping Back, which assists farmers in transitioning and setting up for the next generation of farmers, which is really critical in this space. Australia's rural and ag sector employs more than 1½ million people. The overall ag supply chain contributes 12 per cent to Australia's GDP. And I really like this statistic: each year the average Australian farmer feeds 600 people. What a great achievement. We feed 600 people, each person. And I think that's often overlooked. Innovation, agility and efficiency are critical to our industry. Strategic, targeted and regionally relevant research and development is the key to that, as is the collaboration, the extension onto farm, between researchers, investors, governments, primary producers and agribusinesses—that direct return beyond the farm gate itself. In 2015 Deloitte said that agribusiness is 'the sector with the strongest competitive advantage for Australia's outlook', as well as the benefits of R&D flowing directly to farmers and regional state and federal budgets. That's what it does. It doesn't just sit with the farmer; it flows right across the board. It flows down to help provide innovative, cutting-edge education for our agricultural students, which is one of the reasons I cannot understand the WA state Labor government, which announced $64 million in education cuts, some of which they've had to reverse because of public pressure. The CWA actually marched on state parliament recently and protested against those sweeping cuts to regional education. But the one that I really believe is so retrograde and negative—the most blatant and ill-conceived cash grab—is taking 20 per cent of funds from the Agricultural Education Provisions Trust fund. This is physically taking funding from our agricultural colleges and Esperance Farm trainee school in WA. These funds are earned by the schools themselves and generated from selling their own produce. The Harvey ag school in my electorate is a fantastic facility, but they're going to lose at least $50,000 every year. These are the funds that the ag schools use for farm machinery, for developing their farms and applying the latest innovation and technology, and for repairing and replacing fences, as well as the constant recurrent costs that they have to meet. So Labor's cutting hundreds of thousands of dollars from these regional ag schools. I have no doubt—and I'm sure there are members in here who have no doubt—that agriculture is critical both to the WA economy and to the Australian economy. In WA alone it's worth $8.6 billion—just to the WA economy. And the expectation is that that could double over the next 12 years as our beef, lamb, wine, beer, dairy, fruits and vegetables, seafood, pork, wheat and grains are marketed overseas in high-end products. That's where we belong, at the high-value end of niche products, because we have fantastic quality. And we should never underestimate that and its impact around the world. Our farmers and our primary producers work very closely together to get these products to the markets, and our future farmers need the best possible education, with the most current innovation and training technologies—the machinery, the tools and trades equipment—like that at the Harvey ag school's trade training centre. It is exceptional. The students currently have access to well-equipped workshops. They're training on the machinery and tools currently being used in the relevant industry, whether it's automotive, construction, furnishing, metals or engineering. But also, as you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, the ag school is an economic contributor in itself to our local Harvey community—in employment, in sourcing inputs from local businesses. Over 600 students attend these colleges. What this tells me is that, unfortunately, the WA state Labor government just don't understand the constant changes that occur in the ag sector. They don't understand why our ag students need access to cutting-edge farm machinery, technology and equipment, and that's delivered not only by continuous research and development but by access to funding to keep upgrading what they have at their disposal to teach great young people. But mostly what is worrying is they don't want to invest in the future of agriculture for the next generation. What sort of a message does this give to the great young people who want to go into agriculture and see a great future? And this is in a state that is set to double its population by 2050. For farmers, constant innovation, constant focus on quality is what we do. It's what helped to keep us competitive and we are constantly improving our efficiency and productivity. We know that 58 is the average age of farmers in Australia. That's why these young people at the ag colleges in Western Australia are so important. We actually need every single one of our new young farmers. So I say to the state Labor government: cutting funding from Western Australia's agricultural colleges is a short-sighted city-centric decision. Continuous R&D and marketing are the keys to being competitive. This legislation deals with the four statutory R&D corporations that are still governed by the 1989 legislation—the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations. Like most of the R&D corps, they must have a statutory levy attached in order to undertake marketing. This change was made in 2013 following wide consultation which led to the passage of the Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Act 2013. The process to impose a statutory levy is often time consuming and its collection can be expensive. The fisheries R&D corporation and its industry body say the smaller industries can't afford the cost of establishing and collecting a levy, so this bill will make it possible for the fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries R&D corporations to carry out marketing activities by using voluntary contributions—for example, a gift, a grant or a bequest. It simply updates the legislation and puts these four corporations on the same footing as the other corporations. The bill also requires the R&D corporations to report on the marketing activities that they carry out each financial year in their annual report. This will ensure transparency for the industry, and the bill expands the definition of marketing activities to include matters that are incidental to marketing. This will allow the R&D corporations to plan and to coordinate marketing activities using the funds provided to them for R&D purposes. In finishing my remarks today, can I just give a great shout-out to every farmer, every primary producer that's out there in Australia. I have enormous respect for my fellow farmers. I'm very proud of them. On Saturday evening, I attended a Dairy Industry Association of Australia event where the DIAA award winning products were celebrated. There were some fantastic products from right around Western Australia. But what I did do, which will be of no surprise, is remind those great small, medium and large manufacturers in Western Australia that we are interdependent—my family and I as producers of some of the best quality milk in Australia and they as manufacturers. We work together to produce some of the best quality dairy products in the market. I'm hoping they in turn take advantage of the fantastic free trade agreements that we've signed and look at how to not only to get their products well established in the domestic market but actually get them into the wider international markets as well. We can compete anywhere in the world with our great farmers and our fantastic manufacturers, and I just urge them to get on with it. 17:59 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I rise to speak in support of the member for Hunter's amendment to the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017. In particular, I wish to highlight this government's failure to have evidence based policies to support the efficient allocation of taxpayers' money. This side of the House will be supporting this legislation, but I have to say there are a number of issues where the government has failed to efficiently use taxpayers' dollars and, importantly, has failed industry through research, development and marketing. I want to highlight an issue directly related to this legislation, on which it seems the former minister for agriculture, the member for New England, completely dropped the ball: the Australian Wild Abalone campaign. The Australian wild abalone industry has a beach value of approximately $180 million, and my state of Tasmania is the biggest contributor to this nationally, with $100 million in value coming from my state. In fact, the Tasmanian industry harvests, processes and exports the world's largest abalone resource, supplying over 25 per cent of total annual global production of wild caught abalone product. Abalone is Tasmania's most valuable wild harvested marine resource and one of the state's largest export earners. Tasmania harvests 1,850 tonnes of live weight abalone annually, over 95 per cent of which is exported, principally to the Asian markets of China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan and Taiwan. This in turn generates some $200 million worth of associated economic activity into the state's economy. So you get the picture that this is quite big for a small state like Tasmania. There are, however, opportunities for increased growth in associated and complementary industries, such as food tourism, particularly targeting Asian markets, which we do very well in in other sectors. The industry recognises the opportunity to significantly increase industry returns via investment in a strategic market development program such as Australian Wild Abalone. The wild fishery already competes on the international stage against an increasing farmed-abalone sector. Production has shifted from wild caught to farmed, and over 90 per cent of the world's abalone comes from aquaculture. The Australian Wild Abalone campaign is designed to meet these international challenges and, as mentioned, generate new industry opportunities. This is what we should be supporting wholeheartedly. It has a crucial role to play in supporting the long-term future of the Tasmanian and Australian wild caught abalone industries. The Australian Wild Abalone campaign highlights that abalone is harvested from pristine ocean waters, which are abundant in Tasmania, that it is managed in an ecologically sustainable manner and that the product is certified for export under the EPBC Act, to name a few points. The legislation we are debating has a role to play in supporting the Wild Abalone campaign through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The FRDC will be given a new capacity to undertake expanded marketing activities. The Seafood Cooperative Research Centre has previously been collecting funds from Abalone Council Australia to facilitate the Australian Wild Abalone campaign. I don't know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Buchholz, but talking about abalone is making me a little bit hungry. It was proposed that these marketing funds held by the Seafood CRC would be rolled over to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation by 30 June last year, but because of the former minister's bungling this did not take place, and the legislation is only before us now. Industry, sadly, has been forced to make other arrangements as an interim measure. The previous minister's focus, it seems, was on the relocation of the APVMA, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, to his own electorate, and the establishment of the Regional Investment Corporation in a National Party-held seat in Orange without any business case. Among the previous minister's failings is that the $272 million Regional Growth Fund announced in May last year has only just now opened up for applications, nearly a year later. The fund is meant to support projects in regional Australia in areas that are undergoing structural adjustment. My electorate, which includes the West Coast of Tasmania, would strongly argue that they are undergoing structural adjustment—the long-term shut-down of the Mount Lyell copper mine, the recent closure of the Edith Creek Murray Goulburn Plant in Circular Head—and would welcome the opportunity to apply for these funds. As I've said, they've just opened up, so we've missed nearly a year of opportunity to actually get things moving for these areas in regional Australia that are undergoing structural change. I also want to use this time to talk about research, development and extension work that particularly relates to the Tasmania fruit fly emergency that we are now seeing. Sadly, more fruit fly has been found in the southern part of Tasmania, which is absolutely alarming, and the member for Hunter mentioned this earlier. An emergency has been caused by biosecurity failures at a national and state level under conservative governments. The Tasmanian government cut biosecurity funding. Funding cuts were also made by this coalition government. This government restructured the way funding was delivered to Tasmania to what is now a fee-for-service model. This sounds great on paper, but what this means on the ground is that Biosecurity Tasmania has had to do more with less, because there is now a 20 per cent reduction in Commonwealth payments. The new minister, sadly, does not even know what is going on in Tasmania. The fruit fly emergency threatens the state's $200 million horticulture industry. Valuable exports into overseas markets have been compromised by fruit fly. This is incredibly serious for Tasmania. The markets are being closed. Farmers are being forced to destroy fruit. The Tasmanian brand has, sadly, been damaged. I hope we can resurrect this damage, because it is so vitally important for my state. Tasmania's agricultural minister described this issue as a 'national system breakdown'. I want encourage the new minister; I want him to take on more responsibility. I want him to make biosecurity, particularly regarding Tasmania, a front issue, a priority issue. It is imperative for this state, and I'm sure for other states, that biosecurity is front and centre, that it hits you in the face when it come to a state like Tasmania, that you are compelled to be part of that shared responsibility. Sadly, the current agriculture minister—who I do have some respect for, I must say—chooses to blame the states without even knowing all of the facts. Yet again we have the state blaming the Commonwealth and other states, so it's a bit of a mess. In reply to a question in this place he said it was 'all Victoria's fault'. But it is a national breakdown. If the minister had been paying attention to answers given by Biosecurity Australia officials and Plant Health Australia officials during Senate estimates, he would have known—or should have known—that the advice is that the source of fruit fly outbreaks around Devonport in my electorate and George Town in the electorate of the member for Bass is still not known. I'm prepared to give the new minister the benefit of the doubt as he comes to grips with all the former minister's failings. My invitation remains—and I mean this sincerely—for him to visit my electorate. I did invite the previous agriculture minister to visit the north-west of Tasmania and meet with my dairy farmers—no strings attached. It was completely for their benefit, not any political benefit and, sadly, that minister ignored my request. The new minister can come. I don't care if he comes with the Tasmanian Liberal senators, though there is only one in my electorate, Senator Colbeck. He should come and speak to the growers in my electorate. While he's there, come and see all the wonderful things we do. Come and see our abalone industry and many other sectors of primary industries in our state. Let's just see what he does. We also know, from Senate estimates in late February, that Plant Health Australia conducted a biosecurity exercise in Tasmania for fruit fly. This exercise in itself has remained shrouded in secrecy. We do not know how prepared Tasmania was for a fruit fly incursion. Clearly, they weren't very well prepared at all. Plant Health Australia claims to not know the outcome. What did work well in that exercise, what didn't, what measures were needed in Tasmania to prevent fruit fly incursions—we don't have answers to those questions and I think the Tasmanian public and those growers need to know. Bizarrely, this government and Plant Health Australia officials say the exercise has nothing to do with the fruit fly emergency in Tasmania because it was only looking for exotic fruit fly, not the endemic Queensland fruit fly that we see. But the actual protocols remain the same. Being an island, you would think you would know that if it's exotic or if it's Queensland then those protocols would be the same. A fruit fly is a fruit fly and will devastate our horticulture sector. I've also invited Assistant Minister Ruston or Plant Health Australia to come to my electorate and look farmers in the eye and tell them that this work has nothing to do with them and has no relevance to the current fruit fly emergency. The secrecy of Plant Health Australia and the actions of the assistant minister in Senate estimates and Tasmanian Liberal Senator Colbeck in running defence and diversions can lead to only one conclusion: that Tasmania failed. This government is too busy running a protection racket, rather than being honest with the Tasmanian community and farmers. If I'm wrong on this, I'm happy to be proven wrong. I would welcome either the minister or Plant Health Australia coming clean on the exercise that took place. Plant Health Australia collects a levy from Tasmanian farmers to support their work. Part of their work is the development of the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed. This government, along with all state and territory governments, are signatories to the deed. Tasmanian primary industries minister, Jeremy Rockliff, signed off on a new deed last year. Plant Health Australia says that they are interested only in exotic fruit fly, not the endemic Queensland fruit fly that has reached Tasmania. While I appreciate the need to have rigorous measures in place to prevent incursions of exotic species of fruit fly in Tasmania, the Queensland fruit fly is an exotic species to us in Tasmania. Under the deed, farmers who are subject to an exotic pest incursion are able to access reimbursement for costs associated with such an event. So, technically, you would think, Tasmanian farmers should be able to access compensation because of a Queensland fruit fly. But, sadly, that's not the case. And this is what the state minister for agriculture signed Tasmania up to. Our farmers pay a levy in good faith to Plant Health Australia. While Fruit Growers Tasmania are aware that, due to this technicality, farmers are unable to access any support, I am sure many farmers would be shocked to know that the levy they pay to support the deed does not allow them to obtain compensation in this emergency. Fruit Growers Tasmania believes that the deed needs reviewing, and I support that call. The Queensland fruit fly is an exotic species to Tasmania, and I call upon the state, the Commonwealth and Plant Health Australia to work with Fruit Growers Tasmania to revisit the deed. All levels of government should be working together to support Tasmanian farmers who have been affected by this biosecurity failure. Rather than shift blame among themselves, it is time all parties came together and worked collectively to resolve this situation. Measures must be put in place to prevent this type of incident ever occurring again. It is so sad to go and see these farmers and see how limited they are now in the exclusion zones, and the impact this has had on their productivity and the markets that are now shut down to them because of the protocols in place—which you can understand, but this should never have occurred in a place like Tasmania. On this side of the House we already have a $2 million commitment on the table to support increased biosecurity in Tasmania to ensure that this doesn't happen again. Labor has acted, while those opposite have stayed silent. In so many areas the other side, in particular the Nationals, pay lip service to the regions and our farmers. Just once they should step up to the plate and do something to support Tasmania's farmers. Our economy depends on it. Jobs in regional communities depend on it. And our farmers, who work so hard—tirelessly, day after day, exporting and trading on the Tasmania brand—deserve support from the other side of the House more than ever. Thank you. 18:14 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill. As I often say—in fact, on many occasions; some people may find it boring—every year Australian farmers will grow more food, they will grow more fibre, they will grow it in a more environmentally friendly fashion and they will grow better-quality food. It's been a remarkable achievement. Just the changes in farming practices over the last 20 or 30 years—the no and zero till revolution has reversed the loss of our fertile topsoils. On my own farm, I marvel at the increased productivity and increased fertility, and the patches of degraded soils being restored to full health. Many a day I spent carting old sand drifts from the forties and fifties off my fence lines and back onto the loamy ridges. Now, once the soil has been taken back, with modern farming practices it stays there: highly fertile soil, in its right place. Australian farming and Australian farmers are a runaway success story. But we are a high-cost production platform. Innovation is what has kept Australian farmers in business. We've innovated on the back of a great two-way partnership between farmers and scientists. I was closely involved with the ag research sector in this way before I entered parliament. I remember well a scientist telling me just how much he valued the interest and two-way interaction with switched-on and eager farmers. He said: 'Often, as scientists, we don't know what question to ask or where to find the next barrier to address. Farmers provide that information. They are the catalyst. They are the challengers of the scientists.' And we are in a very good space in Australia in that way. That's why, in many cases, our agricultural innovation has led the world. The method of funding agricultural research in Australia has evolved over a very long period. Historically, research was largely the domain of government agricultural departments. However, over the last 30 years or so it's become apparent that if agriculture were to reach its full potential then much more was required—more investment was required. So we reached out to the private sector and introduced laws in Australia which protected and rewarded the development of intellectual property. Specifically, in one case at least, that has led to what we call plant breeder's rights. So the researcher who has spent the money developing a new grain, a new cultivar, can reap the rewards through a royalty system. When the grower delivers the new grain to whatever facility, whoever he sells it to and whoever they sell it to pay a royalty back to the original developer of the product. Just this move alone has led to private investment—both local and international—and developments in new cultivars, with remarkable improvements. As a friend of mine once said, 'You should never underestimate the amount of technology in that single grain.' But rather than entrust all agricultural investment to the private sector, the Australian government has remained heavily involved in the research sector. There are a number of vehicles where this occurs, including the Cooperative Research Centres. But, without doubt, the program which is admired all over the world—and I've had this continually from visiting agriculturalists—are our 15 registered research organisations. These organisations are owned and operated by the growers of the various sectors and funded by statutory grower levies, which in turn are matched by the federal government. This gives the growers skin in the game. Those registered research organisations are the teams that have kept Aussie farmers at the cutting edge. They've directed resources to the areas where we get the best bang for our buck, and agriculture has benefitted greatly. I spoke about more environmentally friendly farming when I opened this speech. Let's just look at a few examples. Coarse grain yields in Australia have doubled on a per hectare basis over the last 40 years. They've doubled in 40 years, but that's only part of the story. The area planted to coarse grains has risen by only 30 per cent over the same period. This increase in productivity hasn't been brought on by land clearance, but largely by the tightening of cropping rotation and increased yields. The tightening of cropping rotations has been brought about by the introduction of disease-inhibiting crop rotations and chemical weed control—changes which have been underwritten by scientific advance. All of these things have resulted in coarse grain production over that period rising by about 350 per cent. Remember, yields have only doubled and the area has only gone up by 30 per cent, but the production has increased by 350 per cent. By the same measures, cereal grain exports have performed even better. They have risen by 400 per cent from 2.6 million tonnes to 11 million tonnes over the same period. In the rice industry, there have been enormous advances in Australia. Necessity, they say, is the mother of invention. It's not particularly wet through a lot of Australia, so Australia has developed the most water-efficient rice plants in the world—and by a long way. With stock production, we know that we are now close to things like virtual fencing for livestock, robotic stock handling and feeding systems, drones that will change the way we farm and autonomous tractors are on the way. In the previous parliament, I led an inquiry into agricultural innovation, and one of the things we did was visit the University of Sydney's school of agricultural robotics. It was an absolute eye opener. There is so much good stuff on the way for agriculture. It's a very fine place to be, in Australia at the moment. However, as if to underline those technological advances in the industry, while production has quadrupled across a range of products, employment in the agricultural sector has fallen by 20 per cent, which is having a major negative effect on our rural communities. If we are to regenerate jobs in the regions, we can be sure that, once again, we will be relying on the science of agriculture to find the answers because if we are going to find jobs for people in the regions it is likely to hinge around the primary products and value-adding those before we send them to the rest of the world. We will have to really commit ourselves to that or otherwise the challenges of an emptying inland Australia will become more and more pressing. To come to today's legislation, quite rightly, the four registered research organisations which will remain statutory bodies are compelled to spend their research and development levies on only research and development. The current legislation theoretically allows them to invest in marketing, but they can only raise money for that purpose by implementing a separate voluntary levy on producers. I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, as someone who was a producer of grain, that we don't normally rub our hands with glee at the thought of being hit with another levy. It presents a huge challenge to the organisations: producers are unlikely to be enamoured by a new levy. The question is: what if the organisation could find a separate stream of income—perhaps a business partner or a benefactor? Currently, it is a no-go zone. This legislation will give them the flexibility to explore those options to find a way of investing in marketing without having to strike a new levy on their producers. It's pretty straightforward, really. While we need to make sure these organisations do the right thing, we need also to encourage them to make the best decisions on behalf of their members, and this requires them having sufficient flexibility to do so. I firmly support the legislation as it stands and assume that it will go through this parliament—I don't think it's particularly controversial. Those in the farming community can rest well assured that I will continue to support those registered research organisations. I believe they produce great results for Australia. I believe the partnership between private enterprise and government—the taxpayer in this case—in supporting those research outcomes benefits all Australians, and I look forward to working in that sector in the future. 18:24 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I rise today to support the passage of the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017 and the proposed amendment. This bill will impact the four research and development corporations established under the act: the cotton, grains, fisheries and rural industries research and development corporations. It would allow these four corporations to undertake marketing activities funded by voluntary contributions and remove the requirement that they only undertake marketing where a levy is attached to the corporation, which can be a cumbersome and expensive undertaking. The four statutory R&D corporations covered by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 have been permitted to undertake marketing activities only since 2013, when an amendment expanded the scope of their activities. The amendments we are debating today will not change the process by which R&D corporations establish a new levy, but they do remove the requirement for one in order to undertake marketing. In addressing the substance of this bill, which is primary industries R&D, it is fair to say that regional Australia has been let down by this government and particularly by the former minister. Funding for research and development in primary industries under this government has absolutely been neglected. We have a new Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources now. Indeed, he's a fairly new member of this House; he was elected in 2016. I hope that he can renew the focus on research and development across the whole of Australia, including in my electorate of Lyons, rather than being like his predecessor and concentrating his efforts in his own electorate. Using ministerial authority to feather your nest in your own electorate might make you popular in your own seat—it might make you popular with the local businesspeople in your seat who stand to profit from government money rolling into town—but it makes you an appalling minister of the Crown. Under the former minister, policy progress in primary industries went to sleep. The agriculture white paper came and went with barely a whimper. One legacy of the paper is its cuts to R&D: $6½ million a year, which, if left unchanged, over eight years comes to $52 million. One of the few bright spots in agriculture in recent years has been the lower dollar, resulting in better export demand for our producers. The lower dollar meant better export dollars. Who can forget the former minister treating this House to a daily stock report of the cents per kilo and boasting as if that had something to do with him? The fact is that the successes of the primary industry sector in the past five years have come despite the former minister holding the reins of the portfolio, not because of it. I do hope the new minister does better, but the early indications are not hopeful. He appears wedded to the former minister's wrecking behaviour on the Murray-Darling Basin when it comes to some irrigators stealing water. And inexplicably, for someone representing a vast regional electorate with many people on middle to low incomes, he has an almost cultish fascination with trickle-down economics, which history has shown to favour big business and multinationals at the expense of domestic primary producers and wage-earners. I really wonder how farmers in the electorate of Maranoa would feel about their local member, now the minister for agriculture, siding with big business over the legitimate concerns that producers have when they have to deal with the likes of the grocery duopoly. I do urge the new minister to take his predecessor's white paper out of the drawer, shake off the spider webs and dust, have a read and bring it back to this House with the changes that are necessary to get primary industry policy in this country back on track. A good place to start would be to stop wasting money on the forced and ill-considered relocation of public servants to the former minister's own electorate and redirect the savings, the actual cost of that process, to research and development. Or how about having some evidence based policy to address the effect of climate change on our farmers and regional communities? And you don't have to look far for the evidence. The new minister might like to talk to a constituent of mine from York Plains in Southern Midlands in my electorate. Peter has been farming in the area all his life. He is worried about climate change and the effects it is having on his property. The changes in the cycle, the weather patterns—dry, very dry, floods, dry again—are challenging his way of life. This is something we know farmers have put up with in Australia for generations, but when farmers who have farmed the land tell you in their own words that this is the worst they have ever seen it and that it is a systematic part of genuine climate change, no longer just an annualised weather change, you'd better to listen to them, the people on the ground. Peter's is not the only story about the real effects of climate change on our farming communities, but apparently this government does not care much for the lived experience and the evidence from generations of farmers who are concerned about their futures. The Labor Party has a sub-caucus of members who represent country electorates and senators whose duty electorates are regional. We met recently with the group Farmers for Climate Action. These are real farmers with real concerns about the future of productive land in this country. Too often we see from those opposite an ideological obsession with refusing to acknowledge the reality of climate change and the devastating economic and environmental impacts it carries. If the minister cannot bring himself to fund R&D into climate change action—I don't know whether he believes in it or not—perhaps he can consider investing funds into combatting fruit fly in Tasmania. My colleague, the member for Braddon, spoke on this subject at some length. Our island has always been free of this pest, but four years after a $1 million cut to biosecurity funding under the state Liberal government in Tasmania, fruit fly is emerging in our state. Exclusion zones have been established in the north of our state, in prime fruit-growing regions like Kentish, resulting in heavy losses for farmers. I was driving through there just last week, and the orchards are groaning with apples that aren't being picked. The farmers don't have the markets to sell them to. They have to sell them within the zone; they can't travel outside the zone. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of produce that will be either left to rot on the tree or picked and sold locally for cents on the dollar. Just this week, fruit fly larvae have been found in the south of the state. Biosecurity Tasmania assures us there is nothing to worry about. I truly hope that is the case, that these are all isolated incidents and that we can in the next few months continue to declare Tasmanian produce fruit fly free, but we face a nervous wait. Last week Biosecurity Tasmania released this information. Since this crisis came to a head some weeks ago: 88.66 tons of fruit fly host produce were collected and destroyed in February. That is 88½ tonnes of fruit that isn't going to market and is not adding to the incomes of farmers in Tasmania. 2,857 properties have been inspected by Biosecurity Tasmania … And more than 100 biosecurity staff have been deployed to work on eradication. Hindsight's a wonderful thing, but it's arguable that had resources not been cut in the first place we would not have to scramble now, at considerably greater expense, to fix the problem. Labor said at the time when the state government sought to make these cuts to biosecurity, 'Don't do it; the penny-pinching is not worth it.' We were ignored, the cuts went ahead, and we should never forget it. Some R&D into combatting fruit fly would be most welcome, as would R&D into Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome or blueberry rust, which are also having impacts on production in my state. The lower dollar, as I've mentioned before, has been good for Tasmania's exported produce, but the clean green image is not a matter of luck or of floating on the global sea of economics; it is something producers in Tasmania have worked hard over 20 or 30 years to attain, with the support of the former state Labor government and, I must say, the former Labor federal government. Both were very supportive of Tasmania's emergence as the gourmet producer of food, wine, cheese, gin, whisky and beer in this country. I'll never forget it was Labor's Barry Jones and Duncan Kerr who had the federal law changed to allow distilling in Tasmania, a simple decision that has led to the birth of a world-beating spirits industry not just in Tasmania but one that now spreads across the continent. It's a simple change in this parliament to make it legal to have a distilling industry without all the hoops that people used to have to go through, and it's transformed regions. It shows the effect, with just a bit of foresight and a little bit of attention, and the change that this place can make, and it doesn't have to have a negative effect on the budget. I would welcome some R&D into the effects of excise reform, because I'd like to see excise reform for the spirits industry, and beer and cider. It's long overdue. I'm personally convinced that reforming our outdated excise laws will lead to sustained growth for Australian distilled spirits, and beer and cider. There are so many innovators with great ideas in Tasmania, but they do need expert support to make their ideas a reality and that's where R&D can come in. R&D is central to increasing industry productivity, ensuring sustainability and every dollar spent has a positive impact going forward. The member for Forrest mentioned in this debate earlier on that every dollar spent on R&D returns $12, which is a great return. It's even better than education. Every dollar spent on education gets a $7 return. That's something those opposite should remember as they merrily chop through the education budget. It was a great shame that Labor was not elected to government in Tasmania on 3 March, as the agriculture platform of the Labor opposition included the creation of a centre of excellence in agricultural research, education and commercialisation. That sadly will now not happen. That's a real loss for agriculture in our state. In Tasmania R&D falls under the umbrella of the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, a partnership of government and of the University of Tasmania. Our state has an ambitious goal to increase the annual value of Tasmanian agriculture to $10 billion every year by 2050, and R&D is core to that goal. To reach it, Tasmanian Agriculture will have to grow at double the rate it has grown at for the past 20 years. Some TIA initiatives include research and development collaboration into Poppy Downy Mildew; a research and development collaboration to improve the productivity of vineyards; a biofumigation vegetable productivity project to investigate the benefits of using brassica crops to manage disease, pests and weeds to boost productivity and vegetable crops, including potatoes; the Precision Agriculture Project to look at the benefits of adopting technologies to improve farming practices and performance. There's a project that aims to ensure the future viability of Tasmania's vegetable processing industry by increasing yields of key crops and decreasing input costs. And two other priority projects more recently announced are a project to look into pastures and livestock productivity and one to look into crop and pasture seed, to grow our place in this potentially high-value market. R&D has a particularly important role in Tasmania because, of course, we are committed as a state—both Labor and Liberal—to keeping GMO out of our state's food cycle. I personally accept there is a role for GMO in the global food market, but allowing it to enter Tasmania would be a disaster for our state's clean green image and our ability to leverage premium prices in niche markets. With that, I will conclude by saying the importance of R&D cannot be underestimated when it comes to agriculture. It's a terrible shame that we've undergone some cuts in this area, but here's hoping that with a new minister in the chair there will be a brighter way forward for agriculture in this country. 18:39 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo As people in this House know, Labor is not opposing the bill that is before us. It is, again, another example of how it feels like this government are doing a bit of housekeeping when it comes to agriculture. This is a non-controversial bill that is before the House that sort of tidies up some stuff that didn't happen in the past. We all acknowledge how important R&D is, particularly to the agricultural space. Whether you talk to cotton farmers in the cotton industry, whether you talk to the grain industry, whether you talk to our fisheries industry, whether you talk to our growing unique horticultural industry—our chickpeas, pulses—R&D is critical. However, I also rise to speak today to the amendment that's been moved by the member for Hunter, which actually says: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Turnbull Government has failed to develop evidence-based policies to support primary industries through appropriately targeted research and development, and the efficient allocation of funding". This is a critical point. It is not just agriculture; it is across the entire government responsibilities. They are failing to ensure evidence based policies and the efficient allocation of taxpayers' resources. The previous speaker spoke about the impact of climate change. That is an area where this government has failed. They've ignored the evidence. They've ignored the science. They've wasted money on programs which we know just don't work, only to scrap them a few years later or to cut their funding. There was the Green Army—I almost called it the Land Army; it was such a long time ago in the memories of so many people in this place. With the Green Army, from the beginning, the evidence suggested that the program wouldn't work. If you cut money from connecting country, if you cut money from land care programs, put it into Green Army, then there's nobody to run the projects for the Green Army to work in. The evidence was there. Yet the government— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order, Member for Bendigo. The member for Petrie? Mr Howarth 247742 I wonder if the member would take an intervention? Ms CHESTERS 249710 No, I will not. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for Bendigo has the call. Ms CHESTERS 249710 Thank you. I was speaking to the amendment that was moved by the member for Hunter, which basically calls out this government for how it has failed to develop evidence based policies to ensure the effective allocation of taxpayers' money. I started with climate change. This government tried so hard to scrap the Clean Energy Finance Corporation despite all the evidence, despite the fact that industry partners and others championed the role that it played. I'm quite proud to say that in my part of the world the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, which also survived this government, has continued to fund clean energy projects that partner with agriculture. Just in the north of my electorate, around Newbridge, is a mushroom-growing farm that is also home to a solar power plant, a prototype for RayGen, where they have developed a solar panel which is generating more energy than ever before through this technology. It is helping provide power, but it is also reducing bills and power usage of the mushroom farm as well as developing a technology that is now being adapted all over the world. That was made possible because when Labor was in government it believed in evidence based policies, funded them and backed them. We have seen the complete opposite with this government. Another area where the government are failing is their pork-barrelling. There is no evidence whatsoever that we needed to create the Regional Investment Corporation. The uncertainty they have created for the ag space—for farmers wanting to tap into concessional loans; for banks, like the Bendigo Bank in my part of the world, which purchased the Rural Finance Corporation from the Victorian government, who have been very successful and providing finance to our agricultural sector. That entire operation was thrown into chaos because the previous minister for agriculture came in here and said: 'I'm going to throw my mate in, in New South Wales in the seat of Orange, a bit of a gift. I'm going to put in his part of the world the Regional Investment Corporation.' There was no evidence whatsoever that it was necessary and, as we've learnt through Senate estimates and through the questioning in the other place, not only was there no evidence, not only was there no need for it; they've now gone and tendered to the very people currently doing the work. They've established an investment corporation in Orange, only to say to the Bendigo Bank and rural finance: 'We kind of want you to continue doing the job. So can you put in a tender to keep doing the job you're doing?' In other words, it was another pork-barrelling exercise and a waste of taxpayers' money. When it comes to social policy this government has really failed to respect and adopt evidence based policies. As an example of that failure you can't go past drug testing. Report after report discredits drug testing of people on a form of welfare. All over the world there are studies that prove it doesn't work, yet this government is so blind as to bring it back. The legislation was rejected by the Senate, but the government has reintroduced it to the House and is trying to push it through again. It's like the government just repels evidence: 'We don't believe it. We'll stick our heads in the sand and say, "All the evidence is wrong; all the research is wrong. We're going to do it because we think it is the right thing to do."' Education is another area where the government has ignored evidence based policy. I should mention that, today, ECEC, the United Voice early childhood educators, have walked off the job. They are so frustrated with the way that this government has ignored evidence based policies on education they have walked off the job to try and get the Prime Minister's attention to talk about wages. It is relevant to the amendment that has been moved by the member for Hunter. We know from the evidence that early childhood education workers are undervalued and underpaid. They are paid the minimum wage. But what did this government do on coming to office? It scrapped the Early Years Quality Fund, the very fund that helped the industry lift the wages of early childhood educators. So here we are, five years on, with a government that is still ignoring the fact that we need to lift wages. This is about an issue of equal pay. This is another example of how the government is ignoring evidence based policies. Also, when it comes to ECEC, all the evidence shows that we must give children from disadvantaged families, particularly those in regional areas, access to early childhood education. We know that the foundation blocks are built in early childhood education, particularly for kids in the bush, and that the foundations they form in the early years actually help ensure better outcomes in primary school and in secondary school. The evidence shows that. Yet this government reduced the number of hours that children from disadvantaged families, from families where people are hardworking, could access early childhood education. Again the government has failed, and because it has failed to look at evidence based policy it has not allocated taxpayers' dollars appropriately. Mobile phones and black spots are a critical issue for agriculture and for the regions. Report after report from the Auditor-General's office has condemned this government for its failure to expand decent mobile phone coverage in any way at all. I've lost count of the number of farmers and people working in agriculture who say that connectivity is critical. It is critical to developing R&D. Connectivity is vital, whether it be for fisheries, cotton, grains or water management. The rollout of the NBN is another area where the government has failed agriculture and failed research and development. It is really hard to be innovative and to improve R&D if you don't have basic connectivity. In my own part of the world we recently did a survey, which was returned by over 3,000 people. Of the number of people who have been allocated Sky Muster—I know it sounds a bit ridiculous that in the city of Greater Bendigo so many people have been allocated Sky Muster—80 per cent said that the Sky Muster service is too slow, drops out and is unreliable. Farmers in particular said they can't monitor their stock properly. It's an issue when it comes to managing water. The R&D in water management in our part of the world is world-class. I want to give a shout out to the people in the southern part of the Murray-Darling Basin, who were the early adopters of R&D in this space. They're now monitoring moisture within soil to the drop so that they're not wasting a drop of water. That is phenomenal. It's all online and all done through having access to the internet. There is the role of telecommunications when it comes to the poultry industry. We always had Hy-Line in Huntly: 70 per cent of the day-old hens in our country actually come from Hy-Line in Huntly. Their entire operation is online, and they need access to fast internet to be able to have on-time management of temperature controls. And we have Hazeldene, which have done the same. They invested $30,000 of their own because of this government's failure to roll out the NBN. They've had to invest their own money because this government has failed to roll out the NBN. When it comes to an area like emergency management, without any evidence whatsoever this government shut down the Australian Emergency Management Institute on Mount Macedon, a regional area. It was seen locally as a bit of a cash grab, because Mount Macedon properties are worth quite a lot. They thought they could get a bit of money but in the end they couldn't, because of the bushfire overlay. So the Victorian government bought it from the Australian government for a bit of a song—a bit of a cheap price—and have reopened it as the Victorian Emergency Management Institute. If only we had a government that actually had evidence based policies to ensure the efficient allocation of taxpayers' money! And this is where it comes down to the one that the Prime Minister announced last week and that I just cannot believe. I say to the National Farmers' Federation: stand up to this government! Enough of the photos with the Prime Minister being proud to announce another conversation—a white paper, a conversation; another white paper, another national dialogue. Our farmers know exactly what they need from government in terms of basic infrastructure and exactly what they want in terms of R&D. They want the dollars and the scientists back in the CSIRO. They want the funding and they want the independence. What they don't want is another white paper, or a photo op with the Prime Minister or another national conversation that can be retweeted by a few people. That's what the Prime Minister announced last week: a national dialogue. Where's the real policy? After five years in government, we have a little bit of tinkering when it comes to R&D but no genuine policy on how we're going to develop our agricultural industry here in this country. Given that they're saying this is the future of this country—that ag is the new black—you would think they would do a bit more than tweeting that we're having a national dialogue about agriculture. But that's what we've got from this government. They've got no decent comprehensive plan for agriculture policy. They have no decent comprehension about how we rebuild R&D and make sure that not only do we have the independence but that we have the scientists and the researchers ready to partner in it. Instead, what we have is jumping from chaos to chaos across the board. We have a government that is not actually standing up for the regions and is not actually investing in the regions. But, worst of all, it is not listening to the regions. It is not listening to the people on the land, to the people who know where they want to go and who are being innovative and creative, and solving their own problems. They're almost at the stage where they're saying to this government, 'Just get out of the way and let us do it,' when, really, it should be a partnership. If we really want to unlock the potential of agriculture and unlock the potential of regional Australia, they need a partner in government. Instead, what we have is another bill before the House that only really tinkers with it; it's not really controversial. What we have are more tweets about our national dialogue. You can't really do much in 144 characters. What we need is a government that's real about agriculture and that actually has a comprehensive plan, not more discussion. 18:54 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I rise today to speak in support of the Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill 2017. This bill amends the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989, which governs four statutory R&D corporations: fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industries. As my colleague the shadow minister for agriculture, fisheries and forestry has stated, Labor supports the passage of this bill. However, we request that the House acknowledges that the Turnbull government has failed to develop evidence based policies to support primary industries. It has failed to support appropriately targeted research and development or ensure an efficient allocation of funding. In a relatively short time, the Turnbull-Joyce government established a sorry track record of instituting populist policy issues across our primary industries that were, frankly, quite rubbish. We saw the deputy leader of the coalition force the relocation of the APVMA and the statutory research and development corporations. This, as we know, was an ill-thought-out move that brought about unintended consequences and failed to deliver the promised long-term benefits—I ask you: scientists working out of wi-fi at Macca's in Armidale? It is just unbelievable. It is but one example of the former agricultural minister's ignorance of evidence based policies to pander to his electorate and his own satisfaction. Rural industry is crucial to the Australian economy and this irresponsible expenditure channels money away from substantive issues that genuinely matter and make a difference to rural and regional Australians. I know this firsthand because my electorate of Paterson is known for its beef, dairy cattle, fishing, prawning and oyster farming. Our farmers work incredibly hard and, in recent times, things have not been easy, to say the least. Parts of my electorate have this summer experienced their driest season in 80 years. Stock farmers were forced to sell their beasts or face exorbitant hand-feeding costs. Vegetable farmers watched entire crops fail and even those with river irrigation access struggled due to rising salinity. In the words of one of my constituents, this drought on the land equalled a drought on the water. Our fishers bore the brunt of the big dry as well. These trials and tribulations are nothing new. They are, unfortunately, the lot of many of those who live on the land. But the extremes of weather are becoming more marked and more regular, as our planet heaves under the changes being wrought by global warming. In the face of these uncontrollable challenges, we owe it to our farmers to appropriately support their industry and, in turn, their livelihoods, in any way possible. Rural industry bodies are the future of Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry. The Primary Industries Research and Development Amendment Bill supports these industries by supporting the R&D corporations that stand behind them, and that is a good thing. R&D corporations are crucial. They keep these industries competitive in national and international markets. They conduct and provide imperative research and development advice. This bill fosters the ease with which industries can reap the benefit of these R&D corporations. In particular, this bill concerns the marketing activities of R&D corporations, an element central to the success and expansion of rural industry. Changes to the act introduced in 2013 allowed R&D corporations to conduct marketing on behalf of industry, as long as a marketing levy was attached. However, the fisheries R&D corporation and industry bodies reported that small industries found levy collection too onerous, too expensive and too time consuming. The bill removes this hefty burden on small industries, and I do welcome that. It will mean that fisheries, cotton, grains and rural industry research and development corporations can raise voluntary contributions for marketing purposes by gifts, grants or bequests. There is no limitation on who can contribute these funds: industry representatives, companies, governments, individuals—the list goes on. With more contributors, small industry will reap more benefits. This brings these R&D corporations more in line with their non-statutory counterparts. It will also allow small industries to contribute funds on a voluntary basis, which is the preferred option of the affected industries. Secondly, the bill removes a requirement that an R&D corporation can only undertake marketing if there is a marketing levy in place. Thirdly, the bill expands the definition of marketing activities. The revised definition of marketing activities will include matters incidental to marketing. This ensures that much-needed research and development funds are indeed spent on R&D and that marketing remains a separate kettle of fish in terms of funding. It will allow the R&D corporations to not only commission marketing activities but also plan, consult about and organise marketing on behalf of industry. I'd like to make the point that when we speak about marketing we're not speaking just about advertising or sales campaigns. And this is really critical. To draw on my own electorate of Paterson, as an example I'd like to describe the plight of wild caught prawn fishers. I first met Sue and Rob Hamilton when their family prawning operation was shut down in 2015, when the RAAF Williamtown PFAS scandal broke out. The Hamiltons and other commercial fishers working Tilligerry Creek and Fullerton Cove were stripped of their livelihoods when it was discovered that firefighting chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, had leached from the base into the waterways and its community. Fishing bans lasting 12 months were implemented. This took a toll on the Hamiltons and other fishers in Paterson. The Hamiltons battled through, however, and returned to the water and their industry, thankfully. Sue contacted me again in October last year to raise her concerns about the prevalence of white spot syndrome, a virus in imported green prawns. Importation of the prawns had been suspended following an outbreak of the virus in commercial prawn farms in Queensland and then around wild prawns in the Logan River and Moreton Bay. It had spread. Sue reached out to me after the then Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce, lifted the suspension on the importation of green prawns into Australia. Sue was concerned because white spot is a massive deal. It leads to a highly lethal and contagious viral infection. Outbreaks have been known to wipe out entire populations of prawn farms in days. The virus is not dangerous to humans, and it's killed when the prawn is cooked. But the Aussie tradition of putting a green prawn on a hook and throwing in a line puts our waterways and our seafood industry at risk. Sue and her husband, Rob, still reeling from the year-long PFAS shutdown of their family business, were incensed by the biosecurity issues that remained in play even after the importation ban was lifted. And it's no wonder. The situation was and is nonsensical. Imported prawns infected Australian wild prawns and prawn farms. Affected Australian wild prawning areas and prawn farms were slapped with a ban. Meanwhile, the ban on the very source of white spot—the imported green prawns—was lifted. In what universe does that make sense? In Sue's words: I would like you to think about the allowing of green prawns into Australia. Australia was always 'white-spot' free but last year there was a huge outbreak in Southeast Queensland and it has been attributed to the importation of green prawns. There was a halt on imports but Barnaby has again allowed these prawns to come into Australia. Where is the proof that it won't happen again? Mind you, currently prawns caught around the Moreton Bay area cannot be brought into NSW 'just in case', but the prawns that originally brought the problem to our shores are now allowed back in! Go figure. It just doesn't make sense. There is a strong case for a permanent ban on the importation of green prawns. While investigations continue into treatment and testing regimes, this situation is a real-time example of how marketing levies can protect our primary industries. As mentioned, schedule 1 of the bill expands the definition of marketing activities to include activities that allow the R&D corporation to consult about, plan, scope and organise marketing on behalf of industry. In the case of Sue, Rob and other Australian prawn fishers, marketing became a tool to educate the public on the importance of protecting our waterways from disease. Across a four-year period, the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre facilitated the voluntary collection of marketing contributions for the Australian Prawn Farmers Association and the Australian Council of Prawn Fisheries. It funnelled the funds into its very successful Love Australian Prawns campaign, which not only encouraged consumers to support our domestic fishers but also raised awareness of the scourge of white spot. There is enormous risk associated with allowing green prawns into our waterways or inadequately disposing of any part of their waste. Consumer research and sales data by Love Australian Prawns confirmed the effectiveness of its campaign on several fronts. The Love Australian Prawns campaign will continue for a fifth year, but not without overcoming obstacles thrown up by the government's tardy attention to this bill. This led to unnecessary complication and confusion about how funds held by the Seafood Cooperative Research Centre could be rolled over for use in this most valuable campaign. In 2018 the campaign will target Woolworths, seafood retailers and consumers. They will be provided with educational material about handling green prawns. In addition, the campaign will expand into the food service sector. We know that there is a great demand for uncooked prawns in food service. According to the Australian Wild Prawns website, of the 30,000 tonnes of prawns imported each year, to the end of 2016, 10,000 tonnes were uncooked, 7,000 tonnes were marinated, and 13,000 tonnes were cooked, crumbed or battered. When the import ban was in place, the food sector reported that prawns were being taken off the menu due to their increased cost. Regardless, we know that many Australians prefer to buy Australian, and better menu transparency is expected to drive demand for Australian prawns. Again, this is where marketing can help educate and inform consumers, igniting their preference to support local farmers and increase domestic support for Australian produced products. While considering this bill, my office spoke with Sue, the local prawner, for an update on her situation. Her frustration with the lack of biosecurity around the importation of green prawns remained palpable. While she believes the Love Australian Prawns initiative has and will be a positive measure in support of our Australian prawning industry, she has other points to make. So, on behalf of my constituents Sue and Rob Hamilton, I ask you: why is there a continued ban on Queensland prawns while imported prawns, which still are testing positive to white spot, are on to our shores and into our markets? Why are there no stringent biosecurity measures around green prawn imports? It's one thing to support a marketing and education campaign encouraging people to love Australian prawns, but, like many consumers, people who buy prawns are price driven. As I mentioned earlier, a drought on the land equals a drought on the water. For prawns to flourish in my electorate of Paterson, we need good rain in the north-west throughout August, September and October, to flush the river and bring the prawns down. When this doesn't occur, there are fewer prawns to catch. With our great Aussie thirst for prawns, the demand stays the same, so even more are imported. And then, when our domestic fishers actually do bring in a catch, they are competing with cheap imported product. Imports devalue our Australian prawns. I ask you: why is imported seafood so cheap? Well, as with much in life, you only get what you pay for. With prawns, what we're getting is prawns that are often infected with white spot. No amount of marketing activities will change that truth. I put to you that the Turnbull government has failed to ensure efficient allocation of money. The situation that our prawn farmers and fishers find themselves in is a gross example of negligence. I understand that the then minister for agriculture had a great deal on his mind during his tenure in the role; even so, surely the issue of white spot demanded the former minister's attention. Surely the greater threat to the iconic prawn warranted investigation and biosecurity intervention. Surely the effects of climate change on our farmers of land and sea are worthy of scrutiny. Surely there is more the Turnbull government can do for those who are at the mercy of our ever-changing climate and endure heartbreaking and unavoidable drought. I can only hope that for the sake of Australian agriculture, fisheries and forestry the Turnbull-McCormack government has its head is the main game and spends our tax dollars wisely. 19:09 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro Thank you. It is a great pleasure to be able to raise a number of issues related to research and development in primary industries. I thank my good friend and colleague for her contribution to this debate in the fisheries area. I will focus on more terrestrial issues. Labor does support the inclusion of marketing in this whole research and development area. Marketing is a critical factor for our primary producers, and I think it has been neglected in many respects. I look at my own region—and certainly when I was in the portfolio of agriculture and fisheries, travelling the length and breadth of this nation, I would see the opportunity, the potential, that we have, particularly in terms of regional branding. You have seen what the French have done over the years with their regional branding, but Australia has that potential too. We're looking at a world now which by 2050 will have nine billion people and, as we often talked, at that time, that food would be the new gold. There's this challenge but there's also this opportunity. In particular, in our region we've seen the rise of a growing middle class—1.4 billion people moving up to demand more and better quality food. In addition to that, for example, in China you have seen concerns over the safety and health aspects of some of their produce, which is threatened by, shall we say, more lax environmental standards. The milk powder issue that arose in China recently led to a greater focus on our dairy products. And that, certainly, did hearten me from the point of view of Australian dairy marketing potential, as my family are all dairy farmers in the Bega Valley. In fact, my great-great-grandfather founded the Bega Cheese Co-op and was the first chairman. The 90 farmers down there are almost all family, because we were all good Irish Catholic breeders back then. They see this opportunity and they've grasped it. They're doing great things in export opportunities for Bega Cheese products. They also demonstrate the importance of getting the research and development aspects right for the future productivity of farming and the management of our landscape, and that's so important. Our farmers are stewards of this landscape and the most important environmental actors in this space. There's something like over 60 per cent of the Australian landscape in the hands of our farmers. Bega Cheese founded their Bega environmental management system program for their 90 farmers back in 2005, because they understood not only the productivity benefits from managing their land better but also their responsibility for keeping the waterways and estuaries of our region as clean as possible for the benefit of our oyster growers—prominent oyster growers with world-leading brands, like the Tathra Oysters and the Wapengo oysters. They are fantastic growers in our region and they're looking to do more. With this marketing opportunity we have in our region, there is the potential here, through the new international airport operations out at Canberra, to get our produce onto plates all around our region within 28 hours, and to continue to grow that branding in terms of the healthy, green, clean space that is going to be so important for driving Australian primary producers' opportunities in international markets. But, of course, that opportunity that's been presented by Canberra international airport has a threat posed to it. I will come back to that in a minute. But these are the potentials we have. However, there are issues that the Nationals' Scott Mitchell, former federal director, highlighted when we were moving past the former deputy leader and agriculture minister's issues, shall we say. He is now looking to see a united team working on the substantive issues that matter to rural and regional Australians rather than populist policy issues that often have unintended consequences, and fail to deliver long-term benefits, and that's what is most important. In particular, he was referring to some aspects of the decentralisation policy, which I'll come back to. When we talk about research and development opportunities, we've seen fantastic pioneers, and pioneers in my own region, doing wonderful things. People like Tony Coote, and I've been pleased to be briefed on his projects out at Mulloon Creek Natural Farms. This comes back to all of the experiences, lessons and proposals that have been developed in the context of natural sequence farming that had been originally advocated by Peter Andrews, has now been picked up and refined by a number of advocates, including Michael Jeffery, our former Governor-General, a former Army colleague of mine. This natural sequence farming, the restorative farming, that we've seen developed in areas like the Mulloon Creek Natural Farms is now spanning some 23,000 hectares in the headwaters of the Shoalhaven River flowing down to Tallowa Dam, which is Sydney's back-up drinking supply. All of this is not only restoring natural hydrology across the landscape, and regenerating natural ecological functions, but boosting farm productivity and improving the quality of our water catchment. I salute what Tony Coote and the advocates of this better approach to farming have achieved. More research and development in this area will be very beneficial. We've also had some great work by CSIRO with my high country farmers, the Monaro Farming Systems group, in the context of the severe drought that ended in about 2009. They were suffering terrible mental health issues as a consequence of being unable to come up with answers of how to deal with such extreme circumstances, but they were able to team up with CSIRO, who developed a terrific management tool for our farmers called GrassGro. It enables them to put together a plan to help manage their herds and pastures over cycles out to 50 years. This gave our farmers a great tool to fall back on to give them some mental support—that there is a way to manage these changing circumstances—and to get more out of their pastures. I thank CSIRO for the work they did with GrassGro in supporting my farmers in the Monaro Farming Systems group. We've also seen, as I know the member for Grey referred to, no-till farming. No-till farming has been a great improvement, particularly in broadacre farming enterprises out west of my area, which is not broadacre—mainly grazing, a bit of horticulture, and also our dairy production on the coast. No-till farming has been great in those broader landscape and broadacre farming operations. By increasing organic matter retention and the cycling of nutrients in the soil, we have seen tremendous benefit. Some of our Nuffield scholars have done a great job of proselytising about these better practices around the farming community That leads too to the opportunities our landscape offers in dealing with things like climate change. This is the greatest threat to our farmers. It's something we should not let anyone walk away from. They can also contribute to the effort of fending it off. I salute Farmers For Climate Action. They are a terrific group who are concerned about this. They also see the opportunity of diversification on their properties through getting renewable energy operations into the landscape. If you have a wind turbine on your property, the earnings from those help you get through droughts and bad times. Farmers out at Bungendore, for example, brought this home by saying that effectively got them through the drought. The 2016 Farmer Climate Survey of a large number of farmers and graziers highlighted that eight in 10 Australian farmers support more renewable energy in regional Australia. We have to do more, but farmers can contribute to this. While I agree that we cannot achieve rapid cooling of the climate as it is now, sequestering carbon in the landscape provides us with an opportunity to contribute at a faster rate to that process. Now is about preventing further catastrophic climate change and dramatic increases in temperature. My region is the canary in the coalmine in that respect. We depend on the snow industry, which constitutes 50 per cent of the economy of the Monaro, $2 billion. That ski season is continually contracting now with the effects of climate change. Anybody sceptic on this issue needs to talk to the guys at Snowy Hydro, who will take you through the data they have amassed on that scheme. They don't care how precipitation falls, so it's not such an issue for them whether it's rain or snow, but for the skiing industry, you can see that contraction. Across all of our industrial opportunities and farming opportunities climate change represents a massive threat. We need to get behind our farmers, who are ringing the alarm bells and have a more aggressive approach to solving this issue, which we will achieve only with a thorough ongoing policy encouraging climate trading, reinforcing the carbon farming initiatives and methodologies we pioneered, which will be a massive benefit to our farmers and another opportunity to diversify. They can do things like banding together under a brokerage to combine for, say, forestry plantings on their properties to assist with that effort and to earn themselves some extra money on aspects of their properties that are perhaps more marginal, where reforestation can occur. I want to finish with this issue of decentralisation and make a plea to the new agriculture minister about this effort to effectively destroy the APVMA's efforts in research and development to support our farmers. No-one does more important work than the APVMA. This decentralisation policy has crippled it. The best estimate is it may take something like seven years for the organisation to recover. They've lost something like 30 per cent of their scientists through this movement and also lost the head of the organisation, Kareena Arthy. It has been crippling but, not only that, they were involved in a cluster opportunity here in Canberra by being close to the CSIRO and close to ANU. What farmers need out of the APVMA are answers to their questions of how they keep their beasts healthy, how they keep their crops healthy and how they improve productivity, so it has done them no favours trying to move them to Armidale in what was obviously a blatant pork-barrelling effort. I plead with the government to stop this process of decentralisation for the other reason that—coming back to Canberra's international airport—if you try and take away whole departments from this area, you're not increasing jobs in regional Australia; you're stealing jobs from one part of regional Australia and putting them in another. This is the bush capital. It underpins the economy of the whole of southern New South Wales in so many respects—propping up jobs right around southern New South Wales. It is not promoting jobs in regional Australia; it is just shuffling deck chairs. In addition to that, if we lose departments in this area, we will lose that international airport capability depriving the farmers—the cherry growers in Young, the oyster growers on the coast, our high-quality beef and sheep meat and wool growers—from the opportunity of getting their produce quickly into the markets of our region. If we can stop that and if we can hang onto that the international airport opportunity, we also need some better biosecurity operations at that airport, too, to facilitate that primary industry opportunity. We saw an independent analysis by Ernst & Young that predicted that the relocation of the APVMA would impose a net economic cost of $23 million and involve significant risks, so there was no basis, no business case and no earthly reason why this should have been attempted. The Southern Downs Regional Council said that functions like administrative processing and call centres were more likely to be viable in regions than trying to transplant these whole agencies. The meat and livestock crew of Australia said there was 'no regional/rural base that naturally puts the company closer to one stakeholder group without making it less accessible to another.' That is to say, placing the pesticides authority in Armidale may raise the perception, and even reality, that those who depend on the authority in Mr Joyce's electorate will get a better suck of the sauce bottle than clients in the other parts of the country. The Australian Dairy Industry Council expressed: The dairy industry has strong reservations about relocating key government bodies to regional areas where the relocation will impose additional costs … put essential relationships at risk, result in possible loss of specialist staff, and reduce effectiveness. It said: Relocating a government organisation to a regional town may provide benefits in strengthening regional communities, but if it is done without regard to the organisation's ability to operate effectively and efficiently, it will not be of net benefit to the agricultural sector So the dairy industry has strong reservations about relocating key government bodies to regional areas. The government's got to start listening to the real authorities in primary industry about the effect of their actions in this decentralisation policy. I ask them to call a halt to this insanity. They need to do proper business case analysis of policy. It's not this sort of knee-jerk reaction stuff that you might pick up in a pub in Armidale. We have to have evidence based policy and, if the government's really serious about looking after farmers, it will make sure that the APVMA can do its job. So leave it where it is, let it work with the CSIRO and let's get our farmers the support they need for productive farming. 19:24 Mr HAMMOND 80109 Perth I'm delighted to rise following the member for Eden-Monaro, who not only has made a very impressive contribution to this debate but is also a most effective local member, particularly insofar as his recent role in providing an integral level of support to those affected by the bushfires that have ravaged his local community. He should also be commended in relation to that support he's provided. As I'm sure we are all aware, this bill amends the Primary Industries Research and Development Act to allow R&D corporations—or RDCs, as I will refer to them—regulated by the act to undertake marketing functions with funds raised by voluntary contributions, such as gifts, grants or bequests. Currently, spending on marketing is limited to money raised by a statutory marketing levy. I'm delighted to say—again, in a spirit of substantive bipartisanship—that this bill will go great lengths towards ending that restriction. Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you are very well aware, Labor supports the passage of this bill subject to, of course, the amendment moved by the member for Hunter, and I must say what a tremendous job he does as well as an advocate for regional Australia and certainly regional Australia insofar as it supports the primary production industries. Only four RDCs are governed by the Primary Industries Research and Development Act: Fisheries RDC, Cotton RDC, Grains RDC and Rural Industries RDC—and I'd like to come back to Fisheries RDC in due course. Whilst at first blush it might reasonably be said that for someone like me, as a member privileged to represent those in Western Australia who are from the inner city, the connection to primary industries appears remote, I'm pleased to say that that is not the case. Quite frankly, the importance of backing in primary industry is one which touches us all and one which has quite a connection to my own history on two levels. Firstly, I am delighted to say that from 2010 to 2013 the Fisheries RDC worked with Murdoch University, which is the university I previously attended. The work, to the tune of $300,000, was on the development of a model that would enable reliable estimation, from age and length data, of the mortality of fish species that undertake size-related, unidirectional offshore movements. That might sound a little esoteric but it really does relate back to, say, consumers in my electorate, as they regularly attend farmers markets in seeking to obtain the benefits of fresh local produce. I would talk about the subject of the research at some length if only time would permit, because I'm really just getting started, Mr Deputy Speaker. It relates to a famous species of fish called King George whiting. King George whiting, for those who don't know, is a tremendous species of fish that really could not be more removed from, let's say—without wanting to disrespect them too much—its poorer cousins the standard whiting or the sand whiting. The King George whiting is something else for a number of reasons. Firstly, in terms of its pound-for-pound ratio, it is quite the fighting fish. Whilst I was born in Perth and moved back to live in Perth, I spent some of my childhood growing up on Kangaroo Island. For those who do not know it, Kangaroo Island is renowned as an incredibly fertile fishing ground for King George whiting. As a matter of fact, I caught my first ever fish on Kangaroo Island, and guess what fish that was? An honourable member: A whiting? Mr HAMMOND 80109 It was a King George whiting. I still remember that day when I hauled up my first ever fish and the wonderful shimmering colour and movement of the King George whiting appeared. I don't know whether it was a sign of things to come or whether my luck quotient peaked too early, but it was not just one fish; it was a famous double-header. The double-header of two King George whiting caught from my late father's boat off the shores of Penneshaw on Kangaroo Island is something that will be forever stuck in my mind. The reason it is important here is that the Fisheries RDC looked into research to make sure that we preserve this famous fish, the King George whiting, not just for my generation but for many generations to come. If this bill goes some way to making sure that other kids get the same benefit I did, that is delightful. ADJOURNMENT 2960 ADJOURNMENT Aged Care 2960 19:30 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Imagine that you are 85 years of age, living at home and struggling with a neurological illness. You lost your husband just over a year ago and you've been the carer for your son, who is in his 50s and who has an acquired brain injury, for the past 17 years. It is getting harder and harder to maintain your home and to care for your son. Recently, a constituent of mine contacted my office seeking assistance with My Aged Care. She had been assessed more than four months previously for a level 3 package and had been told that it would be at least 12 months before she would receive additional services. She feels that a small amount of extra assistance would help greatly in her capacity to continue to manage her home. Close to the end of her tether, she gets very upset about the future, not only in terms of her own care but her son's care. She worries about her son's future and the heavy weight of possibility that if she cannot continue at home her son will also need to go into a much more expensive care arrangement. This is not a unique situation. In Victoria alone there are some 23,000 people on the waiting list for home-care packages. More than half of those on the waiting list in Victoria are waiting for a level 3 or 4 home-care package—the highest level of care. It was revealed earlier this month in Senate estimates that the average waiting time for level 3 and 4 is over 12 months. The situation has, frankly, reached breaking point and is no longer tolerable for frail, older Australians or their families. Another example that has been through my office is that of the daughter of a man in his 90s who is fiercely independent and living in his own home. A recent fall meant that he spent a small amount of time in hospital with broken ribs. As his family attempted to identify services that might ease his return home, the difficulty in accessing immediate support became very real. The family experienced substantial heartache as they spent many hours trying to negotiate an unwieldy system, drawing together ad hoc providers to ameliorate the potentially negative effects of a return home from hospital care and the scarcity of services. Those are two constituent examples that I have had in my office of late. I hear similar anecdotes from many others who find the current system unyielding, inflexible, impersonal and frustrating. The latest data on the Turnbull government's waiting lists has revealed there are close on 105,000 vulnerable older Australians waiting for home-care packages. Of these 105,000 people waiting for care, nearly 82,000 are waiting with high needs, many of them with dementia. Older Australians have a right to remain in their own homes and live independently with dignity as long as they are able and they choose to do so. The government's home-care package, part of the living longer, living better reforms, was meant to put older Australians at the centre of their care. What we have now is waiting times blowing out, more uncertainty about care and increased anxiety for family members and carers. In the past several months alone, the number of people on the waiting list has increased by over 15,000. Frankly, for the minister to say that this growing waiting list is a positive trajectory demonstrates how out of touch the government is in general and how out of touch it is with how desperate families are feeling across the community. This cannot be allowed to continue. The government is failing in its obligation to protect some of the most vulnerable Australians—aged people throughout our communities. As I said, in my own community alone we have a number of people who are in very vulnerable circumstances, who want to stay within their own home or whose family members are trying to get them returned home from hospital after an incident that has seen them hospitalised for a period of time. They want to and are able to return home but cannot because they are unable to access services because they are on a waiting list. It is quite obscene to tell someone who is in their late 80s that they have to wait 12 months before they can access the high level of services that they have been assessed as needing in order to stay not only within their own home but safe and healthy within their own home. It is something that really is an absolute indictment of this government. Our older Australians deserve much better. This government does not seem to be actively engaged in dealing with this issue. An ongoing lack of care is having dire consequences for older Australians and their families. I call on the government to fix this crisis in the upcoming budget. Stronger Communities Program 2962 19:35 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I want to raise tonight a subject where the local impact is difficult to fully assess but which nevertheless constantly affects our community. The reach of homelessness extends far into all of our communities, some seen and some unseen. There are a number of factors that cause people to end up in this situation. At all levels of government—local, state and federal—we are constantly working to try and address these issues. Indeed, it is one I'm currently working on, across the political spectrum and across levels of government locally since the closure of the local service City Life. In Dunkley, many local organisations work to address the needs of those to whom accommodation and food is unavailable, for whatever reason—such as schools like John Paul College. Steve Phillips and the team at Community Support Frankston also do an absolutely amazing job in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in Frankston and surrounds. CSF is one of the busiest agencies of its type in Victoria, with nearly 13,000 people contacting the organisation for assistance last year. They are a not-for-profit community support agency—about to celebrate 50 years—which provide services including emergency food, grocery vouchers, help with utility bills, referrals and advocacy for people who live or work in the city of Frankston. The agency helps to provide people with information, advice and skills, so they gain the ability to make more-effective life choices within their community. They have approximately 80 volunteer community workers from a wide range of social, political, religious, cultural and work backgrounds, who provide their time and services free of charge. And, as I said, the agency has been doing this for 50 years. Community Support Frankston has found in recent years that the demand for their services has dramatically increased. The Stronger Communities Program round from 2016 provided them with $15,000 of federal funding, for additional storage for the increase in donations they were receiving. The 2017 round will fund for them a shelter to provide a weather-protected area for food deliveries and will also provide food to those who need it. The level of support within the community for these critical services is fantastic, and, as regrettable as is the need for these assets, together we are working to lower the degree of need in Dunkley. Treasurer Scott Morrison visited CSF when in Frankston and is aware of the funding reductions that occurred in the years prior to my election. I am fighting for restoration of this important funding for CSF. Life-Gate is another organisation that does important work. Reverend Angel and Pastor Ulli Roldan work to equip and empower individuals and families to overcome crises such as drug and alcohol addictions and other life-controlling problems—suicidal tendencies, abuse, broken relationships and depression—and ultimately to fulfil their full potential in life. Life-Gate have recently acquired a specially designed and appropriately fitted out barbecue trailer with running water and a slide-out barbecue that will replace their makeshift food van. I was pleased the federal government and I were able to help their 'meals for change' project, providing $10,000 of federal funding through the Stronger Communities Program. Family Life also received a grant under the recent round of the Stronger Communities Program funding, worth $10,000 for their family relationship centre facilities. These kinds of services are critical in preventing or addressing family breakdowns, working to mitigating the risks posed to some of the more vulnerable members of our community. With a very similar focus, recently, the Turnbull government provided $117 million over five years to 102 Reconnect services across Australia, including the Salvation Army's Peninsula Youth & Family Services. Reconnect provides support and assistance to young people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, working to address many of the concerns before vulnerable young people in Dunkley find themselves in situations that escalate to the point that they have no support and accommodation. The Salvos youth and family centre on the Mornington Peninsula will provide counselling, family mediation and practical support to find accommodation for young people and their families. On that point, I must also mention the work of Fusion who operate from the former Balcombe Army barracks and support young people in my electorate but also in the neighbouring electorate of the Minister for Health, the member for Flinders. By keeping people at risk of homelessness connected with their families, communities, education and employment opportunities, we can work to prevent people falling into homelessness. Ultimately, some people do fall through the cracks, and it is good to know that when they do there are many services and concerned residents who are able to help. Thank you. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Bushfires 2963 19:40 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I want to take this opportunity this evening to raise the Tathra bushfires which caused such devastation to a beautiful community, a wonderful tight-knit community on our southern coast. Living in a beautiful area comes with risks. However, we are so lucky that we didn't lose any lives in that fire and that was really down to the members of that community. They took responsibility for getting out there and making sure that everyone that they could reach was warned, gathered together and evacuated from that area. It was so fortunate that we did not lose any lives, and I salute the community for its spirit and its effective action in preventing casualties. I also want to thank the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, and Angus Taylor, who both responded to me on that day on the phone. Minister Taylor came down to Tathra, we talked with the state officials and got the declaration happening that Monday afternoon to make sure that we got support flowing quickly. I am also grateful for the visits from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We needed to send a message to the community that the country was with them, and their visits encouraged donations into the mayor's relief fund. I want to thank everybody, and the members here have been donating, but it is important to keep those donations rolling. The mayor's relief fund is open on the number 0264992345. I am also grateful for the cooperation I've had from Chris Taylor, the regional manager for Telstra. We will drill down more into the communications aspect of this disaster. The power was lost to the tower that did exist there and it was badly damaged. So thank you to the regional manager for Telstra, who quickly got in what they call the 'COWs', the cells on wheels, as the community was starting to return and get up and running again. I have been in touch with Minister McKenzie's office in relation to the Blackspot Program, which was scheduled to provide a new mobile tower, which would have improved coverage in Tathra next year, but we would like to see that brought forward as the community really needs it right now. Also, because of the high dependency on the tourist industry, I would like to encourage people to keep their tourism plans because the essential infrastructure is there. The tourist accommodation is still there. It is the most beautiful beach on the Australian coastline with this wonderful community so please keep your tourism plans together; you will be welcomed with open arms. Obviously, the RFS were magnificent, just so courageous. The community has asked me to highlight the incredible courage of the helicopter pilots, who were flying in the most horrendous conditions on that day with 100-kilometre-an-hour gusting winds, smoke, flames and difficult terrain. They were just magnificent. We lost, yes, 69 homes and 39 were badly damaged but we saved 380 homes and that vital community infrastructure: the school, the historic Tathra wharf, which my great-great-grandfather built—an essential tourist icon—and the pub, which has been refurbished, the cafe and many other places. The community can rebuild their lives thanks to the heroism of the RFS, the helicopter pilots and SES all getting in there. I want to thank the Red Cross and Anglicare, which got into the evacuation centre and really looked after people immediately. Volunteers like Ian Campbell took it on themselves to run that evacuation centre. It was really a fantastic community effort as people responded with clothing, other goods and meals that really helped prop up a hurting community. We now need to follow through on that, of course, and find out about some of the issues around this. The preliminary finding was that it was power lines that caused this fire. There is an issue about this that we need to resolve—to ask questions about the maintenance of these power lines. We know that it was an issue in the Blue Mountains fires in 2013 and again in the Victorian fires in 2009. There were significant class actions that arose from both those incidents, and that is certainly something that I will be exploring with our community—the class action relief that may be open to them. So we will be holding a review conference to cover that. I'm meeting with the insurers as well to make sure that there is a rapid response to this crisis, and it seems we are getting that. So thank you to all who have reached out to my community. They are most grateful. Victoria: Andrews Government 2964 19:45 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray It has been a very sad week for all Victorians as we have yet more damning evidence in regard to the Victorian Labor Party—its scams and the rorts that it has been conducting over the last few years. This was damning evidence and there was a reluctant apology from the Victorian Premier for stealing money from the Victorian taxpayer. After years of Daniel Andrews denying the claims— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I will just ask the member for Murray to be careful with the reflection on stealing in case it's not the case— Mr DRUM 56430 Sure. Okay—taking money that wasn't theirs as part of the 2014 election. Now he has finally come clean and he has offered some sort of apology. I think it's very clear to say that the Premier of Victoria is very sorry that he got caught. However, he has only admitted any wrongdoing after he spent $1 million of taxpayers' funds to stop the Victorian Ombudsman from looking into this rort. The Victorian Ombudsman, Deborah Glass, was thorough in her assessments of the rort perpetrated by 21 current and former Labor MPs. It was made obvious that John Lenders was the architect of this rort, and he seemed to be rewarded for his deceit by being appointed to the chair of VicTrack in a $90,000 per annum role. There have so far been no repercussions for Daniel Andrews or the 21 other MPs who misused these taxpayer funds and cheated their way into office. There have been many comparisons between the Andrews government and the Australian test team. The Australian cricket team scuffed up a cricket ball. The captain has been sacked, the vice-captain has been sacked and the coach has been sacked. The Australian cricket team didn't steal any money from any taxpayers. Their positions in the team weren't voted on by the public. Compare this with the current state Labor government in Victoria; they have committed an act far worse. They have stolen this money from the Victorian taxpayers to pay for electioneering workers to get votes from within the Victorian community to help them win the 2014 election. The Labor Party has completely abused the trust of the Victorian community and should be held to account. Victorian Labor and Daniel Andrews have fought this investigation the whole way through. Daniel Andrews denied that they had abused their position in office. Then he had the Special Minister of State, Gavin Jennings, write to Ms Glass to say that her office didn't have the power to investigate. After that he took the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court and used more than a million dollars of taxpayers' money to try to stop the investigation. There are still 11 members of those 21 who are in the Victorian government today. Many of them are ministers. The state's chief law officer, Martin Pakula, was one of the ministers who signed over taxpayers' money so that these people could work on the election. So not only were there 21 members who put this money in, there's also a whole raft of current ministers who were the beneficiaries of all of this money that was put into the pool. All of those members were able to put on full-time staffers to run their campaigns. So whether they put the money in—which wasn't their money; it was taxpayers' money—or whether they were the ones who took the money out and spent the money on their campaigns, they are all guilty of using money that wasn't theirs. If any of these people were caught taking this money from an employer in the private sector they would lose their job and they would face charges. The worst thing about this behaviour is that it comes as no surprise when you see that the government has spent billions of dollars on not building a road that they have now been told by Infrastructure Australia they have to build. And it wasn't that long ago that we saw Steve Herbert taking his dogs on a chauffeured trip around the state. It wasn't that long ago that Don Nardella and Telmo Languiller scammed more than $130,000 of taxpayers' money for a second residence that they didn't have, living within their electorate. They also knew that what they were doing was clearly wrong, but they still continued to do it, just like Daniel Andrews, just like John Landers, just like Gavin Jennings. They had this scam checked with the parliamentary office, and they were told, 'This is outside the rules', and then they continued— (Time expired) Brand Electorate: Gilbert, Jerroldine 2965 19:50 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I am privileged in my role as the member for Brand to meet and get to know people who make a difference in the lives of those around them because it is the right thing to do and it is a good thing to do. And I'm very privileged to have enjoyed the support of Jerroldine Gilbert, a woman who personified what community spirit is and what commitment is by giving her all to her family, to the community and to the Labor Party. After Jerroldine met Barry, a young sailor, in Sydney the 1950s, she committed to moving the thousands of miles to Western Australia, where they would raise their family. And we were very lucky to have her here. Jerroldine Gilbert did not do things by half. She was a devoted wife to Barry and a loving mother to her five children, Margaret, David, Simon, Jennifer and Patricia. When they first arrived in WA, life was hard, with the family living in a cramped share house in Kwinana. Jerroldine did not accept this for her family and demanded a house from the Navy. And, unsurprisingly for anyone who knew her, the Navy found the family a home. Margaret, her daughter, tells me how her mum was always on a school committee or a parish committee, and when things got tough Jerroldine was always ready to step in. There are not many people who would take on the running of three school canteens at the one time, but Jerroldine did, and she did it well. A woman of action, she ran for and was elected to local council in her adopted home town of Kwinana in 1983 and served on that council for 12 years. She was passionate about her local community and about how she could help make it a better place for everyone. She would welcome new arrivals in town—migrants, people without family support—by taking them food or sharing local information. She knew herself how hard it was to relocate to a new place without family or support, and she wanted others to feel included and welcomed. She will be remembered for this kindness. Jerroldine was on the organising committee to start up the low-cost food store the Manna House in Kwinana. This independent and volunteer-run service provided support to local people who otherwise would have gone hungry. While Jerroldine was only supposed to get the service up and running, she ended up dedicating her time to this organisation for 20 years. She was a fierce voice for her community, and thanks to her hard work, alongside that of the late Tom Joyce, she founded the Kwinana-Rockingham Community Legal Centre more than 30 years ago. Coordinating a weekly evening legal service where lawyers gave free advice to people in need, her work here was the forerunner—the model—on which the oversubscribed and heavily relied-on legal SCALES community legal centre in Rockingham runs today. It is impossible to detail here today all the good and generous work that Jerroldine Gilbert did for her community—for my community. Her Labor values shone through in her community service and her work to achieve equality and fairness for people, no matter their background or where they came from. Her commitment to the Labor Party started more than 50 years ago, and during that time she worked on countless election campaigns to ensure that Labor representatives were elected to represent her community of Kwinana and across the electorate of Brand and the towns of Rockingham and Warnbro and the newer seat of Baldivis. In fact, she worked on every election campaign, state and federal, from the time the Kwinana branch of the WA Labor Party began, back in 1964. Jerroldine's legacy lives on in our Labor community, with her dedication and commitment to working for the Labor cause, a shining example to every member and volunteer. She was a true fighter for the cause, and her branch is less without her in it. But her legacy will always be in the Kwinana branch of the WA Labor Party. I know that her husband, Barry's, heart is broken, and her children's hearts are heavy with grief. She's greatly missed by her nine grandchildren and her great-grandchild. I would like to thank Barry, Margaret and the rest of Jerroldine's family for having so generously shared a part of their wife and mother so that others could be a bit better off in their lives. I would like to recognise Jerroldine's work in her branch and her life membership of our great party, a mark of respect and gratitude given to both Jerroldine and Barry for their dedication and years of service. Jerroldine was a stalwart of her branch, the Kwinana branch. She was an inspiration to others on what can be achieved when you believe in what you are doing. It is passionate and dedicated people, those who answer the rallying call, those who do the hard work without the glory, and all for the cause of what they believe in, who are part of Jerroldine's legacy. I would like to thank them all for the work they do, and I stand here today remembering Jerroldine Gilbert and acknowledging how lucky we are to have had her in our fold in the Kwinana branch of the WA Labor Party. Vale, Jerroldine Gilbert. Leichhardt Electorate: Cooktown Discovery Festival 2967 19:55 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to bring to the attention of the House a very special anniversary happening in a town in my electorate, Cooktown, in 2020. On 17 June 1770, His Majesty's bark the Endeavour, captained by Lieutenant James Cook, found refuge at the mouth of the Waalumbaal Birri, now known as the Endeavour River, after suffering severe damage when it struck the Great Barrier Reef. The crew, comprised of 86 men, spent 48 days in what was later to be named Cook's Town. This was the longest and most significant land based stay during Cook's east coast expedition, 18 years before the First Fleet sailed into Botany Bay. It was a period of extraordinary discoveries and significant contact with the Guugu Yimidhir and Kuku Yalanji people of the area. Despite Cook's scientific discoveries, it was the interactions with Guugu Yimidhir people that were most poignant. There were eight interactions in total. Genuine communication was established between the parties. However, a rift between the parties eventuated over the capture of turtles and Captain Cook's men's refusal to share the spoils. The wisdom of an elder ensured the rift was quickly sorted out. This moment has since become known as the first recorded act of reconciliation and was recorded with the presentation of a broken spear tip. Each year the Cooktown Discovery Festival is a major event on the regional calendar. It features the annual re-enactment of Cook's landing and interactions with the Guugu Yimidhir people. In 2018 and 2019, the discovery festival program will be extended to accommodate some of the proposed Cooktown 2020 festivities. Cooktown 2020 is a visionary 48-day festival celebrating the arrival of James Cook 250 years earlier. The 48-day festival highlights the 48 days that Captain Cook and his men spent onshore. Last week, I met with the Cooktown 2020 advisory committee, and some of the events they have planned are certainly very exciting. Some of the highlights of the proposed program include a possible royal visit, HMAS Endeavour tours, historical re-enactments, opera in the park, Indigenous art fairs, a tropical tropfest and a remembrance ceremony. Other events include a mayoral ball, and they're encouraging participants to attend in period dress, so I think it'll be a gala event in a wonderful little town called Cooktown. Certainly, my beautiful wife and I intend to be there to attend that event. There will also be a historic Twenty20 England versus Australia cricket match. I can assure you that, when they're playing that game, we'll keep a very close eye on the ball! I urge all levels of government to get behind this historic event. It is a very, very special one. Most people are unaware of the historical significance of Cooktown. There are a whole lot of things. This is where Cook first saw a kangaroo. It's where Banks recorded a whole lot of flora and fauna during the time that they were there. So there is a lot of history there. I know that the National Maritime Museum and a range of others are very keen to look into it, but I encourage all levels of government to get behind this event. It is very significant in our community. I also urge my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to maybe plan a week away in Cooktown to support the community and to take part in a little bit of what has been very significant history. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 2968 NOTICES

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Howarth ) took the chair at 16:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 2973 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Petitions: Timor-Leste 2973 16:00 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Today I rise to present two identical petitions which have been approved by the Petitions Committee for presentation to the house. One is in paper form, one is in electronic form, but both relate to the establishment of a maritime border between Australia and Timor-Leste. These petitions are the result of the work of Sister Susan Connelly, from the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart. Sister Connelly is also the convenor of the Timor Sea Justice Forum New South Wales and a member of the Australia Timor-Leste Advancement Society. Sister Connelly is here today in the Chamber with a number of petitioners, and I welcome them all here today. On their behalf, and as the local member for the principal petitioner, I present this paper petition with 6,370 signatures to the house. The petition read as follows— This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the absence of an internationally recognised border between Australia and Timor-Leste. We there ask the House to take all appropriate measures to assist the Government to finalise as soon as possible a fair and permanent maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste, using median line principles, in accordance with current international law. We ask that this be done in good faith and as a matter of urgency. from 6370 citizens (Petition No. PN0080) I also present this electronic petition, signed by 369 people, to the house. The petition read as follows— This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the absence of an internationally recognised border between Australia and Timor-Leste. We there ask the House to take all appropriate measures to assist the Government to finalise as soon as possible a fair and permanent maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste, using median line principles, in accordance with current international law. We ask that this be done in good faith and as a matter of urgency. from 369 citizens (Petition No. EN0232) The petitions call on the house to take measures to assist the government to finalise a fair and permanent maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste. Since the petitions began—and, in fact, just this month in New York—Australia and Timor-Leste have signed a treaty establishing their maritime boundaries. It is welcome news. It was news that was warmly welcomed by our shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Penny Wong, at the time, and news that, again, was welcomed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when the treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste establishing their maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea was tabled in the parliament. The signing of the treaty follows the work done by so many, including those here today and the many petitioners who signed the petitions who have pushed for an end to the more than 40 years of uncertainty over our shared maritime border. Ending this uncertainty for both nations has been a goal shared by Labor. Two years ago, Labor's deputy leader and then shadow minister for foreign affairs made clear that Labor was committed to working with Timor-Leste to reach a binding international agreement to settle the maritime border between our two countries. The signing of the treaty vindicates the position that Labor and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took. It is important to realise that the treaty has been reached by Australia and Timor-Leste jointly engaging and cooperating in a rules based international process. The treaty sets an important precedent. It is the first to be reached through conciliation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We're confident that this cooperation will continue between our two nations, and its signing and resolution of the uncertainty surrounding the maritime border will see a strengthening of our ties with the government and the people of Timor-Leste. We're thankful that the signing of the treaty has brought to an end such a long period of uncertainty, but we know there is still further work to be done with Timor-Leste to ensure that the development of the shared Greater Sunrise gas field benefits both our nations. I congratulate all those involved. Hasluck Electorate: Wine Industry 2974 16:03 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I'm here today to champion two very special regions that I'm privileged to represent in my electorate of Hasluck. They are the wine regions in the Perth Hills on the Darling Range; and the areas of Caversham, Middle Swan and Jane Brook within the Swan Valley, where Sandalford Wines, Mandoon Estate, RiverBank Estate and Ambrook Wines are located. This year the Swan Valley will celebrate its 184th anniversary of winemaking. It is the oldest wine region in Western Australia and the second oldest in Australia. It is also the world's second-closest wine region to a major capital city, with Vienna, Austria, having the closest. With over 150 businesses in the Swan Valley, they are well positioned to expand wine tourism, and I congratulate them on making the visitor experience quite unique. Then there is the Perth Hills wine region, a little further away from Perth's CBD. It consists of four wine routes, those being the Bickley Valley, Chittering Valley, Heart of the Hills, and Serpentine Valley winery and vineyards. The Bickley Valley and the Heart of the Hills wine regions fall within my electorate of Hasluck, where some exceptional wineries are located, such as Ashley Estate, Brookside Vineyard and Hainault Vineyard and Cafe, in Bickley; Carldenn Homestead Wines, in Walliston; Chidlow's Well Estate; Malmalling Vineyard, in Parkerville; Lake Charlotte Wines, in Wooroloo; and Lionmill Vineyards, in Mount Helena. The Perth Hills is uniquely characterised by charming cellar doors owned and operated by local families, with many young, progressive winemakers who are passionate to create vibrant, award-winning wines. The judges at the Perth Hills Wine Show were the renowned John Hanley, Ian McKenzie and Kim Horton, who were inspired and encouraged by the very hardworking, energetic and enthusiastic winemakers, who are not afraid to try something different in terms of styles and varieties. The wine-judging and trophy presentations were held at the Zig Zag Cultural Centre in Kalamunda. There were 53 entries and 12 winners. I congratulate the members of the Perth Hills Vignerons Association, and the exhibitors, on another successful wine show. The president, Dennis Humfrey, and the secretary, Lyn Sykes, did an outstanding job in coordinating the entries, the judging and the trophy presentations. I particularly want to congratulate Millbrook Winery of Jarradale in the Serpentine Valley region, and its winemaker, Mr Damian Hutton, for being awarded the best dry white table wine in the show for its 2016 viognier. In fact, Millbrook Winery scooped up three more awards for its voignier and shiraz viognier, taking out the Most Successful Exhibitor, the Chairman's Trophy, and Wine of the Show. I encourage everyone to visit our CBD vineyards of the Swan Valley and Perth Hills to sample, taste and take in the unique valley-to-valley experience. Australia's National Institutions 2975 16:06 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra It has been a decade since the last comprehensive review into Australia's national institutions was conducted by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, with its very excellent 2008 'size matters' report. In that time, a lot has changed. A lot has changed on the media front: social media, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Yet a lot has remained the same, so it's time we take another look at the contemporary environment within which these organisations are operating. That's why as Deputy Chair of the National Capital and External Territories Committee I welcome the inquiry that we launched today. I welcome the fact that the inquiry will look into and report on the range of innovative strategies that Canberra's national institutions are using to maintain viability and relevance to sustainably grow their profile, visitor numbers and revenue, including creating a strong brand, an online presence, experimenting with new forms of public engagement and audience participation, conducting outreach, cultivating private sector support, developing other income streams, ensuring the appropriateness of governance structures, and, most importantly, any other relevant matter the committee wishes to examine, including the process for establishing new institutions. The terms of reference of the inquiry are broad—they are deliberately broad. They are intentionally broad so that we can ensure we have a clear read on the issues faced by our national institutions in 2018, in terms of funding, in terms of staffing, in terms of completing their legislative mandates to collect, to maintain, to preserve, to exhibit, to share, to engage, and to tell our national story. I have been a strong advocate for these national institutions and I've been constantly calling out the government on the impact that its funding cuts have had on these institutions, our national collection. We should not pretend that these funding cuts to our national institutions are about cutting fat. We should not pretend that they're about cutting bone. These cuts run so deep that we are cutting now into vital organs. So I welcome the opportunity for the Canberra community to participate in this inquiry and to reinforce to the committee and to this government that it's only by properly funding our national institutions that we can ensure we have the exhibits and collections to share with the people of Canberra, to share with the people of Australia and to share with people from overseas. After all, it is only by properly funding our national institutions that we will be able to retain the highly-competent, skilled staff we need to maintain and preserve our collections, and, through it, preserve for future generations our history, our story and our identity. I encourage Canberrans to make submissions to the committee by Tuesday, 8 May, via the inquiry's website. Central West New South Wales: Bushfires 2976 16:09 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I'd like to pay tribute to all of the emergency services personnel who performed so magnificently during a recent bushfire emergency in the Central West of New South Wales. The first fire, at Belerada Creek, started on Friday, 9 February, and the following day the pine forests of Mount Canobolas were ablaze, with smoke billowing over the city of Orange. The blaze was also into the native forest and was certainly very threatening. Both fires were attended by nearly 100 brigades in total, working around the clock for 10 days. Between 150 and 180 firies fought the Mount Canobolas blaze, with the Lidster and Towac RFS brigades leading from the front. A further 80 to 100 fought the Belerada Creek fire, which was led by The Ponds and the Freemantle RFS brigades. Numerous bulldozers and graders teamed up to form firebreaks. The Hercules large air tanker and six helicopters were used to water bomb these fires into submission. When these fires were brought to an end, nearly 3,000 hectares had been burnt, but miraculously no lives or homes were lost. I'd like to pay tribute to the unstinting efforts of the 65 RFS brigades within the Canobolas zone who were involved in the Canobolas fire, in particular zone manager David Hoadley, operations manager Brett Bowden and the Mitchell forward controllers, including group captain Peter Davis, senior deputy captain Tim Healey and deputy group captain Andrew Elms. I'd also like to mention the brigade captains of Lidster, John Sturgeon, and Towac, Stephen Vardanega. I'd also like to pay tribute to the 34 brigades from the Chifley zone who participated so magnificently to extinguish the Belerada Creek fire, and all of those local brigades who assisted. I'd like to mention in particular zone manager Greg Sim, group captain John Kjoller, brigade captain Peter Spicer, from The Ponds, and also brigade captain Fred Howarth, from Freemantle. I'd also like to mention the Cumberland zone RFS; the Central West strike teams from Fire & Rescue New South Wales; the National Parks and Wildlife Service, based in Bathurst; the Forestry Corporation of New South Wales; the SES from Orange and its surrounding areas—they were magnificent; the New South Wales Police Force; the New South Wales Ambulance Service; and, of course, Fire & Rescue New South Wales. We are lucky in country New South Wales to have such wonderful volunteers. I was in the Canobolas zone RFS headquarters on the Sunday afternoon when those men and women in Orange were so concerned about that fire escaping the Mount Canobolas area and heading into the Pinnacle region, which is quite heavily populated. It was touch and go. The men and women in that zone HQ looked absolutely exhausted but thoroughly professional. It was with a sense of pride that I heard a few hours later that the winds had dropped down, and they'd brought the fire back under some semblance of control. We are very grateful to all of our emergency services personnel for the wonderful work they do in keeping our communities safe. Tropical Cyclone Marcus, Northern Territory Football League, Northern Territory: Program Funding 2977 16:12 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Yesterday I updated the House on the devastation caused by Cyclone Marcus up in the NT. There are still a lot of people suffering in the aftermath, with nearly 500 people still without power, but I did thank everyone who hooked in and helped each other, neighbours helping neighbours, emergency services, Defence and groups like the Darwin's Sikh community, who, when so many thousands of Darwinites were out of power, went and cooked meals and gave those meals to members of the community. What I didn't mention was that, on the Wednesday after the cyclone, the Northern Territory Football League held the men's Premier League final at TIO Stadium in Darwin. The Darwin Buffaloes were unable to overcome the minor premiers, Southern Districts, but it was a ripper of a game, decided by just one point. Congratulations to the Crocs. I'd like to make a special mention of Darwin Buffaloes co-captain Jarrod Stokes, who played the game of his life and was awarded the Chaney Medal as best on the ground. Jarrod showed tremendous leadership throughout the finals campaign. I'd invite our Prime Minister to meet with Jarrod to learn about what true leadership is. It did take the Prime Minister four days to pick up the phone to Darwin to ask how we were all going up there after that very damaging cyclone, which is unfortunate. From the people of Darwin and Palmerston, in my electorate: we are sick and tired, up in the Northern Territory, of being treated as second-class citizens. We heard yesterday in the chamber about the city deal for Western Sydney. But we've also heard from the minister, Minister Fletcher, that the city deal for Darwin won't even be signed this year. At a time when we need job-creating infrastructure hitting the ground in Darwin, there's nothing to be seen. In Western Sydney, they negotiated with eight different councils and the New South Wales government. We've got one council in Darwin, so I don't understand what the hold-up is. Perhaps it is to fit in with an election timetable. But get the money going. Come up and sign the deal. We've had a $1.1 billion backflip on remote housing—not helpful—and $15 million cut from CDU—not helpful—and $16 million cut from NT's public hospitals—not helpful. We've also had actual cuts to our education budget. I'm not talking about how Labor would have spent more on education than the government; I'm talking about actual government cuts to the funding when we are in so much need of education across the expanse of the Northern Territory. It is not helpful. The tourism sector is struggling. It is not just because of the backpacker tax; tourism is really struggling with airfares. The cost of airfares is keeping tourists away from the NT. So we've launched a Fair Fares NT campaign, and I ask Territorians to get behind it. We've got an inquiry into Darwin coming after Easter, and we need to get fairer fares into the Territory. Dunkley Electorate: Frankston Football Club 2977 16:15 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Many of my colleagues will be aware of the plight of the Frankston Dolphins football club, as I have told their story a number of times before in this place. Much to the Dunkley community's horror, in late 2016 it was revealed that the Dolphins VFL team had had their VFL licence revoked and had been placed in voluntary administration due to significant debt. This club, an important part of the prominent sporting community in Dunkley, has produced a number of elite players who went on to play in the Australian Football League for several different clubs, including players and the coach of the premiership Bulldogs team a couple of years ago. I met with the AFL and helped set up the Save the Frankston Dolphins Steering Committee, whose first meeting was held in my office, as well as a GoFundMe page. A great number of people came together to support the Dolphins' fundraising and efforts towards readmission to the VFL. The Dolphins' creditors agreed to keep the club afloat and, following the production of a sound plan to become financially viable and put in place strong governance structures, I am proud to say we were successful in lobbying for the VFL licence to be reinstated late last year. Next weekend, on Saturday, 7 April, the Dolphins VFL team for 2018 will run out onto the ground. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:17 to 16:30 Mr CREWTHER 248969 As I was saying, next weekend, on Saturday, 7 April, the Dolphins team for 2018 will run out onto the ground for the first home game in what feels like a very, very long time. The story of the local club who faced what at times felt like impossible challenges has inspired a lot of pride amongst the community. A huge crowd is expected, and I will also be there supporting our local footy team. Fundraising and sourcing funding has been a big part of this journey. Last week I joined the Dolphins VFL team, both players and management, as well as the member for Frankston and the management of SkyBus, the chartered bus service taking people from Frankston to Tullamarine Airport and vice versa, for their official sponsorship partnership with the Dolphins and the naming of the footy oval as SkyBus Stadium. This is a major step forward for the Dolphins, securing their primary sponsor throughout 2018 and beyond. Then, on Thursday, I joined the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Matthew Guy, and the outstanding Liberal candidate for Frankston, Michael Lamb, to further the investment in our local community. It was announced that the Liberal state opposition would be committing $650,000 to lighting of a broadcast match quality standard for SkyBus Stadium if elected. This wouldn't have happened without the terrific advocacy of the Liberal candidate for Frankston, Michael Lamb. The Dolphins story is worthy of a movie blockbuster. We could not have had more of a happy ending, and we hope to see a premiership for the Dolphins soon to add to their trophy cabinet by the end of the season. Yerbury, Dr Justin 2978 16:31 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham All of us in our constituencies would regularly meet people who are fighting various diseases and who are inspirational to us in their efforts to bring attention to the sorts of causes that many of us will go to functions and events for, but sometimes you meet a person whose personal story is so inspirational that, to be honest, it leaves me to some extent lost for words about that individual. I want to share one of those stories with the house today. Many of you may have seen last night the Australian Story program on Justin Yerbury. Justin's a constituent in my area, 44 years old. The program told the story of not only his own but his family's battle with motor neurone disease. It's a marvellous story. Justin was not a science or medical student and not someone who started early in his life with a great determination to work in that space. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 16:33 to 16:44 Ms BIRD DZP As I was saying before the division, occasionally we meet people in life who, despite the terrible adversities they are dealing with, become an inspiration to all of us, through their love and dedication to their fellow man. Justin Yerbury is an amazing example of that. He was the subject of the Australian Story episode last night, 'The enemy within'. It is not just Justin; his whole family are amazing people. Justin wasn't a scientist in his younger days; in fact, he was a player with the Illawarra Hawks, our fabulous, strong basketball team, and he'd studied commerce at university. He lost many members of his family to motor neurone disease, and this inspired him to do research. He went back to uni, starting from the beginning, doing an undergraduate degree, all the way through to becoming an internationally recognised specialist in motor neurone disease. Indeed, the show was introduced by comments from the, sadly, recently lost Professor Stephen Hawking, who had met with Justin and who spoke of the important work that he was doing. Justin is enormously loved by the research institute that he works with at our university. He continues to work there. He recently had surgery again and is looking forward to getting back to work to continue his groundbreaking research. I just want to put on the record that people in my region and, I have to say, across the world have a great love for Justin; his wife, Rachel; his daughters, Talia and Maddison; and their whole family as they go through this difficult time but remain so committed to looking after other people. It's just inspirational. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the member for Cunningham. I did catch the end of that program last night. It was quite inspirational. Music Industry 2979 16:46 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Tonight, the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Music will be holding its annual Rock the House event to showcase some of our best Australian music. This is a bipartisan group, as you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I'm grateful to the member for Whitlam for his support. Tonight we are delighted to welcome exciting new talent All Our Exes Live in Texas; Australian music legend Ian Moss, singer, songwriter and member of Cold Chisel; Oz rock legend John Paul Young; and the multi-award-winning Kasey Chambers, who is actually a fellow South Australian. These iconic Australian musicians are here to explain the importance of copyright protection for our artists, to ensure Australian artists get the airtime they deserve, and to explain the benefits of promoting their work overseas. Australian musicians are small-business people. They employ, they invest and they export. Our artists and their record labels contribute $4 billion to $6 billion to our economy each year. Growing music exports would see these figures grow. I am grateful to the team at APRA AMCOS, the Australian Performing Rights Association, for their support of artists, for the policy development work they do and, of course, for their support of the event here at Parliament House this evening. They are tireless in their efforts for their members and for Australian music. Thanks also to industry body ARIA, and the PPCA. Music and live music are also supported by our pubs. Live music alone generates $1½ billion to $2 billion per annum, and, in my home state of South Australia, for example, in any given month, some 70 per cent of live music gigs are performed in our pubs, providing jobs and work for everyone who is associated with hotels. My sincere thanks to the Australian Hotels Association and to Diageo for their support of the event tonight. Last year I spoke about the top six things that members of the parliament and musicians have in common, I spoke about the economic contribution musicians and our pubs make to our nation and I spoke about the important role musicians have in taking our Australian stories to the world. Today I want to acknowledge the role they play in providing the soundtracks to our lives. I've listed some of the songs that mean a lot to me as part of a playlist put together for Sounds Australia, along with eight of my Liberal, Nationals, Labor and Greens colleagues. One of the songs chosen by the member for Dawson was GANGgajang's 'Sounds of Then'. The songwriter reflected that 'smells and sounds and sensations can rekindle a memory, which is what music does so successfully for people'. Whether it's the first song your partner played for you or the first band you saw live, whether it's the tapes and the records your parents played during your childhood—whatever it might be, whatever the special memory is for you—our musicians provide the soundtracks to our lives. On behalf of every Australian who enjoys Australian music, I want to thank all of our fabulous musicians, particularly those performing here for us this evening, and I hope that everyone has a really enjoyable night. Joondalup Health Campus 2980 16:49 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I would also just add, along with the member for Boothby, that we are very much looking forward to the event this evening. Not long ago I stood in this place and spoke about the Joondalup Health Campus, which for the people of Perth's northern suburbs is our hospital; it's the hospital that services the majority of the northern suburbs. I note that the member for Moore is here, and it services many people in his electorate too. At that time, I spoke about how almost half of the local patients in the northern suburbs have to travel elsewhere, often as far away as some of the southern suburbs, to get medical attention, because the Joondalup Health Campus just doesn't have the resources that it needs to cope with the growing demand of Perth's growing northern suburbs. I know very well that the health professionals there are doing the best that they can to care for the community and provide the service for the community, and indeed they continue to do a fantastic job. But no doubt the hospital is under pressure. I'll repeat very quickly what I said back at the time when I spoke about the Joondalup hospital. Because the population in the northern suburbs is expected to grow by almost a third from 2013 to 2026, it's estimated that in just four years the hospital demand will outstrip capacity to deliver services for the northern suburbs. Right now, even before that has happened, the hospital has around the same number of emergency department presentations as the Fiona Stanley Hospital, but it only has 56 emergency beds compared to 70 at the Fiona Stanley Hospital. It can only treat 58 per cent of local patients, which means almost half the people in the northern suburbs have to go elsewhere to get treatment at a local hospital. Hospital admissions have increased by 28 per cent, and operations have increased by 60 per cent. Just two weeks ago I was absolutely delighted to stand with Bill Shorten, with Mark McGowan, the Premier of WA, and with the member for Ballarat, the shadow health minister, to announce that Labor will provide funding of $154 million for a state-of-the-art 75-bed mental health unit at the Joondalup Health Campus. The federal funding matches the McGowan Labor government's funding to expand the emergency department, add 90 new beds and eight new operating theatres, open an urgent care clinic and build a medihotel. This is fantastic news for the people of the northern suburbs, and I'm proud of the people of Cowan who stood up and fought for their hospital—those who made calls and doorknocked among their neighbours to talk about this very important campaign. I'm very proud that the announcement has come from Bill Shorten and from Labor. I'm proud to be a member of Labor. Moore Electorate: Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre 2981 16:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I wish to advocate for more research funding on behalf of the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre based at Edith Cowan University in my electorate, which is one of the foremost new centres for cybersecurity research and capacity building. I commend the work of the vice-chancellor, Professor Steve Chapman, and the security research institute director, Professor Craig Valli, for their vision and pioneering role in establishing this new field of research. The growth in popularity of cloud based services, personal mobile devices and social networking sites has resulted in an increased exposure to high levels of security threats. The Cyber Security CRC is part of the work of key government, industry and research groups to strengthen systems and networks, training the next generation of cybersecurity specialists. Ultimately, this will have benefits for the community, which will enjoy an online experience that is more secure. ECU is the lead partner in the new cooperative research centre, which brings together 25 different industry, research and government partners. The Cyber Security CRC brings together expertise across six of Australia's leading cybersecurity universities, together with industry and government partners, including the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Taxation Office, the Attorney-General's office, CERT, Cisco, the Department of Defence, Data61, Tata Consultancy Services, Jemena, ActewAGL and Singtel Optus. Adequate resourcing of the CRC is required in order to focus on building three key areas of capability: firstly, ensuring the security of critical infrastructure by developing new approaches, tools and techniques to predict, prevent, detect and respond to cyberthreats from nation-states, criminals and other individuals; secondly, ensuring industry, small enterprises and the community can access online services with confidence, which will also grow Australia's reputation as a safe and trusted place to do business and access cyberspace; and thirdly, to build and develop the next generation of industry, government and research cybersecurity leaders. Last year, the federal government named ECU as one of two academic centres of excellence, with initial funding of $1 million. However, more resources and funding are required in order to develop world-class knowledge and expertise in Joondalup. I make the case for more substantial investment by the federal government in research and development at Edith Cowan University. I look forward to working closely with the Minister for Jobs and Innovation to ensure that the Edith Cowan University remains well resourced. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 2982 CONDOLENCES Staunton, Ms Donna 2982 16:56 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders On indulgence, I wish to join with the opposition in extending our condolences to the friends and, in particular, the family of Donna Staunton. I particularly want to thank the opposition for extending the courtesy of joining us in this motion. In turning to Donna, I reflect on the lives of one of Australia's great health policy professionals and advocates, and we're joined by her daughter, Madeleine, here in the chamber today, representing the whole family, along with friends and family, including Dr Michael Wooldridge. Donna was one of Australia's great health policy professionals and advocates. I briefly want to reflect on three things: Donna through the eyes of her family; Donna in terms of her professional achievements; and Donna through somebody who knew her as a friend. I can start in no stronger place than through the words of her daughter, Madeleine, and the opening words of the oration on her loss. She said the words that I think every parent would hope to have said about them. She began with the phrase: I am proud to be my mother's daughter. That is as high an accolade as any parent could ever ask for and any parent could ever be given. I think, Madeleine, you may be proud to be your mother's daughter, but she would be proud of the daughter that you have become, and the same for your brother, her son. Maddie went on to say, and I think all who know Donna would agree with this: … I think we could unanimously agree that mum was an inspiration to us all. She was strong willed, yet empathetic and personable. She connected with everyone, and she was both respectful and fiercely loyal. I would add to that that she was a fierce advocate, as well. I think both Catherine and I and all who've dealt with her knew that she represented the things that she believed in with great force and great vigour but with a great sense of fairness. As a person, that is the mark of her. As a professional, of course, her achievements were legion. Amongst many other things, she had appointments to the Hearing Care Industry Association; the National Breast Cancer Centre; New South Wales WorkCover, one of her great passions; the Cooperative Research Centre, or CRC, for Mental Health; the National Pharmaceutical Services Association; the Medicines Partnership of Australia; and the LifeHealthcare Group. What a range of organisations she represented and she worked on. I worked with her and Mike Wooldridge, a former health minister, on many issues about improving health cover, but she worked across parties over many years and with many different ministers at federal and state level, and she worked with an almost unique level of skill and decency and professionalism. Above all else, her goals were always: what will give better access to patients, what will give better treatment for patients and what will give better medical outcomes? That's a really rare combination of skills and decency and integrity. I also note, on a personal level—it wasn't that long ago; it was less than 12 months ago—I was at an event with her and with Mike Wooldridge, and during the course of the evening Mike served one of his vintage ports. He is very proud of his vintage ports. The waiter brought them along—I will, just for the record, note that I was maintaining my professional abstinence—and tripped. Most of these wines fell over Donna, and the vintage port was all over her beautiful evening gown. Mike, as he so often did, leapt to the cause and made sure that the last two glasses were preserved! It was only afterwards that he turned to Donna to ensure that she was okay. But she brushed it off. She followed through with the rest of the evening. She was worried that she'd be arrested for D and D when she went for a taxi. But what was interesting was the sanguineness, the generosity of spirit and the sense of humour with which she approached this little vignette. Her life was one of warmth, one of family and one which made a difference. When you boil it all down, there can be no greater tribute than the one that Maddie gave, which was: 'I am proud to be my mother's daughter.' That is as much as any of us can ever hope for. She aspired to that, she lived that and she embodied that. We will miss her. 17:01 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I join the Minister for Health in rising in this condolence debate for the loss of Donna Staunton, a woman who was known well to many of us here. Despite the solemnness of the occasion and the reason we are here, I can't help but think that Donna would have a bit of a wry smile over this—that Greg and I have united, which we don't often do. I'm sure she would have been most amused by that. I do want to add my voice, both in this place and beyond, to those who've conveyed their sadness over the loss of Donna. I too would particularly like to acknowledge the presence of Madeleine, Donna's daughter, and I pass on my condolences to you and to your brother, Jack, for your loss. Starting her career as a registered nurse, before moving into law, Donna was a strong and successful health advocate working across both the corporate and political spheres, and the not-for-profit sector as well. At various times, Donna held senior roles in a Fortune 500 company, an ASX top 20 company and at the CSIRO. Donna's success was rewarded when she became the first woman to sit on the Business Council of Australia, a major accomplishment. However, it was, of course, through her work in the health sector that I came to know her. As the managing director and one of the founders of The Strategic Counsel, Donna advised companies operating in virtually every segment of the health and medical technologies sectors in Australia by helping them deal with the government and the Australian regulatory system. Without the advice of Donna and her colleagues, these companies would have found it far more difficult to get their technologies and innovations to Australian patients and to improve their lives. She served on the boards of the National Breast Cancer Centre, New South Wales WorkCover, the Global Foundation and the Institute of Public Affairs, and she was the director of both LifeHealthcare group and the Cooperative Research Centre for Mental Health. Donna had been the CEO of both the Hearing Care Industry Association and the National Pharmaceutical Services Association, as well as being the chair of the Medicines Partnership of Australia. I know that, in particular, advocating for those dealing with hearing loss was a priority for Donna. I know that has been taken up by her colleagues at The Strategic Counsel. I know that the pro bono work that she did for this sector in particular was something she was intensely passionate about. Donna and I may not have always agreed about politics, although sometimes we agreed quite a lot, but her professionalism, her drive for leadership and her unique skill set are talents I certainly will long remember. Listening to and hearing what others have said about Donna, the thing that comes up again and again is trust. People from all sides of politics, and from across both the public and private sectors, all agreed that she had a remarkable talent to engender trust in those she was dealing with. Her rare ability to work with others, to bring those of different opinions and purposes together to seek a common solution, will be sorely missed. She was extremely focused, professional in everything that she did and, as the minister has noted, fearless. It was with these attributes that Donna became one of the few individuals appointed to senior government boards by both Labor and Liberal governments, such was the high esteem in which she was held. These same attributes are what endeared her to so many and what have led to the flood of tributes that have followed her untimely passing. We know that no-one will miss her more than her family and her friends—I particularly acknowledge the long-term friendship of Dr Michael Wooldridge, who is here in the chamber as well—but she will also be missed by her colleagues, who loved her dearly, and all of us who had the privilege and pleasure of crossing paths with her. I know she was an intensely private person and that her diagnosis of ovarian cancer was something she was deeply private about. But for those of us in the health space—and I acknowledge the health minister's commitment in this area—who understand the trauma that ovarian cancer reaps on women across our community, Donna's passing hasn't gone unnoticed, and neither has the important work we need to do to increase the survival rates of those with ovarian cancer. 17:06 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I'd very much like to associate myself with the comments of the Minister for Health and the shadow minister for health. I've enjoyed both of those roles—not so much the shadow health minister role as much as I did the Minister for Health role. Nonetheless, one of the highlights during my course as a member in this place, as shadow minister and as the Minister for Health, was my dealings with Donna. A lot has been said, and quite ably, by the health minister and shadow health minister about Donna's professional background and the contribution she made. I wanted to join this debate not to add to that or to repeat the many accomplishments and attributes of her professional career; on a personal note, I wanted to associate myself as somebody who had a lot of time for Donna. I admired her very much and I enjoyed her friendship. Sometimes it's a sad reality that you don't learn as much as you should about somebody until their passing or until a life event, and there's a lot that I've learnt about Donna's professional background, but there's nothing that I've learnt in terms of the person that she was. I already knew that she was a great mum who loved her children. She spoke very fondly of Jack and Maddie. She spoke very fondly of her responsibilities as a mother, and she was a very thoroughly decent person. There are lots of people who you meet in this place, and I can say on behalf of my two colleagues here that, in the health space, there are many people who come through the door who, sometimes, you wish might not stay as long as they would like to stay. There are lots of fine people within the health sector, but there are lots of people who have self-interest as their main motivator. Donna wasn't one of those people. She was able to build relationships with both sides of parliament because of her decency and the other attributes that she brought to the role. She was able to prosecute a case effectively, she was able to do it compassionately and she was able to do it for the right reasons. I enjoyed many dinners with her. I indulge perhaps more than the health minister in terms of the wine on offer. Nonetheless, dinners were an occasion where people let their guard down, and you did see and appreciated an insight into the person Donna was. Whilst Michael Wooldridge was frantic at the dinners, directing and trying to provide the prompting for discussion—perhaps getting back to the order of business—Donna was a soothing influence within that business relationship. She was somebody who had a great relationship with Mike, and I enjoyed very much catching up with them both. You could see the dynamic between them. I know that not only Jack and Maddie and the people who are here today, Donna's family and friends, feel that loss but Mike feels that loss as well. Donna meant a lot to all of us. As I said, none of us need to prosecute her professional achievements. But today, to Jack and Maddie, I want to say: I want your children, at some point way in the future, to read the words said in this parliament about a very fine person. I want your stories to be relayed to them, but I'd like our stories to be relayed as well. I am pleased for you to know today that we feel very deeply for you, we're very sorry for your loss and we were very honoured to have known a person of such character, somebody for whom we had a great deal of respect. She was someone who obviously was taken too early by a terrible disease, and that scar will live with the family forever, but I hope that we can provide some support today by celebrating a life that was well lived and someone who was respected by those of us who worked with her professionally here. I can add no more than that, but it really is an occasion for us to mark the passing of a wonderful person who was respected by both sides of parliament. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to add to the remarks today. 17:10 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I am pleased to join in today's statements on the death of Donna Staunton. Much of what I would like to say involves associating myself with remarks that have been already been made by the Minister for Health; by the member for Dickson, a previous Minister for Health; and by Catherine King, the member for Ballarat, the shadow minister for health. All of us feel the same way about Donna and Donna's contribution. I was shocked and upset when I learnt that we had lost Donna earlier this year. I knew she wasn't well, but nevertheless this seemed unexpected and particularly cruel. My own experience with Donna revolves around two things: her bright, shining, charming personality and her care for other people, something that the previous speaker indicated is not always present in those who knock on the doors in these corridors. Donna had the sort of personality where, if you had a meeting with her, you actually felt energised and better for speaking with her. She was a person who gave you energy but never drained it from you. She was a person who came very carefully with requests, with advocacy and with information but never with demands. I can remember meeting her when I hadn't been in the position for very long, and the first thing she said to me was, 'How are you?' She said it in a way that made me know that she was actually interested in the answer and keen to contribute, if she could, to making the circumstances of my life, in that very small moment, more positive. Again, for those who do the sorts of work that Donna and Strategic Counsel did around here, as my predecessors have said, sometimes there's a little bit of eye-rolling when they knock on the door or we see their name on a meeting paper, but I can genuinely say I never felt that with Donna. She absolutely knew her stuff, and she didn't just sit there and let the people she may have brought—I remember Aspen Medical, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and CSL—do the talking as if her role was complete once the meeting commenced. She knew her stuff. She talked about what was possible, what was necessary and what she and they would like to see, but again it was never about making demands. It was never about pushing you into a corner or suggesting that you had no other course of action but to do this particular thing. Thank you to the Federation Chamber and to the parliament for the statements today. To Maddie and to Jack: your pain will be intense, but I know that in the future this discussion will bring you some comfort. I'm sure it will, even though that intense pain will seem to take a long time to subside. To my very good friend, Michael Wooldridge, who was also Donna's very good friend: I also feel your pain on this particular occasion, and I join with my colleagues in commending these statements to the parliament. 17:14 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Like many of my colleagues in this place, I too knew and had occasion to have discussions with Donna over a long period of time, and I join with all my colleagues here in extending our condolences to her family and friends, and I thank everybody who has contributed to this discussion. BILLS 2986 BILLS Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017, Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 2986

Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill 2017

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2986 17:14 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The Migration Amendment (Regulation of Migration Agents) Bill and cognate bill aim to amend the Migration Act 1958 to eliminate the requirement, in part, for lawyers to be registered as migration agents in order to provide immigration advice. People seeking help from a migration agent in Australia are by nature usually vulnerable consumers, often seeking assistance with an application to reunite with family, help to process a humanitarian visa or assistance to take up a job offer in Australia, or to visit for extended periods of time, all of which are complicated and difficult. It is a difficult system to navigate, no matter what a person's background. It is, of course, important that Australia's migration program have integrity—(Quorum formed)—and operate in a non-discriminatory way, and that the people who are offering migration advice act in the best interests of their clients and within a proper legal framework. For a long time, though, legal practitioners of migration law have had to be regulated separately as migration agents under the federal Migration Act if providing immigration assistance, in addition to being regulated as legal practitioners under their relevant state or territory legal profession laws. Under the present scheme it is practically impossible for a legal practitioner advising on migration law issues to provide legal services in this area without also being compelled to be registered as a migration agent. Migration law is the only area of legal practice that is subject to these two separate regulatory regimes. However, the vast majority of migration agents, two-thirds, do not hold a legal practising certificate. Under the current rules an agent can provide only immigration assistance, which is defined as being different from immigration legal assistance, which can be provided by migration agents who are also qualified as practising lawyers. This of course has raised a number of uncertainties, including whether immigration assistance is being provided as a legal service; whether the service provider is a migration assistant, who is authorised to provide only immigration assistance; whether advice on immigration law attracts legal professional privilege; how complaints are to be made and handled and, in particular, to which body; and the availability and nature of the relevant consumer protections. Consumers are also likely to pay more to cover the costs of practitioners complying with two separate regulatory frameworks and registration as a migration agent. We note that the bill implements the recommendations of the review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, which was conducted by the eminent Dr Christopher Kendall, now Judge Kendall. The review found that lawyers who hold a practising certificate should be removed from the regulatory scheme that regulates migration agents. The bill also extends the time period for registration after having completed a prescribed course in order to be registered as a migration agent and clarifies the definitions of immigration assistance and immigration representation. This removal of dual regulation is fundamental. In fact, with a government that says that it is hell-bent on removing overregulation and red tape, given that this review occurred in 2014, one really does have to question why it is now 2018 and we are only just getting around to debating this legislation. Indeed, as I said, the barrister who conducted the review that led to this legislation has since been appointed not only to the AAT but also to the Federal Circuit Court, and , of course, I congratulate him for that. It is important to note here that there has been, for a very long time, an overregulation where legal practitioners, who, along with doctors, probably, face one of the most stringent regulatory regimes and highest levels of professional obligation of any regulated profession, also had to be regulated through the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority. It is absolutely a good thing that this law removes that requirement for dual regulation. It's a good thing because it means that those seeking to access the assistance of migration agents will not have to pay for the cost a of dual regulation of this nature. It's a good thing because clarifying the definitions of immigration assistance and immigration representation, along with legal assistance, will provide clarity in relation to the types of work that can be done by a legal practitioner versus someone who is solely a migration agent. And it is also a good thing because it frees up the tens of thousands of lawyers in Australia who have not, until this point, been registered as migration agents to provide immigration assistance and advice on migration matters to a growing number of people in this country who require it. It is not an easy system to navigate, in particular, when it relates to multiple legal issues. It is important that lawyers are able to be engaged in this work and that we avoid the situation, as has frequently arisen, where lawyers providing advice to clients on other matters have had to refer them to an additional adviser, a migration agent, in order to assist with those migration related matters. The bill also makes changes to repeal some redundant provisions and allow the Migration Agents Registration Authority the power to refuse an application to become a registered migration agent where the applicant has been required, but has failed, to provide information or answers to questions about their application. This is critical for maintaining the integrity of the registration system. The bill also requires migration agents who have been registered on a non-commercial basis to notify the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority if there is a change in circumstance where they've gone into providing immigration assistance on a commercial basis. This will complement amendments made to the legislation dealing with the rates of charge that can be made by a migration agent and makes the higher commercial charge the default charge that applies. The OMARA review, as I said, was undertaken back in 2014. This government has said, and continues to maintain, that it is a government that is about removing superfluous red tape. Between our sides of politics, we may not always agree what is superfluous red tape, and often we see the deregulation of areas by this government in areas where those regulations actually make sense. But here, after a review that was conducted all the way back in 2014, four years later, we are now only just getting around to removing overregulation of the legal profession—already one of the most highly regulated professions in the country—to free them up to be able to get on with the good work of helping the many people in Australia and their families with the migration processes, in which it is always important to maintain, and operate with, a high level of integrity. I commend this legislation to the House. 17:24 Mr HART 263070 Bass What we have before us today is an omnibus package of reforms aimed at deregulating, to some degree, the migration advice industry. The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 amends the Migration Act 1958 in several ways. A key change is that it removes the requirement for lawyers who hold practising certificates to register as a migration agent when providing immigration advice to their client, with the stated aim of lessening the regulatory burden placed upon these practitioners. The bill also removes the 12-month time limit in which a person must apply for registration following completion of a prescribed course, complementing changes that replace a graduate certificate with a graduate diploma in Australian migration law and practice, together with the development of a capstone exam. It also ensures that the definitions of 'immigration assistance' and 'immigration representation' include assisting a person in relation to a request to the minister to exercise the minister's power under section 501C or 501CA of the Migration Act to revoke a character related visa refusal or cancellation decision. The reforms also amend the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997 to make changes to reflect the policy intent that the higher commercial rate of charge should be the default charge payable for any application for registration as a migration agent, unless, of course, the applicant can demonstrate that they are eligible to pay the lesser non-commercial charge. The non-commercial charge will be available when the migration agent gives assistance solely as a member of or a person associated with an organisation that operates in Australia solely as a charity or for the benefit of the Australian community. Of course we are familiar with many organisations that operate within our communities that fulfil this very important function. This will also ensure that only those agents who are providing genuinely non-commercial immigration assistance to the most vulnerable members of our community can access the non-commercial registration charge. The bill also implements several recommendations from the final report of the Independent Review of the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, handed down in 2014 by Dr Christopher Kendall. The review was implemented in order to examine the performance of OMARA as the regulatory authority, its organisational capability and challenges, and the quality and effectiveness of its internal controls and governance. There were 24 recommendations made out of the review process, with a view to improving the integrity of the migration agents regulatory scheme and consumer outcomes. I note with particular interest that, in speaking, I again follow the member for Burt, and both of us have served on the Law Council of Australia. I make particular note that the Law Council of Australia welcomed the recommendation to remove dual regulation for practising lawyers, stating: … dual regulation of migration lawyers is an avoidable burden to governments, the community and the profession. The removal of dual regulation not only means a significant reduction in red tape, it will also contribute to better consumer protection and a stronger, united legal profession. As a former practising lawyer I can understand the impracticality that has arisen for a practitioner who is advising on migration issues being subject to two separate schemes of regulation—in this instance, the legal profession regulatory framework and the migration agents registration scheme. I recall from many, many years ago, when this scheme was set up, the significant discussion around the tables of the state law societies and the Law Council of Australia about the necessity for this duplication of the scheme. There was some community opposition to this particular deregulation recommendation, however, with the Migration Institute of Australia arguing that everybody who provides migration advice should be subject to the same standards to ensure consumer protection for the public when they are receiving advice on immigration matters, whether it be from a lawyer or a non-lawyer registered migration agent. Given that it's been some three years since the final report of the OMARA review was handed down, it was appropriate for the Senate to review this bill to allow stakeholders to provide further feedback. Labor referred the bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for a Senate inquiry, and the chair's report was received on 16 October 2017. A number of submissions to the committee highlighted the benefits that the proposed amendments could bring for the legal profession. These included reduced costs for lawyers, who would no longer be required to register as migration agents, and the stringent disciplinary measures that lawyers would be subject to within their own field, instead of the separate OMARA disciplinary measures. Both the Law Council of Australia and the Refugee Council of Australia welcomed the bill. The Refugee Council of Australia noted that the removal of lawyers from the OMARA regulatory scheme, including its associated costs and the time required to register, would 'allow more legal practitioners to provide vital legal advice' for refugees and asylum seekers, who often rely on pro bono legal advice. There were, I note, concerns raised through the committee process, mostly from registered migration agents, and these focused on the amendments in schedule 1 concerning the removal of lawyers from the OMARA regulatory scheme. I note that these key concerns were as follows: limited prior consultation, dual regulation existing in other fields and countries, the impact on small businesses and potential unemployment, the loss of expertise in a particularly complex area, migration agents being punished for upgrading their skills, confusion for clients, and lawyers formally sanctioned by OMARA potentially being able to provide migration advice, notwithstanding that sanction. Ultimately, the Senate committee reported: On balance … the bills … satisfy the relevant recommendations of the OMARA Review, contribute considerably to the deregulation of the migration advice industry and— as a consequence— reduce the administrative burden of dual regulation on lawyers practising in the field of immigration assistance. They recommended: … that the Government consider implementing a formal transition period of two years from the commencement of the bill for registered migration agents currently holding restricted practising certificates, who wish to complete their supervised training and obtain an unrestricted practising certificate. I'm very pleased to note that the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs has confirmed that the department is drafting options to amend the bill to reflect concerns raised in the Senate inquiry about the transition period for migration agents with restricted practising certificates. The shadow minister will continue to work with the assistant minister to agree on an appropriate transitional arrangement period and support a government amendment to this effect. I note that those on the other side have indicated that this bill will streamline the operation of the migration advice industry as part of their strategy of deregulation, aiming to remove unnecessary red tape across industry sectors. Of course, as the member for Burt noted in his address, this is something that we should all hope proves to be the case. However, it's important for me to note that, in my conversations with constituents, I'm constantly hearing about processing delays and regulatory restrictions experienced by individuals trying to deal with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on a variety of issues. Red tape and overreaching bureaucracy more often than not seem to be the order of the day, albeit sometimes the question of red tape appears to be in the eye of the beholder. Recently, I made representations to the minister on behalf of a family who are waiting for a decision to be made on a permanent partner visa application. The applicant had been in Australia for three years on a temporary visa and applied for her permanent visa on the understanding that the application would be processed in around six months. The family were recently advised that, due to departmental delays, it would now be closer to 24 months before the application was even considered for processing. Now, I accept that it's appropriate for there to be inquiries into the background and security profile of applicants for visas and the like, but it's important that we consider the purpose of any particular process and adequately resource the department if there are significant delays. In the context of the processing of visas within Tasmania, I note that the proposal is that this is to be outsourced. I know that my colleagues in the Labor caucus are certainly opposed to the outsourcing of important functions like visa processing— Mr Hawke interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 Yes, the member for Bass might resume his seat. Mr Hawke HWO Deputy Speaker, I just draw your attention to the standing orders about relevance in relation to the matters before the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I invite the honourable member for Bass to come back to the question before the chair. Mr HART 263070 I thank the member for his point of order. I was returning to the matter of substance. Without a permanent visa, this particular person cannot get full-time work in a specialised field or apply for a housing loan with her partner— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The honourable member for Bass is now ignoring the gentle invitation I gave him to come back to the question. Mr HART 263070 Thank you. Deputy Speaker, people seeking the help of a migration agent in Australia are by nature vulnerable consumers. The examples that I gave were examples of precisely that point. They are often seeking assistance from registered migration agents, and now they'll be able to seek the assistance of legal practitioners to deal with important life events, such as reuniting with their families, processing a humanitarian visa, taking up a job offer in Australia or visiting for an extended period of time. For this reason—and it is an important issue of public policy—it's vitally important that Australia's migration program has integrity. There's nothing to suggest that these amendments, which affect vital deregulation, affect the integrity of the process. The process continues to be non-discriminatory, and the persons that are offering migration advice are acting in the best interests of their client and within a proper and appropriate legal framework. 17:35 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The government welcomes the opposition's support for the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017, and I want to thank the shadow minister for his contribution to this important deregulation measure that the government is bringing forward in relation to the regulation of migration agents. The government has long supported the key outcome of this bill, which removes legal practitioners providing immigration advice from the dual regulation by the Migration Agents Registration Authority, known as the MARA, and their relevant law society. The bill is the final legislative step to implement the recommendations of the 2014 independent review, and the effect of this bill will be that relevant state and territory law societies will be the sole regulators for legal practitioners, reducing red tape and regulation for the profession, as members have noted. The government have consulted extensively with the key stakeholders, and we've gone to the extraordinary step of providing an exposure draft to this sector, given that it does regulate lawyers. I would just note for members who raised concerns about delays that there is a purpose for the delay sometimes. An exposure draft is a proper process that does delay a final bill, but it has led us, of course, to the point where the government will bring forward amendments to this bill to recognise that a small cohort of registered migration agents who hold restricted legal practising certificates can experience difficulty with their practice if they're automatically removed by this bill and the changes when the legislation commences. I want to speak to that for a moment—on the amendment that the government will bring forward. The government's amendments implement the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, but the exposure draft process allowed us to really workshop a viable solution with the transitional arrangements that will address the disparity in the length of time between various state jurisdictions for legal practitioners. We're pleased to have been able to work closely with the sector and listen to the concerns of people that are caught up by what is a deregulation measure but that has an unintended consequence on particular businesses and people who've been in business for some time and are respected members of the migration profession. The government amendments and the removal of restricted legal practitioners from registration with the MARA may have meant that these practitioners may have had to secure supervision as an unrestricted legal practitioner. The amended bill will address the possibly difficulties with this small cohort. While it is small, it's important to get these things right and not unfairly impact individuals with our legislative changes. The situation differs from that of lawyers with unrestricted practising certificates, and the government amendments will propose a two-year transitional period up to a maximum of four years to cover the disparity in state jurisdictions for restricted legal practitioners to remain registered migration agents with the MARA during this period. This will provide all individuals with the necessary time, and more time than necessary in some cases, to complete steps to become unrestricted legal practitioners. Once the individuals have an unrestricted legal practising certificate, they will no longer remain registered with the MARA. The MARA will notify restricted legal practitioners of the two-year period. Restricted legal practitioners who wish to seek the benefit of a further two years, extending to four years, as registered migration agents with the MARA must apply in writing. If there is a reasonable basis to extend the transitional period, the MARA will do so for an additional two years. Should these restricted legal practitioners fail to notify the MARA of their intention to remained registered migration agents for an additional two years, the MARA will automatically remove them from the register of migration agents when the legislation commences. We've had many years of consultation, and the government is announcing that we will do that up-front, and we will work with the sector, but the intention of this legislation is clear. The intention of the amendments the government is bringing forward is to allow for a transitional arrangement, not to undermine or get around this important change the parliament is making. For restricted legal practitioners who choose to remain registered with the MARA, the additional two-year period will provide them with the time necessary to make a considered decision about their future business arrangements. It will fulfil the requirements to satisfy the grant of an unrestricted practising certificate by the relevant Law Society. And it's just good practice when we're making law that affects existing business to allow transitional arrangements so that people can restructure their business models and make a decision that is in their best interests and their clients' and customers' best interests and that is a reasonable outcome. There will be a new category of eligible restricted legal practitioners. There may be registered migration agents in the future who are currently studying their law degrees or who are planning to do so in the future. There may also be people currently training to become lawyers or planning to do so in the future with the intention of becoming a registered migration agent. To assist aspirational individuals in this regard, the government amendments facilitate eligible restricted legal practitioners, namely those who have held a restricted practising certificate for less than two years. Such eligible restricted legal practitioners will be able to apply for registration as a migration agent during their eligibility period, which is up to two years after receipt of their restricted legal practising certificate. When their eligibility period to be a registered migration agent ends, those restricted legal practitioners will be able to apply for a further extension of up to two years. As I have mentioned, this transitional arrangement will, we think, cover all of the contingencies out there and be fair to people who are seeking to practise in either field. I recommend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 2993 17:41 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to this bill. I ask leave of the Federation Chamber to move government amendments (1) to (32) as circulated, together. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE HWO I move government amendments (1) to (32) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 6), omit the table item, substitute: (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 11), after the definition of client in section 275, insert: eligible, in relation to a person who is, or has been, a restricted legal practitioner, has the meaning given by section 278A. eligible period has the meaning given by section 278A. (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 20), after the definition of related by employment in section 275, insert: restricted: a practising certificate held by an Australian legal practitioner is restricted if: (a) it is subject to a condition requiring the practitioner to undertake supervised legal practice for a specified period; and (b) such a condition was not imposed as a disciplinary measure by an authority responsible for disciplining Australian legal practitioners in a State or Territory. restricted legal practitioner means an Australian legal practitioner whose practising certificate is restricted. (5) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 23), after item 4, insert: 4A Section 275 Insert: transitional end day has the meaning given by section 333BA. unrestricted: a practising certificate held by an Australian legal practitioner is unrestricted if it is not restricted. unrestricted legal practitioner means an Australian legal practitioner whose practising certificate is unrestricted. (6) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 25), after item 5, insert: 5A Before section 279 Insert: 278A Eligibility requirements for restricted legal practitioners Who is eligible? (1) A person who is, or has been, a restricted legal practitioner is eligible during the eligible period, or a longer period as extended under this section. (2) The eligible period is the period of 2 years after the person first held a restricted practising certificate. Extension of eligible period (3) An eligible person who is a registered migration agent may apply to the Migration Agents Registration Authority for an extension of the eligible period for a period of up to 2 years: (a) in a form approved in writing by the Authority, containing such information relevant to the application as is required by the form; and (b) if the application is made 3 months or more before the end of the eligible period. (4) A person may make no more than one application for extension under subsection (3). (5) On an application under subsection (3), the Authority must, by written notice given to the applicant before the start of the period, determined under subsection (8), that precedes the end of the eligible period: (a) extend the eligible period by a stated period of no more than 2 years; or (b) refuse to extend the eligible period. (6) The Authority may extend the eligible period by a particular period only if the Authority considers it reasonable to do so in the circumstances, including (but not limited to) any circumstances determined under subsection (8). (7) The notice of the decision must include any details of the decision determined under subsection (8). (8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the purposes of subsection (5), (6) or (7). Review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal (9) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Authority: (a) under paragraph (5) (a), to extend the eligible period by a particular stated period; or (b) under paragraph (5) (b), to refuse to extend the eligible period. Note: Section 27A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requires that people whose interests are affected by reviewable decisions of the Authority be given notice of their rights to seek review of the decisions. (7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 5 to 13), omit section 289B, substitute: 289B Applications by Australian legal practitioners (1) An applicant must not be registered if he or she is an unrestricted legal practitioner. (2) If an applicant is a restricted legal practitioner, he or she must not be registered unless he or she is eligible. Note 1: A person who is, or has been, a restricted legal practitioner is eligible during the period of 2 years (or an extended period) after the person first held a restricted practising certificate (see section 278A). Note 2: A registered migration agent must notify the Migration Agents Registration Authority within 28 days after becoming a restricted legal practitioner or an unrestricted legal practitioner (see section 312). Note 3: The Authority must cancel the registration of an agent who is, or has become, an unrestricted legal practitioner, or who is a restricted legal practitioner who is not eligible, or is no longer eligible (see section 302A). Note 4: The application of this section is deferred for registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners on 19 November 2018, when this section commenced (see section 333BA). (8) Schedule 1, item 15, page 6 (line 28) to page 7 (line 5), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) The Migration Agents Registration Authority must cancel the registration of a registered migration agent, by removing his or her name from the Register, if the Authority is satisfied: (a) that the agent is, or has become, an unrestricted legal practitioner under the law of a State or Territory; or (b) that the agent is a restricted legal practitioner under the law of a State or Territory who is not eligible, or has stopped being eligible. Note 1: A person who is, or has been, a restricted legal practitioner is eligible during the period of 2 years (or an extended period) after the person first held a restricted practising certificate (see section 278A). Note 2: A registered migration agent must notify the Authority within 28 days after becoming a restricted legal practitioner or an unrestricted legal practitioner (see section 312). Note 3: An unrestricted legal practitioner, or a restricted legal practitioner other than an eligible restricted legal practitioner (see section 278A), cannot be registered as a migration agent (see section 289B). Note 4: The application of this section is deferred for registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners on 19 November 2018, when this section commenced (see section 333BA). (1A) The Authority may cancel the registration of a registered migration agent under subsection (1) because of the status of the agent as an Australian legal practitioner only on the basis of a document authorised by a body authorised to grant practising certificates to Australian legal practitioners in the relevant State or Territory. (9) Schedule 1, item 20, page 7 (line 27), after "section 333B", insert "or 333BA". (10) Schedule 1, item 20, page 8 (lines 3 to 7), omit the note, substitute: Note 1: The Authority must cancel the registration of an agent who is, or has become, an unrestricted legal practitioner, or that of an agent who is a restricted legal practitioner, but is not eligible, or is no longer eligible (see section 302A). Note 2: Section 333B provides that the registration of an unrestricted legal practitioner as a migration agent ends on 19 November 2018. However, for registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners on that day (when this section commenced), see section 333BA. (11) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 21 to 23), omit the item, substitute: 22 At the end of section 312 Add: (4) A registered migration agent must notify the Migration Agents Registration Authority in writing within 28 days after he or she becomes: (a) a restricted legal practitioner; or (b) an unrestricted legal practitioner. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (5) An offence against subsection (4) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (12) Schedule 1, items 26 and 27, page 9 (lines 1 to 16), omit the items, substitute: 26 Section 319 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 319 Referral of conduct of certain migration agents to legal disciplinary authorities 27 Subsection 319(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Referral generally (1) The Migration Agents Registration Authority may refer the conduct of a registered migration agent, or a former registered migration agent, who is an Australian legal practitioner to an authority responsible for disciplining Australian legal practitioners in a State or Territory if: (a) the legal practitioner was granted his or her practising certificate under the law of that State or Territory; and (b) the conduct occurred while the legal practitioner was a registered migration agent, whether or not the conduct occurred in connection with legal practice. (13) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 1), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (14) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (lines 6 and 7), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (15) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 10), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (16) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (lines 13 and 14), omit the heading to section 333B, substitute: 333B Registered migration agents who were unrestricted legal practitioners immediately before 19 November 2018 (17) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 17), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (18) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 21), paragraph 333B(1) (b), omit "Australian", substitute "unrestricted". (19) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (line 24), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (20) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (lines 25 to 28), omit subsection 333B(3). (21) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (after line 28), after section 333B, insert: 333BA Registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners immediately before 19 November 2018 Scope (1) This section applies in relation to a person who, immediately before 19 November 2018, was both: (a) a registered migration agent (even if, at any time before that day, the registration was under suspension, or had been taken to continue under subsection 300(4)); and (b) a restricted legal practitioner. End of registration (2) The person's registration as a migration agent ends: (a) if the person continues to be both a registered migration agent and a restricted legal practitioner until immediately before the transitional end day—immediately before the transitional end day; or (b) if, before the transitional end day, the person's practising certificate becomes unrestricted—at the end of the day on which the practising certificate becomes unrestricted; or (c) if, before the transitional end day, the person stops being an Australian legal practitioner—when the registration would otherwise end under this Part; or (d) in any other case—when the registration would otherwise end under this Part. (3) The transitional end day is: (a) 19 November 2020; or (b) a later day (no later than 19 November 2022) approved for the person by the Migration Agents Registration Authority under section 333BB. Deferral of prohibitions affecting restricted legal practitioners (4) Sections 289B and 302A do not apply in relation to the person until: (a) if the person's registration ends as mentioned in paragraph (2) (a)—the start of the transitional end day; or (b) in any other case—the earlier of: (i) immediately after the day the person's registration ends as mentioned in paragraph (2) (b), (c) or (d); and (ii) the start of the transitional end day. Note 1: Section 289B prevents an unrestricted legal practitioner, or a restricted legal practitioner who is not eligible (see section 278A), from being registered as a migration agent. Note 2: Section 302A requires the Authority to cancel the registration of an agent who is, or has become, an unrestricted legal practitioner, or who is a restricted legal practitioner who is not eligible, or is no longer eligible. 333BB Registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners immediately before 19 November 2018—later transitional end day Approval of a later transitional end day (1) A registered migration agent covered by section 333BA may apply to the Migration Agents Registration Authority for approval of a later transitional end day, no later than 19 November 2022: (a) in a form approved in writing by the Authority, containing such information relevant to the application as is required by the form; and (b) if the application is made before 19 August 2020. (2) A person may make no more than one application for approval under subsection (1). (3) On an application under subsection (1), the Authority must, by written notice given to the applicant before the start of the period, determined under subsection (6), that precedes 19 November 2020: (a) approve a stated day, no later than 19 November 2022, as a later transitional end day for the applicant; or (b) refuse to approve a later transitional end day for the applicant. (4) The Authority may approve a particular later transitional end day for the applicant only if the Authority considers it reasonable to do so in the circumstances, including (but not limited to) circumstances determined under subsection (6). (5) The notice of the decision must include any details of the decision determined under subsection (6). (6) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the purposes of subsection (3), (4) or (5). Review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal (7) Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision by the Authority: (a) under paragraph (3) (a), to approve a particular later transitional end day; or (b) under paragraph (3) (b), to refuse to approve a later transitional end day. Note: Section 27A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requires that people whose interests are affected by reviewable decisions of the Authority be given notice of their rights to seek review of the decisions. (22) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 1), omit "1July 2018", substitute "19November 2018". (23) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 4), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (24) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 11), omit "The amendments", substitute "Subject to section 333BA, the amendments". (25) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (lines 13 and 14), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (26) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (lines 15 to 17), omit the note, substitute: Note 1: On and after 19 November 2018, some Australian legal practitioners cannot be registered as migration agents (see section 289B). Note 2: Section 333BA covers registered migration agents who were restricted legal practitioners immediately before 19 November 2018. (27) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 18), omit "Australian", substitute "unrestricted". (28) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 19), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (29) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 20), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (30) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 23), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (31) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 31), omit "1 July 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". (32) Schedule 2, item 4, page 14 (line 5), omit "1 January 2018", substitute "19 November 2018". Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017 2999

Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2999 GRIEVANCE DEBATE 2999 GRIEVANCE DEBATE Workplace Relations 2999 17:43 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise to refer to the minimum wage submission that has been submitted by federal Labor in the upcoming national wage case. Federal Labor believes that Australians deserve a pay rise. It's the case that for too long workers have been struggling to make ends meet because real wages have been falling in many sectors of our economy. In fact, wages are flatlining across this country and we don't see any efforts by the federal government to address this problem. Instead, what we have is a government that is keen to see further cuts for hospitality and retail workers, and we will see further penalty rate cuts for those workers on 1 July this year. That, of course, follows the cuts for those workers last 1 July, in 2017. So they look forward to more cuts occurring, cutting wages in real terms at a time when we have the lowest wage growth in 20 years. One of the reasons we have lodged a minimum wage submission is to say to the Fair Work Commission that the proportion of the average wage that now makes up the minimum wage is falling. In fact, the bite, as it's called—the proportion of average wages—has been in decline for some years. We are concerned that whilst we believe the Fair Work Commission must determine this matter, and is the best place to determine the actual wage rise, we do consider it necessary to see a real wage increase. Energy prices are going through the roof, medical costs are rising and waiting lists are getting longer and longer for people in too many medical procedural areas. We are seeing people struggling, and we do not see any response from the government. For that reason, we say that it needs to happen, and it needs to happen as quickly as possible. The government also indicated at the time of the Fair Work decision in relation to cutting penalty rates that there would be no further cuts in this area. But, unfortunately, there is now a further application before the commission to cut the wages of hairdressers and beauticians, under another award. So, not only do we have 700,000 workers already subject to penalty rate cuts, reducing their income in real terms, but we now have further threats of cuts to the wages of low-paid workers in this country. Every electorate in this land has beauticians and hairdressers, and most people would know that they are not on a very significant wage. They are an important service, and we understand, of course, that those businesses need to be able to afford the wage increases that occur, but this is an instance where there is an effort to cut these wages when they have not been receiving any real wage increases in quite a long while. We would argue strongly that they do not deserve to see their wages fall even further than is occurring because of the stagnation of wages in this country. We don't support the proposition put by the Prime Minister that providing a $65 billion tax giveaway will somehow lead to a wage increase for Australian workers. There is no evidence that when you cut taxes you immediately see some commensurate wage increase. In fact, a recent survey conducted by the BCA has made it clear that they are not intending to provide wage increases if this tax bill goes through this week. Big business has a primary interest in ensuring it delivers to its shareholders, and that's absolutely proper. But the idea that we would have an unfunded tax cut to the big end of town, not provide support for workers, continue to see further cuts in wages for hospitality and retail workers, and now have further threats to other workers—hairdressers and beauticians—is not the way in which we should conduct public policy. What should occur is that the government should firstly identify that people are struggling to make ends meet; that cost-of-living pressures are becoming more acute; and that household expenditure, in certain areas in particular, is rising far, far greater than wages are rising, in nominal terms. For that reason they should first be considering the plight of the members of ordinary households, who just want to have a decent standard of living, a decent quality of life. Instead, the government has chosen to provide $65 billion, predominantly to foreign shareholders, multinational companies, big corporations and big banks, and to impose taxes on all workers earning between $21,000 and $87,000 a year. They will have to pay an extra $300 in tax, on average, when their wages are falling in real terms. They will be subject to increased taxes as they watch people who earn $1 million per annum receive a $16,000 tax cut. That's not the way to go in this country, and we think the government fundamentally has got it wrong. They fundamentally either do not understand or do not care about the bulk of the Australian population that is struggling each and every day. Instead, we would say, the government should consider supporting Labor in its submission to the Fair Work Commission to increase the minimum wage in real terms; support Labor's private member's bill, moved by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by myself, to prevent further cuts to penalty rates in this country as a result of the decision that was made last year; and not increase taxes on 75 to 80 per cent of the workforce that are subject to the proposed tax increases as a result of the last budget. That is going to compound inequality, it's going to punish people who don't deserve to be punished and it's going to provide an enormous largesse to the big corporations, who are doing quite well. If you look at the story of many big corporations at the moment, either their profits are very, very healthy—and it is a good thing to have healthy profits—or, in some cases, because of their investment and restructuring, they've not paid tax in recent years, and I don't think that is the priority of a federal government in the circumstances that we are in. Profits are outstripping wage growth enormously. Indeed, there seems to have been a break in the nexus between productivity growth and wage growth. There was a time when they ran together. You, Mr Deputy Speaker, having held the position of employment minister in earlier parliaments, would understand that there was a closer correlation between productivity and wage growth or at least profits and wage growth. But what we see now is a break in that nexus. What we're seeing is that profits are outstripping wage growth significantly. We're seeing areas of the economy where productivity is rising and rising in a very good way, but we're not seeing that provide a dividend to workers, who are partly the reason for the increase in productivity. So who are the losers in the economy at the moment? They're workers whose wages are flatlining, they're workers who are precariously employed and don't have guaranteed hours and they're workers who will be subject to a $300 tax increase. And that is difficult enough for those people, but it's particularly difficult when they're watching their government choose to give an unfunded $65,000 million to big corporations in this nation. And, as I say, 60 per cent of the shareholders who will be receiving that relief are foreign shareholders. That is fundamentally, fundamentally unfair, and I do believe that the Australian people believe it is unfair. And, if the government does not recognise that and change its ways, this government will soon be in the dustbin of history. Malcolm Turnbull has a tin ear. The Prime Minister of this country has no understanding of, or empathy for, working people. He's never struggled financially. He can't even understand that there are those in the community who do struggle, and he doesn't seem to want to do a thing to look after their interests. For that reason, he doesn't deserve to be Prime Minister of this nation. Rural and Regional Health Services 3001 17:53 Mr GEE 261393 Calare There is inequality between the city and the country, and nowhere is this seen more than in the chronic shortage of doctors in country Australia. This is something that country people have been very concerned about for many years, and it's time something was done about it. Access to medical professionals and the services they provide is something city people take for granted. Country people, however, know all too well what it's like to go without them, and we've had enough of it. Charles Sturt University aims to help solve this long-running problem by training doctors in the bush for practice in the bush through the Murray-Darling medical school. This country university has put forward an evidence based case for a rural medical school as a better solution to rural doctor shortages, based on a comprehensive analysis of independent evidence from Australia and overseas. CSU invested in a comprehensive economic analysis that found that a rural medical school will not only fix rural doctor shortages but deliver over $2 billion in flow-on jobs and economic activity in the regions. They have answered every claim and every counterclaim from the city lobbyists with independent, measured and objective evidence. When city lobbyists said there were not enough clinical training places, or training capacity, in the regions to support a new rural medical school, CSU did the hard work to obtain an independent analysis of current and future capacity. The final report was a devastating indictment of the lobbyists' claims, and, to date, the city lobbyists have not provided any evidence, facts or data to show how their programs are better placed to solve rural doctor shortages. For its trouble, CSU has been the target of a lobbying and advertising campaign commissioned in the faraway offices of the lobbying departments of big city universities and other medical elites. Not only are the city lobbyists unable to show us the evidence for city medical programs; they have refused to let rural people access the data they have that would show the exact number of city medical graduates who have gone bush. The last thing the big city universities want to talk about is their own performance. So let's have a look at some of the city lobbyists' claims. For a start, they've said that the current system is going well; it just needs a little bit more time and they'll be able to nail it. There is a chronic shortage of doctors in country Australia, and our country communities know it. All of the lobbying and the spin can't hide the fact that many in the bush wait weeks or months to see a doctor, let alone get one to practice medicine in their town, village or, even, city. Less than 10 per cent of graduates from the big city universities end up practising medicine in the bush. In fact, I believe the figure to be about eight per cent, with as few as five per cent choosing to work in remote general practice in Queensland. Using doctor-patient ratios, rural and regional areas continue to be under-serviced by medical practitioners, with 452.6 medical practitioners per 100,000 people in major cities compared to 282.6 in inner regional areas, 258 in outer regional areas and 256 in remote and very remote areas. I must say that when I met with one of the city universities, after I was elected to be the member for Calare, I asked them to tell me how their graduates ended up practising in the country. 'How many?' I asked, and I'm still waiting. The bush has had enough. Country communities know they are getting a dud deal, because they see the shortage of doctors firsthand, and, despite the ever-increasing investment in rural medical workforce strategies, there is no evidence of improvement in graduate relocation over the past 20 years. Take, for example, the Bonded Medical Places Scheme. This scheme entails the federal government subsidising a certain amount of medical training places at the big city universities on the condition that the students work in the bush for a certain number of years when they graduate. This is called the 'return of service obligation'. On any objective view, that scheme has failed, and it has failed very badly. A large proportion of the students that the urban universities have enrolled are foreign students. They pay full fees and then leave Australia when they graduate. I get the impression that a lot of vested interests don't want the likes of CSU upsetting the business model by decentralising training places to country students. In fact, Australia continues to be one of the nations that are the most heavily dependent on overseas doctors. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 2011, overseas-trained doctors represented 51 per cent of GPs in outer regional areas, 47 per cent of GPs in remote areas and 44 per cent of doctors in inner regional areas. Around 20 per cent of medical practitioners arrived in Australia in the last five years. We should be training our own. That's what we should be doing in this country, and that's what Charles Sturt University wants to do. We shouldn't have to rely on foreign doctors to come out to our regional communities. We should be training our own in a country university for country students, and I note that Charles Sturt University wants to quarantine 80 per cent of its places for country students. One of the other claims that the lobbyists make is that there hasn't been enough consultation. Well, Charles Sturt University has been consulting on the Murray-Darling medical school for almost 10 years. Perhaps, if you were living on the International Space Station, you'd have an excuse for not knowing that, but otherwise there has been ample opportunity for input. In July 2016 I consulted with the people of Calare when I told them that, if I were elected, I would be fighting for the Murray-Darling medical school. It's also a National Party policy that has been endorsed by various conferences and branches for many years. The vice-chancellors and councils of the big city universities might not like it. Organisations such as the Australian Medical Association and the various student bodies who tend to do its bidding may not like it. But the reality is that there is a mandate for this, and that's called democracy. It may be that a lot of those city lobbyists don't think rural people are qualified or smart enough to have a say, and that's been one of the other problems with this debate. There has been a condescending and—I would say—patronising attitude to country people who oppose what these city lobbyists are saying and doing. But, as I said, the proof is in the waiting rooms of country Australia. The proof is in the towns and villages where they can't get doctors to set up their practices or replace doctors when they leave. The reality is that these city lobbyists and this closed shop haven't been able to lay a glove on the analysis of Charles Sturt University. We're told that there's a problem with postgraduate training places. It's going to be years before the Murray-Darling medical school starts, once it gets the green light. There's plenty of time for the postgraduate system to adjust. I think that one of the biggest problems with the postgraduate system is that there aren't enough country kids who want to practise in the country actually filling those positions. That's the problem with it. It is great that lots of doctors from the city want to spend their hospital internship in places like Orange. Who wouldn't want to come out there? There's great food. There's great wine. I've welcomed probably hundreds of them myself over the years. And then I often see them when they come back for FOOD Week, for example, or for some of our great regional events. They're not staying here. They all love to come out, and it's great that the places are oversubscribed, but the cold, hard truth is that they are not staying in the country to practise in the country. So I'm fully supportive of increasing the capacity for postgraduate training and giving priority for postgraduate training places to country graduates. It should be country first. If we want them to stay in the country, we've got to do everything we can to keep them practising in the country. As I said, it will be two years to get a medical school up and running from a green light, and then it will be a number of years after that before the first graduates start coming through the system. Mankind has been able to put a man on the moon, so beefing up and adapting a postgraduate training program for country students should be achievable in that amount of time. Charles Sturt University has a very strong track record in delivering a modern country workforce: dentists, pharmacists and physiotherapists. For example, 70 per cent of inland accountants in New South Wales trained at Charles Sturt University. So we know that that system works. The question is not whether the Murray-Darling medical school will work. The evidence on this is conclusive. The real question is whether the multimillion-dollar programs run by the big city universities are working. With this still-chronic doctor shortage across rural Australia, the answer has to be no. The closed shop needs to be opened. We need equality between the city and the country in medical services. We know that the proposal put up by Charles Sturt University works. The time for the Murray-Darling medical school has come. Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 3003 18:03 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Here in Australia, the weather is never far from our minds, whether you're preparing for a cyclone in Darwin, cleaning up after a flash flood in the centre of Newcastle or battling a bushfire caused by a lightning strike. In this arid land, rain can be a blessed sight. Many parts of our country celebrated rain last week. We celebrated when it came tumbling down, especially in my electorate of Paterson, ending what had been for many the driest season in decades. However, in the red zone of Williamtown and surrounds, the rain wasn't celebrated. In fact, it was a very sad thing. It's a sad thing when there is no joy when the tanks run over and when the children can't splash in puddles. For, in much of Williamtown, Salt Ash and Fullerton Cove, children can't splash in puddles. In fact, their parents, families and carers have been advised that they should have absolutely no incidental contact with that water whatsoever. Those people can't eat their own homegrown vegetables. Their water is contaminated and cannot be used. The creeks and drains are known collectors of the dreaded PFAS chemicals that have leeched from RAAF Base Williamtown. I rise here today after being granted a speaking opportunity in what is called the grievance debate. It couldn't be more aptly named. Yes, I have a grievance. Those who own the 650 properties affected by PFAS contamination that has leeched from the RAAF Base Williamtown have a grievance. The individuals and families who've made their homes on this now contaminated land, which is no longer fit for rural and often agricultural purposes, have a grievance. How long must we wait for the Department of Defence and for this federal government to fix this mess? It seems that every hope is thwarted, and every deadline is stretched. Every opportunity to extract assistance is like getting blood from the proverbial stone. Every long-awaited answer or solution fails to be delivered. It is now 27 March 2018, and we are 27 days past the original deadline for what, yet again, my constituents and I hoped, might be a watershed moment. That moment was the release of the expert health panel for PFAS advice to the Australian government on the potential health impacts of PFAS exposure. The people trapped in the red zone are damaged, and they're very dismayed. They suffered massive economic losses from the moment the red zone was declared and their properties fell within that line. They've suffered psychologically, as investigations by our local newspaper led to reports of a 50-person-plus cancer cluster along a five-kilometre stretch of rural road in the heart of the red zone. They've been given conflicting advice on water and land use. They've been given, apparently, contradictory advice on the use of their primary produce. They've been through a treadmill of maps and models and boundary changes, not to mention endless meetings and briefings. They're sick of waiting. They're sick of asking. They're sick of pleading with this government for help, and they're sick of asking this government to clean up the mess. Yes, they have a grievance. They have a deep grievance with Prime Minister Turnbull. They have a grievance with Defence Minister Payne. They have a grievance with the head of the PFAS taskforce, Senator James McGrath, and now they have a grievance with the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt. We were assured that the expert panel for PFAS would provide its advice to Minister Hunt by the end of February. That deadline came and went, and it was quietly extended via a change to a website. On 16 March, the expert panel for PFAS website was updated. It now states that the honourable minister, Mr Hunt, will receive the panel's advice in March 2018. Well, guess what. Time's almost up again. We are sick of waiting. These people have done absolutely nothing to deserve this, apart from buy rural properties in a perfectly good part of the world that is now not perfectly good for purpose. Earlier this year, this government thumbed its nose at a deadline set out in a Senate motion. The motion demanded that the government explain what consideration had been given to understanding and addressing financial impacts on affected businesses and individuals. The response—I can't even call it an answer—was a day late and not worth the wait, quite frankly. This government is tardy and its lines are tired. I can only hope that the delay of the expert panel for PFAS advice is due to new developments on the global stage. Legislation recently passed through the house and the senate in Washington in the United States relating to the regulation of PFAS. The bill arose from concern about the high incidence of cancer among firefighters compared to the rest of the community. This time the recommendations didn't just involve firefighting foam, PFAS laden soil and water or homegrown livestock or produce. They involve food packaging. Time and time again, we hear this government saying, 'PFAS is everywhere. Don't worry about it; it doesn't impact your health.' That's not what they're saying in Washington at the moment. They are saying they need to restrict the manufacture, sale and distribution of any food packaging to which PFAS chemicals have been intentionally added in any amount. This is a burgeoning problem across the globe. This government knows what it faces, yet it won't face up to the truth. I would imagine this development would be of interest to the expert panel for PFAS. The panel's terms of reference state: … the Expert Panel will: take into account the evidence available from both Australian and international scientific research into the potential human health effects of PFAS exposure … I put on the record now that I want the Expert Health Panel for PFAS to take this into account. The panel was also tasked with considering the views of the public and other stakeholders through an invitation for public written submissions. My constituents affected by the Department of Defence's PFAS usage are savvy, they are tenacious, they are informed and they ask questions. They smell a rat, and they remember inconsistencies and hypocrisy. When the answers they're given by the state and federal conservative governments and their agencies don't add up with their research, they get angry. They get heartsick and some are now very cynical. We must make sure that they do not give up hope. We have a duty of care to these people affected by PFAS. We are their representatives, and, I say to those opposite, you are their government. I am pleading with you: do something. I applaud the tenacity of Mrs Ann Clout, who recently wrote to the Prime Minister. She penned a letter to the Prime Minister and his wife. She noted that, while considering the ethical dilemmas brought to the fore by the former Deputy Prime Minister's recent personal turmoil, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull revealed that he had sought counsel from his wife. This news prompted Ann to write to the Prime Minister and his wife. Ann feared it might never be read. Well, I read it yesterday to put it on the record. It is a plea from one woman to another, a plea for human decency, a plea for truth, a plea for empathy, and it's a heartfelt invitation. She wrote: I invite you, Malcolm, and I invite your wife, Lucy, as you have stated you seek her counsel and turn to her, your "life partner", for advice. I hope Lucy will see first-hand the human side; the impact and toll this contamination is having on our communities. I invite you to hear the full and correct facts; information which you have not received from the Department of Defence or PFAS Taskforce advisors. I invite you, for you to understand the full impact this contamination has had on our health, lives and the devaluation, to zero, of our properties, and therefore the inability for us to be able to leave. I am asking you and Mrs Turnbull to please visit us, hear us and put an end to our plight of nearly three years. Yours sincerely, Ann Clout Prime Minister, please have the decency to reply to Mrs Clout's invitation, which should be on your desk right now. Call upon your Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, to immediately release the advice from the Expert Health Panel on PFAS. Instruct the head of the PFAS taskforce, Senator James McGrath, to release your government's plan to put things right for those trapped in the red zone. Remove the Department of Defence from any future investigations, and give your instructions to Senator Marise Payne, who has repeatedly said that Defence stands ready to do whatever is asked of it by the government. Most of all, I beg you, accept that these are human beings whose lives, hopes and futures have been decimated. You must help those who are caught in this mess through absolutely no fault of their own. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, come to Williamtown, be the Prime Minister we desperately need you to be and we deserve. Goldstein Electorate: Community Events 3006 18:13 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I bemoan saying I have grievances, but they are grievances of joy in the sense that there are wonderful things happening in the Goldstein electorate. I celebrate the achievement of the people of Goldstein in building community. In particular, I see this day to day in the community engagements I go to. Only recently I went to the Beaumaris North Primary School fete, which is their biggest fundraiser. This whole-school community event is created by the combined efforts of parents, staff, students and the Goldstein local business community. Previous fundraising efforts have led to the new playground equipment, sporting facilities and a brand-new amphitheatre. This year, the funds raised will support the school's digital technologies program and the redevelopment of the MacDonald Reserve playground. The day's entertainment included Highett gymnastics, Kayla Skafte, Beaumaris North Primary School Seahorse Singers, Beaumaris North's Got Talent, the school's science experiment, Susie King Singing Students, and Denzil and Phil Para. I'd also like to acknowledge that, on 18 February, it was Firbank's fair at Sandringham House Campus. Huge thanks go to the parents and volunteers, including Rachael Robb, who is a co-president of the Sandringham House Parents' Association and a co-organiser of the fair committee; Tania Powell, who is the other co-president of the Sandringham House Parents' Association; and Francesca Marchetto, the fair manager, who organised the event and worked tirelessly to ensure the day was a great success. Thanks also to the event's major sponsors, Lexus of Brighton and Barry Plant Bayside. The weather, of course, tried to dampen the atmosphere or, more to the point, blow us all away; it was windy that day. But spirits, of course, remained high in the context. That same weekend, St Leonard's College hosted their Community Day Fair, the largest event in their calendar. Coordinated by a dedicated and passionate parent committee led by Bronwyn Betro, the fair organiser, and Stuart Davis, who is the school principal, the entire college community, including current and past families and staff, came together to celebrate all that is great about St Leonard's College. I have to say, having been there, that it was a miraculous day in terms of not just the sunshine but the volume and the number of people who came together to support not just a school but a community and to build a sense of social connectedness, which was truly inspiring. It was huge. There was live entertainment; delicious food, including fabulous homemade jams and cakes; and a community market, as well as bidding on silent auction items. I have no doubt they did very well out of the exercise. Similarly, last Saturday I had the pleasure of attending the Regis Brighton Doggie Fashion Show. Pups strutting their stuff show the sometimes unique nature of the Goldstein community. Dogs are a big thing. Yes, as part of that, my pugs, Louis and Ella, made a star appearance, but they were not alone. Staff and friends brought their pooches to the park to, as it were, strut their stuff down the red carpet and be given awards for different categories ranging from best vocals to, of course, best costume. But it was really about the clients of Regis Brighton and helping them enjoy the day and particularly to have human as well as canine engagement. Of course, that's very important, particularly for many people who use aged care and miss out on the opportunity for as much social connection as we might get around this place or in the rest of the community. The event was proudly sponsored by Regis Aged Care and Dogue Brighton. The event showcased many activities and treats, such as face painting, a sausage sizzle, and doggy bags with costumes and toys for the dogs. One dog was even turned into a unicorn. I will leave it up to you to decide how that happens. Show-goers also had the opportunity to tour the Regis Aged Care facility in Brighton, which was probably necessary because, let's face it, it was bucketing down on the day. The day also included a pooch fashion parade, which I had the honour of judging. I am happy to say that, even though my dogs were participants in that, the dogs that presented, they did not win any awards. There was no ball tampering or cheating in the exercise. It was one where everything was above board. Huge thanks go particularly to Craig Rutherford and the wonderful friends at Regis Brighton for coordinating the day and making it such a great success. I was also very proud recently to be part of United Israel Appeal's 2018 campaign gala dinner. This is a major dinner held to fundraise for the Israel appeal and the incredible work that's been done to bring it all together. I express my particular thanks to my table host, Alice Goodman, for inviting me and having me along at the dinner last week. But the real congratulations need to go to Hayley Southwick, who was the coordinator of the dinner and the president of the UIA this year. She deserves commendation not just because of her incredible organisation and volunteering work but, critically, also because of the incredible narration skills throughout the evening against the backdrop of many videos trying to describe the incredibly important work the UIA does. It was, of course, another memorable celebration of Israel, particularly in the year of its celebration of the 70th anniversary of its foundation. We heard from Dennis Prager, a best-selling author, columnist and nationally syndicated radio talk show host who is based in Los Angeles. He is famous not just for his radio talk show but also for his Prager University videos. If you haven't seen them, go online and type in 'Prager University'. It will be fantastic to hear about some of the wonderful work that they're doing. He spoke particularly not just about the critical role of Israel to the world and the Jewish people and their preparedness to support each other, but, critically, about the importance of Israel and its support for many countries, including ours. He also highlighted much of the hypocrisy that sits at the heart of many discussions around Israel, particularly how people seek to delegitimise the modern nation state and its purpose when they don't apply the same standards or principles, and that ultimately people are sometimes trying to use their criticism of Israel as a form of cloak or screen for anti-Semitism. There was also present the Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Mark Sofer, and the sand master artist Sheli Ben-Nun. I'd also like to acknowledge Mark Leibler AC, the honorary life chairman of UIA Australia; the treasurer, Julian Black; the chairman of the Young UIA, David Skurnik; and all the other members of the Victorian executive committee. It followed, of course, only a few days prior, on 18 March, attending the In One Voice Festival, which is in Elsternwick—technically just outside the Goldstein electorate, on the margins, but providing an opportunity for the Jewish community to come together and celebrate as part of what's forming as a new precinct, a space for the Jewish community, as part of Melbourne's rich tapestry, around Elsternwick to celebrate traditions and values and food, of course, which goes straight to the heart of not just Jewish community events but also my waistline. Last year I acknowledged everybody who was involved, so this year I'm going to acknowledge the one person I didn't acknowledge last year: I thank Ross Lomazov, who came up to me and reminded me that I didn't mention him last year—and that was not my error, but it is one that we want to correct. On Saturday the 17th we had the Southern FM Radiothon. Southern FM is based in Parliament Street—aptly named—in Brighton. They had their open day, encouraging people to join Southern FM as part of its subscription base as the foundation for a radio station that covers the Bayside and south-east of Melbourne. Southern FM is home to one of the most diverse ranges of programming on radio, including jazz, soul, rock, pop, R&B, dance and country, as well as discussions of health and parenting, community news and local sport. I was very fortunate to be on it also recently, visiting Wizz Fizz Island in the northern part of Queensland—which, I will concede, is a metaphorical island—where you get the opportunity to talk about the wonderful music that you want to talk about. As a local representative, it was my honour to be on the show with Pauline. Like all good open days such as Southern FM had, there was the sausage sizzle, but I did not partake, because of the number of other events I did that day. I'd like to thank in particular Pauline O'Brien for the invitation to attend. An honourable member interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW I would like to correct the interjecting member—it was not because I am vegetarian; it was mostly because it was about 10 in the morning and it was probably just after breakfast. I also had the pleasure of attending the fifth annual general meeting of the Bayside University of the Third Age. U3A, as I am sure any member who has engaged with them will know, are an incredibly impressive group who come together and support people through the latter stages of their life in keeping them physically, mentally and artistically active, and they do incredible work. Many thanks to the committee and management of Bayside U3A, including its new president, Tony Aplin, and secretary, Judy Sinclair, and also to acknowledge the wonderful work of David Hone, who was the retiring president. Finally, last Sunday I attended the Bayside Community Forum on Refugees and Aid. The forum was supported by the Bayside Church and its pastors, Rob and Christie Buckingham, who do a wonderful job and put on an excellent forum. Great thanks to the MC and coordinator, Jason Kelly, for his efforts. North-East Railway Line 3009 18:23 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, my grievance tonight is about the decision-making surrounding the north-east railway line. I call on the government to give the community the information it needs by releasing the details of the scope of works around this decision-making. Tonight I would like to address three key points: the cost of the problem we have on our north-east line; the belief that we're spending good money after bad; and, finally, looking for better processes. Infrastructure in Australia needs to be valued in economic terms as well as social terms. The cost when we don't meet the social needs must be recognised. It is my belief that there's an inability of governments to balance the requirements, in my instance, of the freight use on the inland rail with the passenger use of the north-east railway line. We've done some excellent work—and I acknowledge the member for New England in the Chamber tonight—on the inland rail that is going to be coexisting with the north-east railway line, but the problem is that people, as well as freight, use the trains, and public transport is a really important part of infrastructure. Sadly, the extent of the problems and the works required on the north-east railway line are unknown, and, until the scope of works are released to the public for consultation, they will remain unknown. So the community continues to wait and try and understand what decision-making the government has in mind. There's no calculation of the cost to individuals in the time lost while we wait for this decision. Clearly, there's a cost to government with more cars, buses and taxis on our roads when the rail services are cancelled. And there's an increasing cost to government when replacement buses and taxis have to be used because the trains on our north-east railway line, for any number of reasons, fail to work. We've got a comedy of errors, I would say, happening around us. It's not been without effort. Government has responded, as government does, to the huge cry from the community for something better, but it's my belief that we're now throwing good money after bad. Some 309 days ago, the Commonwealth government committed $100 million in the 2017-18 budget for improvements on my railway line. A joint Victorian government and Commonwealth government steering group found that the $100 million committed by the coalition government was insufficient to upgrade the north-east line to a standard that would allow for running new passenger trains. So, earlier this month, following enormous agitation by the Victorian government and the Commonwealth government, the new minister for infrastructure announced an additional $135 million for the north-east railway upgrade, bringing the total federal contribution to $235 million, which is a not insignificant amount of money. This is really welcome, I have to say, but it's surrounded by the enormous problem that no-one understands how this money is going to be spent. Is it enough? What is enough? Hopefully, the answer lies in the scope of works—the scope of works that we don't have access to. But the real comedy of errors and the throwing of good money after bad comes about because, with this extra money that we've got from the Commonwealth now, over a billion dollars has been spent on this railway line. Tonight, in preparation for my speech, I went onto the ARTC web page and looked at the time line of what I think is a fiasco. In 2004, ARTC takes up the lease of the railway line between Sydney and Albury. As part of the negotiations, ARTC invests $870 million between Melbourne and Sydney, which is welcome. In 2006, the federal government provides an additional $270 million, which ARTC uses to install concrete sleepers on the line between Melbourne and Sydney and also between Sydney and the New South Wales border with Queensland. It goes on and on and on. In November 2011, a long-term rehabilitation program, amounting to a $134 million investment, is presented to the ARTC Board for approval. It goes on. In August 2013, my predecessor as the member for Indi, responding to the enormously negative feedback in the electorate, organises for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau to do a report into what was happening on our line. So there's a long history of things not working well, and it's detailed there. What I think is happening is systemic failure, very poor process and a lack of good governance. We've seen stopgap, bandaid actions, and they have failed to resolve the problem. From my perspective as a member for north-east Victoria, there are no mechanisms to call the ARTC for review, there's no transparency in the decision-making and there seems to be no rigour at all in a system that would deliver a railway service to meet our needs. I would actually call on the Auditors-General of both Victoria and the Commonwealth to look into the decision-making that's been made to date and where the problems are in the work that's been done that leave us with a system that's still not working. So, where I've got to is that we have another $235 million of Victorian government money, we have a train service that's not working, we have no scope of works that tells us how this $235 million will meet the problem, there has been no identified nature of the problem, and what really is catching me in such a frustrating way is that when we talk to the ARTC and the Victorian government they tell us that this money will bring the line up to what they call class 2. I asked what class 2 was, and they said that that is what regional Victorian passenger service is about. So I asked them if Ballarat and Bendigo are on class 2, to which they replied, 'Oh, no, they aren't on class 2. They have a different service.' So, Ballarat and Bendigo in Victoria can get trains running at 160 kilometres an hour and the trains in north-east Victoria, when this money is invested, will run at up to 130 kilometres an hour. I then asked them about New South Wales. They said, 'Oh, no, New South Wales doesn't work on class 2. New South Wales has a different service.' What is going on here? What is class 2, what is the standard, how much money do we need and how much money is enough? The poor people of north-east Victoria are just so frustrated because, while all this discussion is going on, the trains break down, they become a bus, taxis are employed, you don't where you want to go, the trains are late and they are not reliable. When talking to the Victorian government they say they'll get the work under way—ARTC. And I'm asking what will happen to the two years in the middle? What's the plan for actually improving the service that's currently not operating? Do we have to put up with this for another two years, without the system operating? There is no answer in the system and no-one who takes responsibility, and as a member of parliament I get pushed from pillar to post in a very, very frustrating way. Clearly, my community wants to see long-term and worthwhile solutions. We really want the inland rail to work. We really want it to be compatible with passenger services, but we don't want a second-, third- or fourth-class passenger service that doesn't work well. We want a First World public transport system that enables Albury-Wodonga to grow to meet its full potential, that enables Wangaratta and Benalla to grow, and we want those communities to be able to use the transport system so that people in Benalla can get to Wodonga and to Wangaratta. It's not all about Melbourne based services. We want a system that works, which we currently don't have. In closing, I ask: what is the background to the decision-making; who is going to be responsible for the billion dollars we've already spent, and the inability to actually get a good result; who is going to take responsibility to make sure that the $235 million is enough—that it does the job; and who is going to define for us what class 2 means, and why is it different to whatever else is happening in Victoria and New South Wales? Also, what is going to be the interim plan? When all this is going on, what do we do with the people who want to use the train line over the next two years while the repairs are being made? There are so many unanswered questions. It is so frustrating. In bringing my grievance speech to a close, I call on the infrastructure minister to release the scope of works. Let us have a community discussion about it. Let's have a debate about whether it is going to be enough. Do we need more money? If so, how do we go about getting more money? But let's do the decision-making now and not wait for another five or 10 years of this appallingly poor decision-making, during which the people of north-east Victoria will have to suffer the problems we're currently putting up with. Dunkley Electorate: Sport 3011 18:33 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley There is $5.2 million of federal funds on the table to build basketball and co-utilised facilities, with four courts and a show court, with the intended site being Frankston basketball stadium. My predecessor, Bruce Billson, secured $4.95 million in 2015. With additional advocacy, I secured an extra $250,000, for retractable seating. This funding goes from the federal government to the council, for its intended use at the Bardia Avenue stadium in Seaford. This stadium is council owned and is leased to the Frankston and District Basketball Association, the FDBA. Council is the only one who will deliver this project, using federal as well as state, local and FDBA contributions. However, over the last two years, there has been an ongoing, unresolved dispute between the FBDA and council over the stadium lease. Throughout this dispute, various federal project funding milestones were missed by council, so I have worked with various federal ministers to extend milestone deadlines—several times now—so that the federal funding wasn't lost. This was to give as much opportunity as possible for both parties to come to an agreement. Negotiations continued to fail. Then my predecessor, Bruce Billson, was sent in as an independent mediator. After a four-hour-plus negotiation, it appeared that agreement had been reached. This agreement, however, unravelled. Council's claim is that FDBA subsequently sent them a signed lease, where about 60 clauses had been changed from what was agreed at the Billson meeting. The FDBA claim the exact opposite. Council also requested full financials from FDBA, and the release of these was, I understand, agreed at the Billson meeting. These financials haven't been given. Prior to the Billson meeting, FDBA, I understand, didn't give their financials due to the request by council to receive six per cent of gross turnover as part of the lease. This gross turnover component was scrapped during the Billson negotiations, so I'm uncertain why financials still haven't been released. In about November 2017, council then said they would no longer negotiate with FDBA's existing committee and executive. The federal minister then wrote to council saying there would be no more extensions on the federal funding milestones, and that council needed to submit a proposal on the use of funds by 30 March, or the funding would be lost. I provided FDBA with a copy of this letter. I immediately called a meeting of the two parties, which was then held, in the hope that the two parties would negotiate again. At this meeting I explained the three options available by 30 March. First, both parties would agree on the lease, and council would submit a proposal for basketball and co-utilised facilities at the existing stadium. Everyone agrees that this is the best option, including me, but, to be possible, it relies on a lease agreement between FDBA and council. Second, no lease agreement would be reached for the stadium, and council would submit a proposal for basketball and co-utilised facilities at an alternative site. I understand the likely proposal would be for the $5.2 million to go to basketball facilities at Jubilee Park—co-utilised for netball, indoor cricket and so on. Third, the funding would be lost back to the Commonwealth. I explained that any proposal submitted to the federal department must be substantially within the original scope. Council officers at this meeting agreed to put a request to councillors at the subsequent Monday meeting. Council then put out a media release stating they would not reopen negotiations. Because I had many FDBA members and people saying to me that funding should not be spent anywhere else locally for basketball facilities if it can't go to the stadium site, as well as other people saying to me that it should at least be utilised for basketball and co-utilised facilities somewhere else locally if it can't go to the stadium site, I decided to gauge community opinion by running a survey on their preference for the second-best option on the use of the funds if a lease agreement is not reached. Opinion is largely in favour, at this stage, of an alternative site if an agreement on the lease cannot be reached, meaning the building cannot occur at the stadium. Following comments on this poll, on Sunday I went to Frankston stadium to speak and answer questions from FDBA members. I promised I would put in a request for councillors to come and meet with FDBA members themselves to explain why a lease agreement couldn't be reached. I did so via the mayor, but at this stage I'm still awaiting a formal response on the outcome. Members, committee members and the executive there also asked me to go out on a limb to save funds for the basketball site, given the deadline of 30 March. That is part of why I'm speaking tonight. At this point in time, council will not negotiate with the existing committee and executive as it is currently constituted; however, there is a possibility they may reopen negotiations with a new committee and executive make-up. A change in this make-up is now the only possibility to resolve the lease and to enable the stadium site to be built. Over the last few months, several FDBA members, and parents, have come to me asking for help on internal FDBA allegations. Council was also aware of these very serious allegations. These requests for help have only increased in the last week, with the 30 March deadline. I've agreed with these people to raise this in parliament, as many of these people have been threatened with defamation and more if they raise their concerns publicly. In addition to the lease dispute, this information—although it is not in the public realm—is a major factor as to why council will no longer deal with the existing committee and executive on the lease. I raise this under parliamentary privilege in the hope that action be taken so that council reopen negotiations with a newly constituted committee and executive. This is the only way to save the lease negotiations, and it is in the public interest to make this misconduct public. First, it is alleged that a particular executive member used FDBA funds on their own private property for plumbing, electrical and building works by including this private use within the costs of the same people working on the stadium, by overquoting. When approached, this executive member has claimed this to be salary sacrifice, even though that is not legitimate and allegedly not committee approved. Members are asking questions about whether this is the real reason that FDBA won't release their financials. There are multiple witnesses, including the traders involved, with written statements that I've seen. Second, it's alleged that a sponsor is owed over $10,000 which FDBA refused to pay. That sponsor has now withdrawn, after giving $40,000 to FDBA over years, and has a section 459 statutory demand claim against the FDBA, which notice ended on 15 March, which enables the FDBA to be brought into liquidation. Third, it's alleged that the same executive member sent an inappropriate and crude text message about a 14-year-old daughter of an FDBA staff member. That staff member then resigned. Fourth, it is alleged that this same executive member engaged in inappropriate activity while on a US trip, including sending a sex video involving Frankston basketball players via text, including at least one underage, and engaging in inappropriate activity on the trip themselves. There are many other inappropriate texts alleged to have been sent, including another sex video involving a female Frankston basketballer, and there are many things I don't want to raise in this Federation Chamber. Fifth, it is alleged that this same executive member and a leader on the committee travelled on business class at FDBA expense, while saying they were paying themselves. Sixth, it is alleged that this same executive member engaged in inappropriate activity during work time in their office. They were caught out by an FDBA staff member. This person, complaining, is alleged to have been demoted and had their income reduced and is now on WorkCover. Seventh, it is alleged that this same executive member bought and used marijuana while on official FDBA trips. Eighth, it is alleged that a particular employee of FDBA who brought some of these claims was made redundant and now has an unfair-dismissal claim against the FDBA. This person wanted to meet with the committee but was denied. This person has evidence of inappropriate behaviour by the same executive member and is approaching police over these issues. Ninth, members and parents allege that, when they have made or attempted to make claims about the activity of this same executive member, their children have either not been promoted or have been demoted within basketball. They also claim that other children have been promoted whose parents have backed this same executive member. They also say that threats of potential defamation are raised and that this executive member is being protected by some within the committee leadership who are aware of a number of these issues and have seen some of the texts. This is the same reason that many parents and members and even councillors and council staff are not speaking out—because of the threats of defamation claims. Tenth, a committee member has left the committee due to concern over these issues. Eleventh, the AGM has been pushed back and audited statements have not yet been released. Members are asking if this has to do with the financials or if committee members are delaying any contest to their positions. Members asked me at the meeting on Sunday to show leadership and take action. I'm doing so as one of the two people who can bring these claims without fear. I call on the FDBA committee to answer these questions and to take action on these issues. I call on the state government to intervene by a full external audit of FDBA. I also call on FDBA members to intervene, given the nature of these claims and the possibility that council may well restart negotiations with a newly constituted committee and executive. If there is no lease by 30 March, that only leaves the second options, which are either Jubilee Park for basketball facilities or no funds. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 18:43