2018-05-08 45 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Tuesday, 8 May 2018

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 1 12:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 9 May 2018, at 10 am, as the time for the next meeting of the Federation Chamber, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed. BILLS 1 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No. 1) Bill 2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018, Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017, Proceeds of Crime Amendment (Proceeds and Other Matters) Bill 2017, Social Services Legislation Amendment (14-month Regional Independence Criteria) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018, ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017, Intelligence Services Amendment (Establishment of the Australian Signals Directorate) Bill 2018, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017, Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018, Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 1

Treasury Laws Amendment (Income Tax Consolidation Integrity) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Junior Minerals Exploration Incentive) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (National Housing and Homelessness Agreement) Bill 2018

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2017-2018

Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017

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

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017

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

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017

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

Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2018

Security of Critical Infrastructure (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Assent 1 MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Economy 1 12:02 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House: (1) notes: (a) before coming to office, the Coalition railed about a debt and deficit disaster; (b) global economic conditions are the best they've been in years, with the International Monetary Fund stating "120 economies, accounting for three quarters of world GDP, have seen a pickup in growth in year-on-year terms in 2017, the broadest synchronized global growth upsurge since 2010"; (c) since this conservative Government came to office gross debt has increased to a record half a trillion dollars and is expected to be even higher in tonight's Budget with no peak in sight; (d) net debt has doubled and is growing as a proportion of the economy more rapidly than almost every other advanced economy; and (e) last night on 7.30, former Howard Government Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he would be dead before the Government paid back its debt; and (2) therefore, condemns this conservative Government for giving up on Budget repair and for its failure to address the long-term structural problems in the Budget. Leave not granted. Mr BOWEN DZS I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for McMahon from moving the following motion forthwith—That the House: (1) notes: (a) before coming to office, the Coalition railed about a debt and deficit disaster; (b) global economic conditions are the best they've been in years, with the International Monetary Fund stating "120 economies, accounting for three quarters of world GDP, have seen a pickup in growth in year-on-year terms in 2017, the broadest synchronized global growth upsurge since 2010"; (c) since this conservative Government came to office gross debt has increased to a record half a trillion dollars and is expected to be even higher in tonight's Budget with no peak in sight; (d) net debt has doubled and is growing as a proportion of the economy more rapidly than almost every other advanced economy; and (e) last night on 7.30, former Howard Government Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that he would be dead before the Government paid back its debt; and (2) therefore, condemns this conservative Government for giving up on Budget repair and for its failure to address the long-term structural problems in the Budget. Mr Speaker, you will recall that in 2013 we were told the debt and deficit disaster and the budget emergency existed. Not only were we told that they existed, we were told they would be fixed. Some members opposite even told us that they were the fire truck arriving at the scene of the emergency—the budget emergency—and that the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, was driving the fire truck. And this mob got out and poured petrol on the fire, and now they're driving away and saying it was not their fault. That's what they've done to the debt and deficit disaster and the budget emergency, and now the poor old former Treasurer has lamented on the 7.30 program that he's going to be dead before the debt is paid off under this government's trajectory. I wish the former member for Higgins the very best of health. I hope that he has a long and successful retirement, but I fear that he may be right. This government has given up on the task of debt and deficit reduction. This government has other priorities. Everything has changed. Do you know why it's all changed? Because it's all too hard. It's all too hard. We're washing our hands of it. It's all too hard. The government talks about headwinds. The Treasurer likes to talk about international headwinds. I'll tell you where the headwinds are going at the moment. The headwinds are going all the government's way when it comes to international circumstances. We have the most synchronised global improvement in economic circumstances in a decade. What does that mean? There are no alibis for this government and no excuses. There is nowhere to hide for this government. It mightn't be so bad if things were tough in Australia, but things were getting worse elsewhere in the world as well, so we're all in this together. But here we have the situation where Australia's general government net debt as a percentage of our economy has increased, since the election of this government, by 46 per cent. That's a lot. What's happened over the same time frame in other countries? Germany's has fallen by 20 per cent, New Zealand's has declined by 41 per cent and Canada's has fallen by five per cent. The UK and US have at least managed to stay stable; they've managed not to go backwards. But, on this government's watch, after the fire truck arrived, the fire has gotten worse, all because of this government's wrong priorities and its complete lack of agenda when it comes to getting the debt and deficit under control. We on this side of the House believe in budget repair because we believe in having the room to move if things get worse internationally. We believe that there are better things to spend money on each month, like hospitals, schools and investment in our young people, than paying the debt interest to overseas bondholders. We actually believe that we must maintain and protect our AAA credit rating to maintain confidence in the Australian budget. We believe in those things, but, more than that, we're prepared to achieve them. And we're prepared to achieve them by making tough choices. Nobody suggests this is easy, but the Labor Party hasn't engaged in leading the economic debate for fun. We didn't say we should reform negative gearing because we felt like it. We didn't say we should reform capital gains tax because it just felt like something good to do on the day. We didn't say we should reform the way that people can claim tax deductions for minimising their tax just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. We didn't say that we should reform dividend imputation refundability which sends tax refund cheques to people who have not paid income tax because it was just a really popular thing to do. We decided to do these things because we believe in making the budget fairer and better. We believe in actually improving the integrity of the tax system and we believe in it for a higher purpose. We believe in it for the purpose of improving our budget over the long term so that future governments have the room to invest and make the necessary decisions. What does this government believe? They believe in giving away $80 billion over the next decade to Australian big businesses on the condition of absolutely nothing—no conditions, no requirements. No promises are required to be given. There was a little note sent by the BCA to the Senate which said, 'We promise to try to do better.' But they wouldn't promise to pay their tax; they wouldn't promise to employ more Australians. No. So we've actually designed a better policy which provides tax relief up-front for businesses on the condition of investment in Australia—not on the hope and the prayer, not on the plea, not on the vain wish but on the condition. We have a better designed policy which actually produces growth, which actually guarantees growth, whereas they have a wing and a prayer—a wing and a prayer which makes the budget worse, which deteriorates the budget bottom line by $80 billion over the next decade. Know this: regardless of what the budget numbers are tonight—and we'll know soon enough—they would be $80 billion better if this government had dropped their corporate tax cuts. They would be $80 billion better over the next decade. There would be $80 billion worth of budget repair, some of which could be used to invest in schools, hospitals and TAFE. There would be $80 billion which the Australian people would know was locking in the NDIS and locking in and protecting the pension. Instead, we're giving it away. Why? Because the fire truck has given up. It's because these guys have given up on debt and deficit and budget repair. They just don't care. We know their track record. In 2015-16, we were forecast to have a $17 billion deficit. It ended up being more than double that, at almost $40 billion. The 2016-17 deficit was forecast to be $10.6 billion. It ended up at $33.2 billion. The 2017-18 deficit was forecast to be $2.8 billion and, at the last budget update, was eight times bigger than they forecast. It was not the Labor Party's forecast but their own forecast they couldn't meet when it comes to the budget deficit. So the Treasurer will be out there tonight. You might be shocked to learn he'll be puffing himself up a little bit. He'll be huffing and puffing. He'll be saying, 'Be grateful, Australian people: I'm not going to increase your income tax as I told you I would last year,' as if it's great news that he was deciding to increase income tax and now he's not. He'll also be riding that economic wave, but what he won't be doing is locking in surpluses, which are necessary to ensure the health of the Australian budget going forward. He won't be doing that because, regardless of what else he does, he'll be giving away $80 billion. That's the centrepiece of this budget. The finance minister himself has told us. The most important thing in the budget, he told us, was the $80 billion worth of giveaways for corporate Australia, not the tax cuts for low-income earners, which they've been dragged to do after years of campaigning by this side of the House, when they were going to increase the tax on every Australian earning more than $21,000 just last year. We're not talking about 2013 or 2014. We're not talking about lamented treasurers long departed like Joe Hockey. This Treasurer, last year standing at the dispatch box, said he would increase the tax on working Australians and now has changed his mind. Let's be very clear: we very much welcome an election based on a contest of budget plans and budget repair, because we'll be going to the Australian people saying, 'We will fix your budget and we will take you to the safety of a better budget surplus, because they will give away $80 billion for no good reason.' We will go to the election saying: 'We will invest in young people, we will invest in schools, we will put TAFE back at the centre of our vocational education and training program and we will invest in skills, but we will do so in a way which is responsible, because we've done the hard work. We've done the work of policy development. We've taken the hard decisions. We'll make the tax system fairer. We'll fix negative gearing. We'll fix capital gains tax. We'll fix dividend imputation while they sit and do nothing and watch that fire get worse on their watch.' This Treasurer will not be able to say that he has taken the Australian budget to a position where it is safe from international downturns. A budget surplus of half a per cent of GDP will be blown over in a short, small breeze. We want to see budget repair which is real and also fair. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 12:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I second the motion. These characters opposite have been run over by their own debt truck. They are the roadkill on the road to budget responsibility. We have gone in five years from budget emergency to budget hypocrisy. We don't hear peep anymore about the so-called budget emergency. They went round the country for years in the debt truck, in the fire truck that the member for McMahon mentioned, going on and on and on about budget emergencies and debt and deficit disasters, and we don't hear peep about that anymore, for a very good reason. They haven't just failed the test they set for us; they've failed the test they set for themselves. On this side of the House, we expect them to fail the fairness test. That's how they roll. When they stand up in May each year, we expect them to fail the fairness test, but they've also failed the fiscal test, and they've been doing so consistently now for five years, and tonight will be the fifth budget. What ever happened to that budget emergency? What ever happened to that debt and deficit disaster that we used to hear so much about? It's not that we don't hear about it because it's been fixed—far from it. We don't hear about it because we're close to an election now and they're conceding, by not mentioning, that we've seen five years of failure—five years to meet the test they set for themselves. Remember the last time that the member for Wentworth was the temporary leader of his party. He said that $200 billion in debt was a 'frightening' amount of debt. He said $300 billion was an almost inconceivable amount of debt. And now we have gross debt well over half a trillion dollars in this country. Senator Cormann, in 2013 and 2014, went on and on about budget emergencies, debt and deficit disasters. He described debt at $200 billion in 2013 as 'a budget emergency'. In November 2013 he said that their top priority was to fix 'the budget emergency that we've inherited'. By March 2014, he said he was 'methodically setting out to repair' the budget emergency. Of course, the member for Warringah as well, all through that period, went on and on about a debt and deficit disaster. The reality, as the member for McMahon went through in some detail, is worth reminding the House about. Those opposite inherited net debt at about $175 billion. It's now twice that. They inherited, when it comes to gross debt, $277 billion. It's now $525 billion. The only government in Australian history ever to preside over more than half a trillion dollars in debt is this one—the only government in Australian history. And the debt is growing, and it doesn't peak over the current 10-year horizon. The other thing that people don't appreciate is that those opposite are accumulating debt at a faster rate than their predecessor, and we had the global financial crisis to deal with. They accumulate gross debt $1.1 billion a month quicker than Labor did. They've had rosy global economic conditions, and we had the GFC to deal with. As the member for McMahon also said, we're dropping down the league table when it comes to government debt. We've gone from eighth in the developed world to 15th. Our budget performance, which used to be the envy of the world, has dropped behind that of the UK, Japan, Canada, France, Germany, the G20 as a whole and the euro area as a whole. That is their record that they have to defend in this budget week. We heard Peter Costello, the longest-standing Liberal Treasurer—also the highest-taxing Treasurer in Australian history, but we leave that aside just for now—and even he thinks that those opposite have been a spectacular failure when it comes to managing the budget. What we say on this side of the House is that we've got to close the tax loopholes. We've got to not give tax handouts to big multinationals, including the big banks as well. This record and growing debt on their watch is not because the global conditions are bad; they're the best they've been in a decade. Chris Richardson says they've got a humungous amount of money rolling through the door. The reason we've got record and growing debt is that those opposite will go to the wall to defend the biggest tax breaks going to those who need them least. Remarkably—and the Australian people have to understand this—those opposite hear what's happening at the royal commission into the banks, and they want to compensate the banks, not the victims, for the behaviour that's been uncovered at the royal commission. We want to compensate the victims of the banks' rorts and rip-offs. Those opposite want to compensate the perpetrators of those rorts and rip-offs. And that's what tonight is actually about. That's what this budget is about: an $80 billion handout to the top end of town; $17 billion for the big banks. That's what it's about, not some half-hearted attempt to repair the damage of the last five years and four budgets. (Time expired) 12:18 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell The hypocrisy of the Labor Party knows no bounds. Listening to the member for McMahon and the member for Rankin, you'd think this was a party of fiscal rectitude, a model of fiscal rectitude. But this is a party that wants to spend more. This is a party that wants to tax more, with $200 billion of new and proposed taxes if the Labor Party were to be elected to government in Australia—$200 billion of new taxes. And the members for McMahon and Rankin conveniently overlook an important number, a number that they haven't mentioned in this House—that is, 1,100 jobs a day in the last year. This economy generated 1,100 jobs a day, the highest jobs growth on record in this nation's history. That is a direct result of the economic policies of the coalition government and of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer's careful and methodical management of our budget. We won't be lectured by a party that comes to the table with vastly higher expenditure and, to fund all that expenditure, $200 billion of new proposed taxes that we know of. We haven't even got into an election campaign yet. We have another year of government to go, and the Labor Party still has the opportunity to put up more taxes. What do we hear as the centrepiece, the common theme that comes out of this Labor Party in 2018? Gone is the respect for economic credibility that was there in the Keating and Hawke eras, the economic reform era of the Labor Party. The person that the member for McMahon proposes to venerate, their former Treasurer Paul Keating—it's all gone. What is this critical complaint, the core issue that they have? They have a core issue with the reduction of the company tax rate for small and medium businesses—that is, $50 million of turnover or less—in this country that the government has pursued. Where do they think these jobs come from, Mr Speaker? Who generates these jobs? These aren't government jobs and they aren't part-time jobs; these are full-time jobs generated by the private sector as a direct result of the government cutting the company tax rate for Australian small and medium businesses. What does this Labor Party have against the small Australian mum-and-dad family businesses that they propose to reverse the tax cuts that the government has given to small and medium business? Why didn't the shadow Treasurer look the Australian public in the eye? Why didn't he come forward just now and say: 'We don't believe that Australian small business should have got a company tax cut. We don't believe that the jobs and growth that we've seen in this economy is a direct result of the coalition government's policy working.' Well, it is working: 1,100 jobs a day. Small and medium Australian businesses are now more competitive. Yes, we do believe that if we continue to cut company tax to make us internationally competitive we will see more investment, more growth and more jobs in this country. We won't be lectured by a Labor Party which has not produced a surplus in any government since 1989. By the time Australia gets back to surplus under this government—which it will under this government, and the Treasurer will speak to that tonight; we will get back to a credible pathway to surplus finally—it will have been over 30 years since the Labor Party has delivered a surplus. Thirty years, and they're the party that the Australian public are supposed to listen to? We're supposed to listen to a shadow Treasurer whose party hasn't delivered a surplus in government for over 30 years. Get some credibility, you guys, please! We know what's going on. We know that the credible pathway that the coalition has put us on to get back to surplus is dealing with the legacy of failure that we had. If you listen to the member for McMahon and the member for Rankin, they've been channelling Billy Joel. If you listen to them, they say: 'We didn't start the fire. It was always burning since the world's been turning.' But when they came to government in 2013 there was zero net debt. Who started the fire, speaking of the member for McMahon's fire truck? The Labor Party started the fire. They racked up the debt and deficit. They spent like there was no tomorrow, against all the advice and all the warnings of the opposition, us at the time, saying: 'You are spending too much in the global financial crisis. You are digging a deep hole for Australians. You are not spending it properly. You are generating a debt and deficit disaster.' We won't be lectured by the member for Rankin. We won't be lectured by a man who worked for the member for Lilley, announcing years of surpluses that never appeared. You've never apologised to the Australian people, Member for Rankin. You've never come forward and said, 'I apologise for writing that speech for the member for Lilley saying that there would be four years of surpluses.' There were no surpluses, Member for Rankin, and you had the hide to stand here today and lecture us on delivering a surplus. Ever since this government came to office we've been opposed by the Labor Party at every turn. Every expenditure cut that we've put forward, they've opposed. On every single one they've had their senators and members oppose us. We've said, 'Let's reduce the welfare bill'—and, guess what: under this government, from when we came to office to today, there are 160,000 fewer people in the welfare queues—160,000 people off welfare. Ms Macklin interjecting— Mr HAWKE HWO I think the member for Jagajaga is proposing to cheer and say thank you to the government. I think that's what she's trying to say over there. I've got a news flash for you, Member for Jagajaga: 160,000 people out of the welfare queues is good news. There's no need to get upset about it. It means that we have a lower expenditure for the Commonwealth. It means that people have income. It means they pay income taxes. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Jagajaga is warned. Mr HAWKE HWO It's actually good. We don't want them back in those welfare queues, Member for Jagajaga; we want them off welfare. We want to get more people out of the welfare queues, and under this government's policies what we're seeing is 1,100 a day, the strongest jobs growth on record. Australian small, medium and family businesses are more competitive and we have plans to make our economy even more competitive. You are going to see a responsible budget tonight from the Treasurer and you are going to see, of course, a responsible and credible path to surplus. We've been able to retain our AAA credit rating. We have done that. The shadow Treasurer says we should do it. Well, we have done it. It is this government that has retained the AAA credit rating, under great strain, I might add, from the fiscal irresponsibility of the Labor years—under great strain from the record of the member for Rankin and the member for Lilley, who are here. The surpluses they never imagined were ghost surpluses, Member for Lilley. You might have been the world's best Treasurer, according to an international body, but you never delivered a surplus. Thirty years without delivering a surplus and you had no role in creating the debt and deficit that Australia has today? Let's just remember who the wreckers are in this economy—who it is that always does damage to the economy when they come to government and who it is that racks up the debt for Australians to pay off. It is always the Australian Labor Party, and it is left to the coalition to fix these things. We get about and do it in a way that makes sure we are still able to deliver the essential services that our economy relies on. While we are charting a path back to surplus, we are also seeing record spending on education and on health. We are able to make sure the dividend of a strong economy means that this year the Commonwealth will spend more on education than ever before and more on health than ever before. We retained our AAA credit rating. We continue to look at every opportunity to cut the tax burden on Australians, whether they are individuals or the companies that generate all the jobs we are talking about. These aren't public sector jobs. The Labor Party has a plan for only two things: increased taxes and increased expenditure. That is the result, the inevitable consequence, that the member for McMahon can't escape. He can't escape the fact that $200 billion more in taxes means increased spending by the Commonwealth, as well—so, for the member for McMahon to start this parliamentary day by getting up, with the member for Rankin, to lecture us on debt and deficit and economic credibility! He says he welcomes an election on it. We welcome an election on it, member for McMahon. We welcome a daily conversation on the economy, on how to generate jobs in this country, on how to reform the tax system, on how to reduce the tax burden on hardworking people and on how to reduce the tax burden on the generators of jobs in our economy, they being the small and medium businesses. We welcome an election and a fight on it every single day of the week. It is a truism of budgets that if you don't have a limit, if you don't set yourself a limit on what you're prepared to tax in the economy, then you will have endless taxes and endless spending—if you're prepared to endlessly tax. The one thing we again didn't hear from the member for McMahon today, which is an indictment on his approach, is that he did not outline what he will do to limit his tax increases and limit his expenditure. I say it again: we have come to a point in Australia where the Australian Labor Party has abandoned any economic credibility. They are proposing $200 billion of new taxes and endless expenditure and they have the hide to stand here in the House today and say that they are concerned about debt and deficit in this country and how to track back to surplus. The way you won't do it is by spending more and taxing more. It is this government that will spend less and tax less. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has concluded. The question now is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion on the matter of public importance. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 6 Report 6 12:28 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite On behalf of the Economics Committee I present the committee's report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2017 (first report) together with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Ms HENDERSON ZN4 by leave—On 6 February 2018, the Reserve Bank of Australia left official interest rates unchanged at 1.5 per cent. In making this decision, the governor commented that accommodative monetary policy was continuing to support growth in the Australian economy and the board did not see the need to adjust the cash rate at this time. At the public hearing on 16 February 2018, the governor noted that many advanced economies are experiencing a synchronised pick-up in growth. Reflecting this broader trend, the RBA forecast Australia's GDP growth to further strengthen from 2¾ per cent in mid-2018 to a little over three per cent over 2018 and 2019. Inflation has been slow to increase, and underlying inflation is expected to rise gradually to around 2¼ per cent by 2020. As the RBA reiterated, Australia's labour market has been especially strong, with over 400,000 new jobs being created in 2017, three-quarters of which were full time. Labour force participation is close to its record high. Australia has experienced 16 consecutive months of employment growth, which is the first time that has happened in the history of the Labour Force Survey. The RBA expects continued growth in employment to further reduce spare capacity in labour markets and generate a gradual increase in wages and inflation. Australia is transitioning successfully out of the mining boom, and there is a large pipeline of infrastructure investment currently underway. These projects are creating new jobs now while building Australia's productive capacity for the future. Internationally there is increasing competition between countries to attract foreign investment. One way other countries such as the United States are seeking a competitive advantage is by reducing their corporate tax rates. While there are a number of other factors that make Australia a desirable place to invest, including our diverse, skilled and growing population, natural resources and financial stability, our corporate tax rates are high by international standards. Certainly Governor Philip Lowe welcomed the fact that our budget, which included the government's fully-funded proposed company tax cuts, is on track to deliver a surplus by 2020-21. The RBA noted that a source of uncertainty in its forecasts is the strength of consumer spending, because many households are experiencing slow growth in their incomes and have high levels of household debt. The governor said that measures by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to reinforce sound lending practices have contained the build-up of risk in this area, particularly in relation to interest-only loans. In relation to the major banks' decision to increase interest rates on existing interest-only loans, the committee reiterates its view from the third report of its review of the four major banks: banks should not be using macroprudential regulation, which is designed to reduce risks in the financial system, as a cover for profiteering. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 16 February 2018. The next hearing will be on 17 August 2018 in Canberra. I commend the report to the House. 12:33 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I join with the chair of the Standing Committee on Economics in thanking representatives of the Reserve Bank for once again meeting with us as part of the regular, biannual meetings of the economics committee with the Reserve Bank. I think the Governor of the Reserve Bank, in his evidence to the committee on that day, perfectly summed up the changing conditions around, and the better outlook for, the Australian economy when he said that the world economy was experiencing 'a synchronised upswing'. Australia has no doubt benefitted from that stronger global growth, particularly around the United States and China. I think that the good work of the Obama administration, in turning around the United States economy, is now beginning to bear fruit, particularly in their employment figures. The governor also pointed out that China is beginning to address some of the risks to their financial system and has a stable outlook for growth into the future. These favourable conditions are really benefitting Australia, particularly in terms of our trading prospects. Commodity prices, particularly around iron ore and coal, have been increasing in recent years, and that's had a favourable outcome on Australia's terms of trade. That has begun to flow into revenue associated with the budget. Through those trade figures, we are now beginning to see that that revenue is increasing. And we have the situation where companies that have been carrying forward past losses—as they're entitled to do under Australian taxation laws—that occurred in the wake of the global financial crisis and the early years of the Abbott government are now beginning to pay tax again because that period of being able to carry forward those losses has ended. So some of those companies are now starting to pay tax. According to the Reserve Bank, thanks to some favourable international conditions, we are seeing stronger growth and better outlook prospects for the Australian economy. But it was pointed out—and it's important to note this—that many Australians are still struggling, particularly families, pensioners and workers. The governor was right to point out that income and wealth inequality in Australia is actually increasing at the moment. Household debt levels are still at alarming rates and are very high by international comparisons. Of course, a lot of that is to do with static wages, with wages growth stubbornly around two per cent of the wage price index in terms of a growth figure. There were the remarks of the Reserve Bank governor, and the recent monetary policy statement, which said that wages remain subdued, is an understatement. With many workers in the hospitality industry having their penalty rates cut, subdued wages, many enterprise agreements coming to the end of their terms and—the Reserve Bank governor pointed this out—not being replaced by agreements that have the same or higher wage increases but wage increases that are actually lower than the existing terms in an enterprise agreement, we can foresee that this subdued wage growth is going to continue for some time into the future. That's an alarming factor for many households throughout the country. Wages have been around that two per cent figure for at least the last four years now. Every year, the government has been saying, 'Wages are going to start increasing over the next six months.' It's reflected in many of the updates to the budget that we get through MYEFO and also the annual budget figures. We've managed to tease out of the Reserve Bank representatives that the growth figures for wages in the budget and MYEFO over the last couple of years have been overly optimistic and haven't met the forecast rates. There was a good discussion about housing and the changes that APRA has made to macroprudential measures and the fact that that has had an impact on competition, but some of the representatives of the Reserve Bank are of the view that the housing market is cooling in Australia on the back of increasing supply and the effect of those macroprudential measures. Unfortunately, it's not something that I can agree with because, in the community that I represent, we're not seeing a cooling in the housing market at all. I asked my office to dig up some statistics about house price growth from four typical suburbs in the area that I represent, and they indicate quite an alarming increase in house prices over the course of the last 12 months. We're only talking about the last 12 months here. In Chifley there was an annual average house growth of 13.5 per cent; in Matraville there was an annual growth of 16 per cent over the last 12 months; in Randwick there was an increase of 12.1 per cent in the last 12 months; and in Coogee there was a whopping 12.2 per cent increase in house price growth. You're talking about median rents in Coogee of $1,370 per week. These are some of the factors that are contributing to massive pressure on households when it comes to the cost of housing. If this government were fair dinkum about listening to the pleas from many Australians—and not a week goes by when I'm not approached by someone in the community that I represent who is alarmed about house prices—they would hear that parents and grandparents are concerned about how their kids are ever going to be able to afford to live in the communities that they've grown up in and where their family and friendship networks are. If the government are going to be fair dinkum about tackling this issue, they need to look at reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax. The largest tax concessions in the world that exist around housing for investors are in Australia, and they are fuelling much of that house price growth that we've seen in many capital cities over recent years, making it unaffordable and putting a big burden on households with cost-of-living pressures and trying to make ends meet. Labor are proposing, if we're elected at the next election, to be fair dinkum about this issue—to tackle this issue and reform negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts. The final point I want to mention is the corporate tax cuts, and the chair mentioned this earlier in her statement about competitiveness. I thought it was very interesting that the Reserve Bank governor, when he met with us, made the point that tax cuts should not come on the back of increases to budget deficits. That's exactly what's occurring in the United States at the moment, with their budget deficit forecast to increase to five per cent of GDP. That's close to $1 trillion. The remarks of the Reserve Bank governor squarely pointed the finger at this reform as one of the means for increasing that deficit when he said that the deficit in the United States is 'largely on the back of the tax cuts'. That's the view of the Reserve Bank governor—that in the United States they are reducing company taxes, but they're going to push up their budget deficit to an unsustainable level, and Australia shouldn't be entering into a competition with the United States based on this if it's going to lead to similar outcomes in Australia. And, of course, it shouldn't come on the back of taking money out of investing in education—universities, TAFE colleges and schools—and investing in hospitals and maintaining Medicare, but that's exactly what this government is proposing when it talks about cuts to the Gonski model for needs based funding in schools, cuts to universities and the fact that it's decimated funding for TAFE and when it won't tackle things like negative gearing and capital gains tax. All of these are contributing to the increasing cost of living and pressure for households, and that's why it's important that we, as representatives of the community, are listening to those concerns and taking on the advice and evidence of people like the Reserve Bank governor. In that vein, I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Does the member for Corangamite wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 12:42 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the next day of sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 8 12:42 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources 8 Report 8 12:42 Mr JOYCE E5D New England On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industries, Innovation, Science and Resources, I present the committee's report entitled Internet competition inquiry: inquiry into impacts on local businesses in Australia from global internet-based competitiontogether with the minutes of the proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr JOYCE E5D by leave—The arrival in Australia of Amazon, the world's largest online retailer, has focussed attention on the effect of internet based competition on Australian business. I'd like to note to the House that the market capitalisation of Amazon is $600 billion. The total retail expenditure of our major supermarkets, including Coles and Woolworths, is $90 billion, so we're talking about an absolute giant here. Online shopping has grown rapidly in recent years, and this has enabled overseas firms to compete directly with Australian retailers in the domestic market. For some Australian businesses, competing with overseas firms based in lower-cost markets is proving challenging. This is also noted in such things as when people in shopping malls have to pay rent while people online only have to pay for stamps to send the products. Nevertheless, while online retail is increasing competition, it is also creating opportunities for Australian businesses to export their goods and services globally. For example, almost 90 per cent of Australian small businesses using eBay are exporting products overseas. The size of the customer base available online enables small manufacturers and retailers to establish highly specialised business models that can succeed and grow. In addition, it allows businesses based in regional Australia to access the same market opportunities as those in urban areas. A key role for government is to ensure that the digital economy operates with a level playing field and that Australian businesses are equipped with the skills and technologies needed to succeed. Therefore, the committee has recommended the establishment of a grants program to assist Australian small businesses to take advantage of digital economy opportunities. The grants program should provide matched funding for businesses that are looking to improve their capacity to engage in online retail. The committee has also recommended that the government develop education materials to assist small businesses to understand the risks and benefits of using online platforms and emerging digital technologies. These materials should also assist businesses to improve their cybersecurity processes. The committee believes it is important to share the stories of Australian companies that have benefited from engaging in the digital economy. Promoting these stories, especially from companies outside the technology sector, will encourage other small businesses to explore the opportunities that new technologies are creating in their industry. The speed with which new internet based firms have been able to become significant market actors is unparalleled. For example, in a number of Australian cities it took Uber only a few months to disrupt the taxi market. The committee heard from representatives of the hotels industry about their concerns relating to the growing market power of online accommodation booking sites. I note that, even in my own local area, basically you have to follow the conditions of the online booking agencies, even though at times they get 25 per cent of the price of the accommodation. If you don't want to be part of them, you don't get any clients. The hotels are upset by what they perceive as unfair contract provisions and commission rates charged by the booking sites. Due to the popularity of the sites, however, the hotels have little choice but to accept the contract conditions. There is a concern that digital platforms are able to gain possibly damaging levels of market power before regulators can adequately respond. The committee has, therefore, recommended that the government consider future reforms of competition law in light of the potential for digital platforms to act in anticompetitive ways. I note that I've had a distinct interest in this for a long period of time, since section 46(1AA), otherwise known as the Birdsville amendment. New digital technologies are changing the world of work and the potential employment impacts of automation and artificial intelligence are a concern for many people. As with every preceding wave of rapid development there will be some jobs that are replaced by new technologies. The effect on the retail industry may be a movement of staff from customer service roles to warehousing and logistics roles. Overall, however, the digital economy should result in more jobs being created than lost. Nevertheless, there are many Australians who have developed skills and expertise in jobs that are at risk from technologies such as automation. For this reason the committee has recommended the creation of a digital retraining fund. The fund would assist Australian workers develop their digital skills helping them to maintain their employment or, if necessary, transition to new jobs. It is easier to find a job if you already have one, so it is important to assist Australian workers improve their skills now before digital disruption places them at risk of unemployment. The committee has also recommended that the government invest in the development of the nation's capacity to forecast future skill needs. This would assist education and training providers prepare courses as well as help local businesses with their workforce planning. I would like to thank the organisations and individuals who appeared at public meetings or provided submissions to the inquiry. I would also like to thank my committee colleagues and note that this is the first report since I became chair, so I acknowledge those who preceded me for their contribution to the inquiry. I commend the report to the House. 12:48 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon by leave—I join the chair in thanking all those that have contributed to this inquiry, a very important inquiry into the impact on our local businesses in Australia from global internet based competition. I want to thank all those that came and gave us their time, their ideas and their thoughts on how we need to prepare for these challenges and what government's role needs to be. In particular, I want to mention Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons; and Peter Khalil, who supported me in my role as the deputy chair in contributing, with our colleagues from the opposite side, to putting together what I think is an important report. I also want to quickly acknowledge the previous chair, Ms Landry. The impacts on local businesses are many and varied. It's important that we support small businesses in particular. That's why it's great that the committee has recommended the establishment of a grants program to assist Australian small businesses to take advantage of the opportunities because, whilst there might be challenges in this space from these behemoths, these international global giants, like Amazon, there are also many opportunities. We've recommended that the government fund small business to take advantage of those opportunities. Education materials have also been recommended to assist small business understand the risks and benefits of these emerging digital technologies. The committee also believes it's important to share the stories of Australian companies and the way they are adapting in this space and doing well. So, to lead by example, I want to quickly mention some people from the Territory and promote their story. Injalak Arts produce fantastic products from the largely Aboriginal community of Gunbalanya. Injalak Arts sell their products through Etsy and regularly receive orders from all over the world, including from as far afield as remote areas of Myanmar, so you've got remote areas in the Northern Territory selling products through the internet to remote areas of Myanmar. There are truly incredible opportunities. They are remote but the internet has levelled the playing field somewhat for them. Another example is in Darwin, in my electorate—Injalak Arts at Gunbalanya is in the member for Lingiari's electorate. In Darwin some young Territorians have started up an online earring business called Frunky. Marketing for Frunky is conducted primarily through Instagram and sales are made through their website. They're looking to expand their product range shortly. Our committee has promoted the telling of these stories. These are just two from the Northern Territory, and there are many others. With the advances in marketing through these platforms there truly are great opportunities for small businesses. However, the committee also heard disturbing stories—from the Hotels Association for one and the Booksellers Association for another—about the possibly damaging levels of market power. The committee has, as the chair discussed, recommended that, in light of the potential for digital platforms to act in anticompetitive ways, future reform of competition law would be a good thing to do. We've heard about the disruption of online businesses, but we also need to focus our mind on adaptation. We must change and adapt and we must help our businesses do the same. That's why we've recommended the creation of a digital retraining fund. The workforce is so important in this space. Workforce is the next big challenge in STEM. I want to recommend to the government something that is not in the report: instead of giving $17 billion to the banks out of your corporate tax plans, how about we put that into education so that our kids in the future can adapt and can get the jobs that are going to be required to be all that we can be as an economy and as a people by using the internet and using the global online marketplace? Workforce is a big challenge and we need to do more. I again want to thank my fellow members of the committee on that inquiry. I look forward to finding out when we next meet what our committee will turn its mind to next. There are some great recommendations in the report. I recommend it to everyone. We must adapt to stay competitive in this new global scene. I also commend this report to the House. BILLS 10 BILLS Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 10

Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 10 12:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor has for over a century demonstrated its understanding that it is a paramount responsibility of all parliamentarians to keep our community safe and our nation secure. We in Labor have demonstrated this commitment by working in a bipartisan way, whether in government or in opposition, to ensure that our security and law enforcement agencies have the powers and resources they need to keep our communities safe. While we will not always agree with our political opponents on how Australians can be best protected, Labor has a long track record of engaging constructively in the political debate about matters of this kind. These are debates that all healthy democracies should have. And because we in Labor do not believe that national security should ever be manipulated or exploited for partisan political purposes, we do not seek to politicise any disagreements that we may have with the government on national security matters. We always seek to resolve those disagreements through constructive and considered debate. Labor also acknowledges that it is the prerogative of the government of the day to decide how it wishes to organise the executive government and its agencies. This is generally referred to as the 'machinery of government'. The present bill, the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, is essentially a procedural bill that implements the decision of the Turnbull government to radically reorganise some of our nation's national security and law enforcement agencies. This bill was carefully examined by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which recommended that it be passed, subject to an amendment being made relating to the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. In light of that recommendation and because this bill is essentially a procedural bill that implements the Turnbull government's decisions for machinery-of-government changes, Labor supports the passage of this bill. However, Labor also wishes to place on the record several of its concerns about the creation of the changes to our national security and law enforcement framework that this bill implements. We do this because the machinery-of-government changes that this bill helps to legally implement are not minor or technical but are rather a significant reworking of our national security and federal law enforcement framework. This is openly acknowledged by the government. As the Prime Minister declared in his second reading speech on this bill on 7 December last year: … these initiatives represent the most far-reaching reorganisation of our national security architecture since the Hope royal commissions of the late seventies and early eighties. Labor's primary concern is that the government has struggled to explain why the sweeping changes to be brought about by this bill are required at all. For decades, both Labor and Liberal governments have expounded on the efficacy of our existing national security framework, lauding the existing system of cooperation between agencies and their many successes in detecting and stopping terrorist attacks and in dealing with serious crime. As the Prime Minister said, again in his second reading speech on this bill last year: To those who argue that the system is not broken, I can reassure you that you are absolutely right. We have been incredibly well served by our intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies. And just last year, a comprehensive review of our intelligence services was conducted by Mr Michael L'Estrange AO and Mr Stephen Merchant PSM, the unclassified version of which was released on 18 July 2017. That review did not in any way recommend the kinds of changes that the Turnbull government is now putting in place. In many respects, the changes brought about are an experiment with our national security. Given how effective our agencies have been to date in keeping Australians safe, we in Labor are concerned that the reasons for this experiment have not been sufficiently explained by the Prime Minister. I also note that the concept of a department of home affairs was previously considered by Prime Minister Howard, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Abbott. After careful consideration, each of those prime ministers rejected the proposal, yet that is the proposal that the member for Wentworth is now enacting. It is not clear to Labor what has changed, and the government has not been able to explain it. One key effect of the new arrangements is to concentrate power that was once shared between a number of ministers and their departments into a single minister and a new super department called the Department of Home Affairs. Most democratic nations are very careful to avoid the concentration of power in a single entity or in a single person, instead favouring systems with checks and balances. This is particularly the case with the coercive powers and intrusive capabilities that our law enforcement and security agencies exercise, because concentrating those powers and capabilities under a single department and its minister can only weaken the checks and balances needed to protect Australian citizens from the inappropriate or unlawful exercise of those powers and capabilities. Many of our most senior security experts have also pointed out that the concentration of power may weaken our national security by reducing the contestability of key decisions. Under the arrangements being put in place by this bill, a single minister, the member for Dickson, Mr Dutton, will alone be responsible for complex decisions that have until now been debated by multiple ministers who have shared responsibility for our nation's security. I also note that the government's approach to legislating the various changes to the existing acts necessary for the creation of the Department of Home Affairs has been somewhat haphazard. The government first stated its intent to establish the Department of Home Affairs in July 2017. On 7 December 2017, the Prime Minister second-read this bill, which at that time amended only four acts of the parliament. Subsequently, following the government's disclosure in evidence to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that there were a further 33 acts of parliament that required amendment in order to effect the creation of the portfolio, the Attorney-General proposed that the bill have a further 311 amendments to the primary legislation inserted into it. The opposition was given notice of these substantial further amendments. Amendments (2) to (27) are changes to schedule 1 of the bill to implement the first and second recommendations the PJCIS set out in its advisory report on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017—that's the first report that the committee produced. Amendment (28) incorporates a new schedule 2, which amends some 32 acts and provides in large part for minor administrative amendments effecting the transfer of powers from the Attorney-General to the Minister for Home Affairs. These further amendments were also referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, where they were considered. They were reported on by the intelligence committee, which recommended that the amendments should also be passed. In keeping with Labor's bipartisan commitment to national security, Labor accepts that recommendation of the intelligence committee to the effect that the foreshadowed amendments to this bill should be passed. I note that the committee stated at paragraph 1.27 of its report on this bill: …machinery of government changes are a matter for the government of the day. As such, it is not within the remit of the Committee to consider the broader policy decisions behind the changes, but to scrutinise the amendments as proposed. In conclusion, and consistent with the intelligence committee's view, I reiterate that Labor acknowledges the prerogative of the executive to determine the machinery of government and supports this bill as implementing changes brought about under that prerogative. Labor will carefully monitor the operation of these new arrangements and listen carefully to the advice of your security agencies as these arrangements take effect to make certain that the new framework operates as the government intends and is in fact a benefit to our nation's security. I commend the bill to the House. 13:05 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill. I was somewhat disappointed by the comments from the member for Isaacs, who has suggested that this bill is an experiment. He uses the word 'experiment', a word, I think, that uncovers Labor's clear willy-nilly experimental approach on matters of national security. Mr Dreyfus HWG What are you talking about? Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 The member for Isaacs wishes to know what it is I'm speaking of. Well, I would like to ensure that the good member is advised that there were 50,000 illegal arrivals in Australia under the last Labor government on 800 boats, and at least 1,200 people died at sea; 1,200 people drowned at sea. There has not been an illegal boat arrival in Australia for 1,381 days, as of this morning. Over 3,481 visas of serious criminals have been cancelled, and yet the member for Isaacs wishes to interject, in absolute confusion. This sort of policy area should never be an experiment, because we are talking about national security. That is why I am rising to support the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. Indeed, there is no more fundamental responsibility of a federal government than the security of this nation, nor is there any greater expectation from the Australian people of their federal government than doing everything in its power to ensure their security and that of their families. This is what underpins the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio and the bill we see before us today, the most significant reform to our intelligence and national security system in decades. Our security agencies face a never-ending battle to protect Australians against the ever-changing face of terrorism and to defend our national security and our freedoms. Gone are the days when our enemies were relatively easy to identify, wearing uniforms of an opposing power, standing on foreign shores accessible only by boat or plane. Today's enemies are far better camouflaged and include cyberhackers, terrorists and lone-wolf attackers. They are elusive, hiding online in the dark web and at times in our very neighbourhood. The world today is very different from that of 40 years ago, when much of our intelligence infrastructure was conceived as a result of the Hope royal commission. In 2016, 77 countries experienced at least one terrorism related death, more than any other year since 2001. The rise of the internet gives terrorist groups and criminal organisations unlimited global reach. We're seeing increased vulnerability of critical infrastructure, including financial systems, to cyberattack, and we all know the increase in violent extremism now shaping the world we live in. Recognising these threats and the complex changes faced by our security agencies in responding to them has led to this bill and the establishment of the Office of National Intelligence and the Department of Home Affairs. These are changes that further strengthen our security arrangements as well as the integrity and oversight of our security agencies, changes that recognise the need for closer cooperation between our domestic security and law enforcement agencies, and changes that enable an adaptive infrastructure, limit duplication, and set priorities and shared security goals across the portfolio. Although we speak of changes, I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree that Australia's law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies are nonetheless second to none. Indeed, Australia's domestic situation is more secure than ever, with—and I repeat for the sake of the member for Isaacs—no illegal boat arrivals in almost four years, or, more precisely, 1,381 days as of this morning; with more than 3,481 serious criminals having had their visas cancelled since December 2014; with national security agencies having been responsible for 37 counterterrorism operations since September 2014, resulting in 85 people being charged with terrorism and other offences; and, more importantly, with the prevention of six attacks and 14 major counterterrorism disruption operations in response to potential attacks planned here in Australia. We do face challenges, though. There are more than 100 Australians fighting or engaged with terrorist groups in Iraq and Syria and 190 people providing support and funding from Australia. Our intelligence agencies are currently managing around 400 high-priority counterterrorism investigations, and so it is essential that we continually invest in and support our national security agencies. This bill before the House today provides for this continued investment to ensure we stay ahead of the game, ahead of the terrorists, ahead of the people smugglers and ahead of the cyberhackers. Furthermore and importantly, this bill confirms that each agency retains full statutory independence while reporting to one single minister, the Minister for Home Affairs—a single point in cabinet who will provide comprehensive and integrated advice to government on the challenges and threats we face and how we should respond. Strengthening the Attorney-General's capacity is also an essential element of the changes reflected in this bill. This bill sees the Attorney-General take responsibility for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and for the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. This will provide oversight and accountability to give Australians confidence not only that our agencies will safeguard our nation's security but that they will do so respecting the rights and freedoms of all. Security and freedom, it must be said, are not conflicting or contradictory forces. Despite the usual neo-Marxist drivel coming from the Australian Greens, who claim that Australia is becoming a police state, there is no dichotomy between security and freedom in this country. To claim otherwise is just a shallow excuse. Failing to support a robust national security apparatus is nothing short of an abrogation of duty— Mr Bandt interjecting— Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Thank you to my honourable colleague from the Greens, who has made a positive contribution finally in this House. Indeed, it shows precisely that, when it comes to the substance, why the Greens are actually not fit for government—because they refuse to support the robust national security apparatus being put forward in this bill. Security and freedom are in fact interrelated and reinforcing and must, therefore, be considered together, side-by-side, in balance and in full realisation of the threat posed. To better enable and empower this relationship is the clear intention of the reforms put forward in this bill. Indeed, to be free is to be secure, and to be secure is to be free. It's worth noting that we are not alone in this fight. After all, centralised intelligence coordination has been established in the USA, the UK, Canada and New Zealand—key allies of ours in the fight against global terrorism and criminal organisations. It's also worth noting that this bill enacts a key mandate of the 2017 independent intelligence review to take 'individual agency excellence to an even higher level of collective performance through strengthening integration across Australia's national intelligence enterprise'. This bill will ensure better strategic planning and coordination for our immigration, border protection, law enforcement and domestic security agencies while preserving their operational strength and independence. It will allow them to continue to detect, prevent and respond to acts of terrorism and organised crime within Australia—threats that are ever evolving and complex, driven by new technologies and the expansion of cyberspace. This bill underpins the coalition government's determination and commitment to keep all Australians safe and secure—a fundamental right enjoyed by all Australians. It's on this basis that I'm happy to commend the bill to the House. 13:17 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I'm no great fan of George Brandis, the former senator and former Attorney-General. We strongly opposed the laws that he got passed through this place to give greater surveillance powers over everyday Australians' activity online. Watching him in that famous Sky interview trying to explain what metadata was, as a justification for this big power grab, was like watching my dog trying to play chess. It was an absolute debacle from a government that was intent on power grabs without understanding why they were seeking what they were seeking. When George Brandis, who has been on the inside of this government as the nation's highest law officer, says, 'Be worried about the conservatives within this conservative government and their ideological right-wing bent,' and says when he has been out of the job for five minutes, 'I'm worried about what's happening inside this government,' and when the Deputy Liberal leader, the member for Curtin, organises front-page articles in the Herald Sun to say that she is worried about the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, increasing his power in this country, including the power to spy on or surveil ordinary Australians, then alarm bells should be ringing. It's not just the Greens who are saying that if there's someone who deserves the full oversight of parliament and the full scrutiny of the people it's Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson; now his own colleagues and former colleagues are saying that this man cannot be trusted with the greater power to surveil everyday Australians. When they are prepared to say that something is going on in this government, we as a country should all be worried. What is happening here is that this weak Prime Minister is doing what the Minister for Home Affairs has organised and got the numbers for. He has forced upon the Prime Minister this power grab over security matters—the likes of which we have not seen before. It is no wonder that his current and former colleagues are doing everything they can short of open mutiny to say: 'Hey, Australia, have a look at what is going on here. Something is deeply wrong.' As you go through the bill and the government's proposed amendments to the bill, you will understand exactly what is at stake. Let's take the question of adverse security assessments, for example. We have seen people languish in limbo in detention centres because they were caught in a diabolical catch-22. They were told they were not eligible to come to Australia because they were a national security risk. When they asked to see the details so that they could respond, they were told: 'No, we can't tell you. It's an adverse security assessment from ASIO. We can't give you the right to respond.' So many people languished in detention for years without any justification all because they were in the situation where they could not respond to an assessment that was put on their file. They had no rights to challenge it, no rights of appeal. But at least that was not being done by the minister responsible for their immigration detention. At least there was another government department and another government agency. As a result of some of the pressure that was brought to bear over many years, we saw many instances of the notices being withdrawn and people being able to move out and live in the community. But under this bill and these sets of proposals, the home affairs minister is now going to accrue both powers: the power to keep someone in detention and also the power to say that they're a security risk but not give them the chance to respond. Those are powers that restrict peoples' liberty and movement, and these are people who have not committed a criminal offence. We are giving to Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, unfettered power that will not be able to be subject to review by anyone, and that should send a shiver down the spine of everyone in this country. It doesn't just stop there with respect to adverse security assessments. There are a number of agencies that are now going to come under this minister's control. At the moment, with respect to people who are on welfare, who are doing it very tough and trying hard to make ends meet, there are certain situations in which someone's social security payments can be taken away from them not through the person necessarily having done anything that was proven wrong by a court but just because of ministerial discretion. At the moment, there's a degree of protection because it requires two ministers to do that. When you consider that you're effectively saying to someone, 'You now no longer have any money on which to live,' there's a good reason why that shouldn't be vested solely in one person. But that's what this bill does. This bill gives the Minister for Home Affairs the power to say to certain people, 'You no longer get any money either.' Sole power! It is unreviewable power, in many instances. It's not just about whether certain people are going to get locked up and it's not just questions about whether or not you're going to be able to survive because you don't have any money, we're also dealing with some of the key questions around peoples' right to move freely in society. At the moment, there's the capacity in certain situations to go and get control orders put on people—that is, they go to a court, and the court can say, 'Person X, even though you haven't committed a crime, we will restrict what you can and can't do.' It's worrying that a government can exercise that power—full stop—because it's effectively saying, 'We are worried about something you might do in the future, even though you haven't been prosecuted, charged or convicted yet.' A government doing it is an abrogation of the separation of powers, which is why, in most instances in Australia at the moment, there are at least some minimal checks and balances in place. One of those is that, in most instances, it's the Attorney-General who has the power to go and do that, because it is seen as such a fundamental question of liberty that it should be the first law officer in this country who is able to go to a court to seek something so serious—very, very serious—as a control order against someone who has not committed a crime. That has now gone. In many instances, that has now gone and is being transferred to Peter Dutton, the member for Dickson, the Minister for Home Affairs. What is the justification for that? What is the justification for an abrogation of such a fundamental liberty as the right to freedom of movement and the right to be presumed innocent if you have not been found guilty of committing any offence? It's for that reason that the Law Council said: Given the extraordinary nature of these powers and the potential for restrictions on liberty involved, the Attorney-General should retain responsibility for their exercise. As the First Law Officer with broader policy responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system and integrity functions, the Law Council considers it appropriate for the Attorney-General to continue to exercise powers and functions relating to potential restrictions on liberty. This approach would also be consistent with the proposed amendments for the Attorney-General to retain responsibility for powers and functions that have the potential to restrict liberty under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) (e.g. questioning, and questioning and detention warrants). As a minimum, the agreement (i.e. not simply a consultation) of the Attorney-General should be obtained prior to the bringing of such applications and for matters subsequently arising out of proceedings. The Law Council is telling us that this is such a fundamental departure from democratic practices in Western society that we should not do it. But the government does not care. And when you have a home affairs minister who is willing to broadcast to the nation that certain people are dead to him because they happen to disagree with him, when he is happy to say that journalists, commentators and activists are dead to him because they dare to question him, this is not a man who should be given the unfettered power to go and seek control orders or to detain people or to cut off people's welfare payments. This is a man who should be kept on a much shorter leash, not given bigger powers, but that is what we seem to be about to do. Everyone else in this chamber, it seems, is prepared to vote for this bill, and that is of grave, grave concern, because we could have the prospect in the Senate of stopping it proceeding. In exactly the same way as the opposition wants us to stand up to the government on a number of other matters, this is one matter that we could be standing up to the government on and should be standing up to the government on. I say to the opposition in particular: please reconsider your position when it comes to the Senate. Do not give this man unfettered power over people's liberty, over people's payments, over people's lives. This is a man who should be held to account. I very much hope that he gets turfed out at the next election, and I hope this government gets turfed out at the next election, and it may happen within a matter of months. If it's potentially going to happen within a matter of months, do not sign off now in this parliament on giving this man more power and on putting in place changes to the way that we deal with fundamental individual rights and liberties in this country, because we might not be able to get them undone after the next election. Who knows what the composition of the Senate will be at that stage? We've got the opportunity to stand up to this government and to stand up to a very bad minister and to say, once and for all, 'You are not going to get further powers over the rights and liberties of people in this country who have not committed a crime, but instead we will hold you to account.' The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The debate is interrupted 10 seconds early, in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 15 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Tweed Hospital 15 13:29 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond Recently, the New South Wales government announced the site of the new Tweed Hospital to be built on a 23-hectare site at Cudgen. It's understood there were more than 30 potential sites. Since the announcement, there's been widespread community concern about the chosen location, especially as it is on prime agricultural land in an area that is one of the largest producers of sweet potatoes in New South Wales. Whilst we all support better health outcomes, we're all alarmed by the cloak of secrecy surrounding the selection of the location and the fact that the Berejiklian government refused to engage in any community consultation prior to the announcement. There has been no transparency in this decision-making process. The Tweed Hospital is under enormous pressure, and better hospital services are needed. But locals were not consulted. The decision was just dropped on the community without giving them any proper input at all. I support New South Wales Labor's call for an independent external auditor to be appointed to examine all the documentation relating to the government's selection of the location. It's time for the government's secrecy to end. It's important to note that, in 2002, the land was designated and classified as land of state significance due to its rich, red volcanic soil. Many in the community have raised their concerns that property developers have been seeking its rezoning since the 1980s. The community is also very, very concerned that this is a backdoor means to allowing overdevelopment. The fact is, the North Coast has been neglected by the Nationals. We do need better health services to respond to growing demand and the ageing population, but we need decisions made with proper consultation and transparency. Maclean High School: Rowing, Slade, Pam Ms: Retirement 16 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to congratulate Maclean High School's rowing team, which is the second most successful team in combined high schools rowing history. Over the years they have accrued 154 wins, including two boys point scores, seven girls point scores and 11 champion school titles. Earlier this year, 14 rowers competed in the 2018 Combined High School Rowing Championships at the Sydney International Regatta Centre, many of them first-time rowers. At the end of the competition, Maclean High School had amassed seven crew medals, including gold, silver and bronze, and an impressive point score to achieve third place—an incredible achievement for a team of only 14 athletes. My congratulations to Zayne Fischer, Emma Inmon, Aimee Jeffrey, Ashley Luland, April Shannon, Jacqui Samms, Katherine Behn, Ethan Davis, Andre Kendall, Lachlan Maxwell, Duncan Fischer, Stephanie Hutton, Kirilly Maxwell and Clara Samms. This team is managed by the Maclean High School rowing coordinator, Candice Jagoe. Again, congratulations to them all! I'd also like to congratulate Pam Slade, who just recently retired after 42 years of working at the Mandarin Palace in Lismore. She was an institution at this iconic restaurant and the third generation of the family to work there. Well done! Budget 16 13:33 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Canberra was kicked in the guts by the Turnbull government in last year's budget. We received a paltry and insulting 0.004 per cent of the infrastructure spend—a mere $3 million from $75 billion. And, to add insult to injury, we were presented with nothing but cuts. It was a budget for our nation's capital with nothing but cuts: cuts to the Public Service, in the thousands; cuts to our national institutions; cuts to our schools, in the millions; cuts to our hospitals; and cuts to our universities. There were cuts of more than 2,150 jobs from the Public Service, 14 per cent of staff from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and 20 per cent of staff from the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. These cuts are not just numbers. They are cuts to the people of my community—people with mortgages, people with rent, people with car loans, people with medical expenses, people with families and people with bills to pay. These are people who are used to bracing themselves whenever a coalition government releases a budget. We saw it in the nineties under the Howard government. Once again, we're bracing ourselves for tonight's budget, and once again I'm begging the Turnbull government—please, no more cuts to Canberra! End the sustained attack on— (Time expired) Budget 16 13:34 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore With the federal budget being delivered tonight, I would like to place on record the importance of maintaining financial assistance grants to local government authorities across Australia, in particular in my electorate where the funding is used to deliver community facilities, upgrade local roads, minimise traffic congestion and improve road safety. During the 2017-18 year, the City of Joondalup received financial assistance grants from the federal government totalling $5.4 million, which included $3.2 million in general purpose funding and $2.1 million for local roads. Similarly, the City of Wanneroo received $3.8 million in general purpose funding and $2.9 million for local roads, totalling $6.6 million in the 2017-18 year. It is important that a strong level of federal funding to support local government is maintained in the current budget to deliver services and amenities for local ratepayers. I wish to thank the Prime Minister for visiting Perth last week and announcing a $3.2 billion infrastructure package for Western Australia to partially alleviate the inequity in GST distribution for our state. This positive outcome has been achieved through the advocacy of Western Australian members and senators. Macarthur Electorate: Koalas 16 13:36 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise to speak on an issue of great significance to my electorate of Macarthur: the preservation and protection of our koala population. This government can waste billions of dollars giving handouts to big business, and the Berejiklian state government can waste billions of dollars on unnecessary refurbishments and replacements of stadiums, but they can give nothing to the iconic koala population of Macarthur. Given the rapid growth in development in the area, our koala population is at risk. It may surprise you to know, Deputy Speaker Mitchell, that we have one of the largest disease-free—that is, chlamydia-free—koala populations in Australia, and it is essential that they are protected. I have written to both the state and federal environment ministers but have had no response from them about protecting our iconic koalas. It is just absolutely shameful. Like they've done with infrastructure in south-west Sydney, they give lip service to wanting to do something but actually do nothing in practice. It's not going to be very long before our koala population will disappear because of the rapid and unfettered development without any protections. I urge the state and federal governments to urgently act upon this evolving environmental disaster as soon as possible. Budget 17 13:37 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite Our government's budget to be handed down tonight will continue to drive a stronger economy, lower taxes and create more local jobs. A key investment is infrastructure, with $7.8 billion to be spent in Victoria, including another $50 million for the Geelong rail duplication. This will include second platforms for Waurn Ponds, Marshall and South Geelong. This brings our government's commitment to $150 million. It will unlock congestion and deliver more frequent and reliable train services for Geelong and Colac. Only a paltry $10 million has been provided by state Labor—they need to get on and build it—and that's utterly shameful. I'm also delighted that we've announced $20 million for the construction of Avalon's new international terminal. This will accommodate the arrival and departure of more than 400,000 international passengers annually as a result of a wonderful deal between Avalon and AirAsia. Victoria's second international airport will boost tourism, freight opportunities, our regional economy and jobs. This is a game changer. I'm incredibly proud of our government's support for Avalon, which is in stark contrast to federal Labor which, unbelievably, in 2008 stopped Avalon from building an international terminal. The member for Corio said this proposal was not in Geelong and Australia's interests. Shame on the member for Corio, who shows what a poor representative he is for his electorate. (Time expired) Newstart Allowance 17 13:39 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the parlous state of affairs for people living on Newstart in my electorate. I want to highlight Caryn Hearsch. Caryn met with me recently, and she has asked me personally to stand in this parliament and tell her story. She is 61 years of age. In 2013, after 44 years of continuous employment, she found herself unemployed for the first time. In the first period of that unemployment, she wrote 720 job applications and she retrained. She did manage to get some employment for 12 months as a teacher's aid, but again finds herself trying to survive on Newstart. She is doing 15 hours volunteer work a week at Werribee Support and Housing, which highlights for her not only how difficult her own life is, trying to pay a mortgage, pay the bills and get medical attention, but also how difficult it is for others. Caryn desperately wants the Prime Minister to hear this story to understand how tough living on $40 a day is. Caryn wants him to know she wants a job; she wants a job now. She doesn't want to be on Newstart, but if she is on Newstart she wants to be able to live on Newstart. I call on the Prime Minister to think about the Caryn Hearsches of the world all across Australia and do something in response to their pleas. Canning Electorate: Peel Health Campus 17 13:40 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning The Peel Health Campus has been grievously overlooked by the WA state government. It is the only hospital in Mandurah, which sits in the heart of the Peel region. PHC was opened in 1997, but since then it has not received any significant upgrades. This is despite our region having grown by more than 55,000 residents over the past 20 years. The hospital is hopelessly overworked. The staff at PHC do a fantastic job, as I saw firsthand over Christmas when my father had to visit their emergency ward. However, the facilities are ageing and the services are limited, and the capacity is not acceptable for WA's second-largest city. An emergency department with just 16 beds cannot sustain a city of more than 80,000 people. The WA government has continued to overlook the Peel Health Campus. Recently, the federal government announced an extra $190 million for WA hospitals. Our state is grateful; we are grateful. But the distribution of the funding was based on state government priorities and, incredibly, the Peel Health Campus didn't even make their list. Last week I wrote to the WA Premier and health minister to express my disappointment and to offer my assistance in delivering a better deal for the Peel region. The people of Mandurah are angry, and rightly so. They don't want more politics. They just want the situation fixed, and I'm determined to get them a solution. Mayo Electorate: Hahndorf Rifle Club 17 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Every May is history month in South Australia. As part of the festival, I was delighted to accept an invitation to the Hahndorf Rifle Club's heritage day. Much of Mayo has a distinctive German heritage due to the Prussian Lutheran families who immigrated in the 19th century to escape religious persecution. Part of their culture was their unique style of target shooting, using a ring target over a 180-metre range. Even today, competitors must not use telescopic rifles. The first king shoot was conducted in 1864, the prize being a silver medal and three pounds and three shillings. Ever since the first competition, the winner of the king shoot has placed a medal onto the existing apron of medals, and the apron is now very long. Today, the Hahndorf Rifle Club is believed to be the only club in the Southern Hemisphere that still shoots using the original target style. I thank the club for their invitation to attend and for allowing me to have a shot. The heritage shotguns and rifles truly are works of art. It is unlikely my name will ever appear on the winner's apron—I am not a very good shot—but I'm richer for having learnt about the history and I commend the Hahndorf Rifle Club for preserving the memorabilia, firearm skills and culture of our Prussian past. Bonner Electorate: Roads 18 13:43 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner The intersection of Newnham Road and Wecker Road in Mount Gravatt East is notorious. It has recently been named by RACQ as the worst intersection in Brisbane for serious crashes and casualties, and ranks fifth-worst in Queensland. I've lost count of the number of locals who've told me about their near misses and crashes. Parents who drop off their kids at Mount Gravatt East State School have an appalling time navigating the intersection. Paramedics are being called out far too often. I've started a petition, and we are demanding action to improve safety at this dangerous black spot. I call on all levels of government to work together on a solution. I've already written to the Lord Mayor to request Brisbane City Council's assistance in improving the intersection. The petition I started last year to fix Lindum crossing generated huge community support. I believe upgrading the Newnham and Wecker roads intersection is also important, and it deserves federal funding. Over the weekend, I had a stall at the Mount Gravatt markets, and it was clear from the conversations I had with locals that this intersection needs to be fixed now. To sign my petition, visit my website or just drop into my office. A-League 18 13:44 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland It has been a brilliant season for the Newcastle Jets football team; they've gone from wooden spooner to grand finalist. Unfortunately, the grand final did not go to them last Saturday night. It was a great show. We had 29,000 people at the stadium. We had big crowds watching the game from Speers Point Park and in town. Unfortunately, the spectacle of the game was ruined by the incredible incompetence of Football Federation Australia. The video assistant referee failed at a crucial time, when Melbourne was awarded a goal despite being clearly off side. The assistant referees had been told to rely on the VAR, so they didn't flag a clear off side. After this, we had weasel words from FFA; they put out a statement admitting that they had got it wrong and that they had robbed the Newcastle Jets. They talked about the disappointment and frustration of Newcastle fans. Well, they're wrong; it's red-hot anger. This clear incompetence changed the game and altered the result. Heads must roll. People must be sacked and an asterisk must be placed against Melbourne's name in the history books as an illegitimate winner of the grand final. It's a great shame, because it was a great season by the Jets. If the FFA are serious about honouring the millions of Australians who are fans of football and the hundreds of thousands of kids who play soccer in this country, they must lift their game; it was an embarrassment. Forrest Electorate: Newton Moore Senior High School 18 13:46 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Newton Moore Senior High School's Clontarf academy is a fantastic academy. The Clontarf Foundation exists to improve the education, discipline, life skills, self-esteem and employment prospects of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men. It's delivered through an Australian rules football academy. Newton Moore's Clontarf academy opened in 2007 and has grown in leaps and bounds. In its inaugural year, 41 students graduated. Over 500 students have graduated from the school since its inception. It's a great result. Eighty per cent of the graduates have gone on to employment and further education within their first year out of the school. The majority who've studied at the academy are now working, starting their own families and buying their own homes. In 2013, the academy started yearly health checks, and now over 230 young Indigenous men have had health checks. Full credit must be given to the team who lead and inspire these young men, led by director, Boyd Davey, and regional manager, Michael Lay. Boyd, Michael and their team are delivering great results in the south-west. There are currently more than 60 students enrolled at the school this year. I congratulate all of the staff and the principal, Susan Kerr, at Newton Moore Senior High School—all of the leadership group. I commend the great work of Newton Moore's Clontarf academy. I commend the young men who are part of this course and in education and leadership. Bells Line of Road 18 13:48 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Back in 1951, 67 years ago, the Bells Line of Road corridor was reserved by the New South Wales government. Now, I would never advocate for us going back 67 years in history, because we did some pretty awful things back then, but I would advocate for the many landholders, families and businesses 67 years ago who set up along that stretch of road and made their homes with the idea that the corridor was reserved. Now, with the stroke of a pen, the New South Wales Liberal government have come along and decided to realign that corridor. This has put 500 people's homes, businesses and lives up in absolute turmoil. The New South Wales state government sent Network Ten, Nine Network and a couple of people from the department to inform these families that their homes were going to be compulsorily acquired so that they could move this section of road to accommodate a 24-hour airport down the road at Badgerys Creek—another backflip from this government. My office has received over 1,000 submissions. I have attended community rallies of 500 to 600 people during the day, when they should be at work. I have had numerous families come into my office, including children, who are upset about the future of their homes. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to everybody involved with the Castlereagh, Cranebrook and Llandilo action group, including the leaders of that group, Mary Vella, Patrick Serobian, Cathy Galea, Steve Abbott and everybody at Raygal nursery, for their continued advocacy for our community. Live Animal Exports 19 13:49 Mr JOYCE E5D New England This is my first 90-second statement. I think it's really important that our nation doesn't go down a path that it's gone down two other times that I can nominate. With the closure of the live cattle trade, we had an immense outpouring—rightly so—about the barbarity of how cattle were being treated, but this was quickly overtaken by empathy for those who were most devastated by the financial loss of a major industry. In time, it was recognised that this was one of the worst decisions our nation had made. Likewise, with the closing of the greyhound-racing industry, the initial outpouring in regard to the treatment of greyhounds was overtaken by the sense of how we had affected those people in the greyhound-racing industry. Now, with the live sheep issue, we have to be very aware that those who are dealing with live sheep are generally dealing with lesser country that can't take cattle. We are going to affect their livelihoods and their income streams, and not only theirs but those of the towns that they surround. It is about keeping dignity in these people's lives and giving them the capacity, as we have now done, to afford renovations and a new car and to get a better return back through the farm gate. In the past, some of these sheep had no value; they were shot. Now they are worth in excess of $100, up to $150. We have an obligation in this nation to protect the dignity and the rights of those people in the sheep industry. Cooke, Mr Tony 19 13:51 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Sadly, a giant of the labour movement passed away last week after a long battle with cancer. Tony Cooke was born into a tough life and, by sheer will and determination, he made the world a better place for working people and all Western Australians alike. Tony was one of WA's most recognisable faces during his time as the Secretary of the Trades and Labor Council, now known as UnionsWA. Tony studied social work at university with my mum to improve his capacity to help the most vulnerable, who were always at the forefront of his mind. Tony always stood up for what was right. As the leader of the WA union movement, Tony stood in solidarity with maritime workers during the Patrick dispute 20 years ago this year. He also led the biggest march on Parliament House in WA's history, where 35,000 people spoke out against the Court government's antiworker third wave IR reforms, which were eventually defeated and repealed. This campaign led to the establishment of Solidarity Park and the workers memorial at the WA parliament, on the site of the Workers Embassy and the now infamous workers ball, which I attended with my family back in 1997. I and so many others, as evidenced by the throng of attendees at his funeral on Thursday, will remember Tony as a giant of the labour movement with a brilliant strategic brain, never forgetting why he was there: looking after the working people of WA. I send my best wishes to the family he leaves behind. We will seek, as you said, Tony, to live good lives. Vale Tony Cooke. Hughes Electorate: Bushfires 19 13:52 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes One of the great things about living in the southern suburbs of Sydney, in the electorate of Hughes, is the natural bushland that surrounds us. However, this comes with the risk of bushfires, for bushfires are as much a part of our natural environment as the sun or the rain, and our history tells us how devastating these bushfires can be. In the 1994 fires, we lost 91 homes in Como-Jannali, nine at Alfords Point and five at Menai and Bangor. In the 2002 fires, we lost 10 homes at Engadine and homes in Sandy Point and Wattle Grove. Tragically, since 1977 there have been 11 deaths of volunteer firefighters in the Sutherland shire. So, when three weeks ago fires again threatened our local community, we braced for the worst. Yet, when the smoke cleared, the only property lost was one children's cubbyhouse. Some have called this a miracle. However, I don't believe it was. It was a result of years of planning and countless hours of training and the courage and determination of more than 500 firefighters on those two days. So, on behalf of all the residents of my local community, I simply say a big thank you to the Rural Fire Service, to the SES, to Fire and Rescue New South Wales and to all those who kept our community safe on that dreadful weekend. Bendigo Electorate: Bendigo Foodshare 20 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Bendigo Foodshare provides food to those most in need. Last financial year alone, it rescued and handed out over 585,000 kilos of food to our local community. Bendigo Foodshare supports more than 40 schools with breakfast programs. It supports more than 40 organisations in preparing meals and distributing emergency food relief. However, the organisation was hit pretty hard at the beginning of this year and the end of last year when Foodbank Victoria stopped delivering refrigerated food to Bendigo. The donations that it received and the food that it was to hand out almost halved, meaning that people in Bendigo were literally going hungry. Today, we can acknowledge the state Labor government, who have stepped in to help out by providing funding to Bendigo Foodshare to help ensure that that refrigerated food does get to Bendigo and can be distributed. I have also written to the Treasurer and asked that he match that funding in tonight's budget to help ensure that our emergency food relief agencies are able to receive food and to distribute the food to those most in need in our regional electorates. Teachers 20 13:55 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman David Gonski released last month Through growth to achievement. This is a somewhat utopian vision for the Australian education system and nothing new that we haven't heard before. These are great ideas from the rest of the world, but, in reality, students cannot achieve their potential if we have a workplace system where teachers cannot achieve theirs. So last week I took on the vested interests. I took on the unions and the education departments, and I said, quite simply, 'Pay teachers for every hour they do.' Don't listen to this mob here, which is complicit with the perpetrators of an injustice and a crime against the teaching profession, who are not being paid for the hours they do. Teachers deserve overtime like the rest of the Public Service. They deserve to have the 41-week term decluttered. They deserve to have unessential teacher roles given to other professions, and they deserve a promotional structure that pays them on merit, that pays them on postgraduate education and not in ridiculous increments that end at the age of 29. Enough of treating teachers like a trade. They are a profession. But first we need to save their mental health. They've got to go home, switch off, be present with their loved ones and enjoy their profession—not because they're doing 55 hours a week and half of that unpaid. It's like stealing grapes from a fruit shop. When a teacher in my electorate was paid with a KitKat for doing an evening of parent-teacher interviews, I'd had a gutful, and I'm going to stand up for teachers if this mob won't. I'll stand up for teachers if unions won't. Teaching is not a trade; it's a profession, and you've got to pay them like they're one first. (Time expired) Northern Territory Young Achiever Awards, Local Council Elections: Northern Territory 20 13:57 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon It may come as a shock to some members of the House who are actually getting quite old. I look at the youth up in the galleries here. It's great to see so many young people. I didn't know how to dab until recently, but now— An honourable member: Don't do it! Mr GOSLING 245392 No, too late! I was taught by the member for Maribyrnong, the Leader of the Opposition. But some opposite do not understand these things. Some are past their use-by date. However, what I want to say is that we've got great youth in the Northern Territory. I was recently at the Young Achiever Awards, and I want to congratulate Phoebe Hooper; Thomas Maxwell; Michelle Kula; Eloy Mason; Frazer Oliver; Alex Florance; Christopher Wilson; Daryl Lacey; Maggie McGowan, niece of our own member for Indi; Lisa Tiernan; Christopher Teng; and Danzal Baker, who all won awards in their respective categories. And a massive congratulations goes to the 2018 NT Young Achiever of the Year, Roger Wilyuka. Roger leads a fathers and sons reading program and mentors young fathers, encouraging them to be actively involved in their children's education. Also, the City of Palmerston has got a new mayor and aldermen. I want to congratulate Lord Mayor Athina Pascoe-Bell and aldermen the former member for Solomon Damian Hale, Lucy Buhr, Amber Garden, Ben Giesecke, Sarah Henderson and former military men Tom Lewis and Mick Spick. Well done to all. I look forward to working with you. (Time expired) Beef Australia 21 13:58 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I have to say that it was with a little bit of trepidation and with sorrow in my heart that I boarded the plane yesterday to come to the nation's capital. It was not because I was worried about the cold weather, nor was it a lack of excitement about the federal budget tonight. I'm just a little bit devastated not to be still at home this week, because it's beef week. Beef Australia started out as a street festival in the CBD of Rockhampton in 1988 and has grown and developed to become one of the world's greatest agriculture expositions. Celebrating its 30th anniversary this year, Beef Australia has shown time and time again that regional cities like Rockhampton can put on a hugely professional event that rivals those of their capital city cousins. Seven days devoted to the beef industry of Australia draw in a serious crowd, with over 100,000 visitors expected to filter through the gates this week. Catering for over 2,000 cattle entries, hundreds of trade sites and tens of thousands of guests is no mean feat, and credit must go to those who make it happen. To the chairman, Blair Angus, and his board and to CEO Denis Cox and the tireless staff and volunteers of Beef Australia: we salute you and thank you for once again cementing Rockhampton as the undeniable beef capital of Australia. Here's to the next 30 years. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 21 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Treasurer will be absent from question time today, in preparation for the budget, and I'll take questions on his behalf. CONDOLENCES 21 CONDOLENCES Newman, Hon. Jocelyn Margaret, AO 21 Reference to Federation Chamber 22 14:07 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That the resumption of the debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the death of the Honourable Jocelyn Margaret Newman AO be referred to the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 22 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Treasurer Peter Costello reckons that he'll be dead before the government pays back its debt. Will the Prime Minister confirm that his government's record includes gross debt increasing to a record half a trillion dollars, net debt doubling and net debt as a proportion of the economy growing more rapidly than in almost every advanced economy in the world? 14:08 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth We're not going to take lectures from the Labor Party on debt and deficit. Even after robbing self-funded retirees, discriminating against them, seizing the benefit of franking credits from them in a cash grab, they still can't make their financial plans add up. They want to put money on the public's credit card, as they always have. Remember, they went to the last election with the promise of $16½ billion worth of higher deficits over the forward estimates, plus billions of dollars of additional taxes. They still can't make their budget plans add up with $200 billion of additional taxes planned. There isn't a tax that the Labor Party doesn't want to increase. There are taxes that they used to be in favour of lowering that they now want to increase. The House has heard many times the very eloquent testimony the Leader of the Opposition gave, as many of his predecessors and colleagues have, on the way in which reducing business taxes increases investment, increases economic growth and increases jobs. They've heard all of that, yet they chewed up—spent—the cash at the bank that Peter Costello left them after the Labor Party came in, in 2007, and set us up with a structural deficit that we have been unwinding ever since. We are bringing the budget back into balance, and we're doing that with the responsible economic management that the Labor Party can never deliver. A strong budget depends on strong economic growth, coupled with strong economic leadership, and we are delivering both. That is why we had, over the last calendar year, in 2017, the largest jobs growth in our country's history. We promised jobs and growth in 2016, and that's precisely what we're delivering, and the Treasurer will have more to say about that at 7.30 tonight. Economy 23 14:10 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government is building a stronger economy to guarantee the essential services upon which Australians rely? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. The honourable member, like all honourable members on our side, recognises that the foundation of guaranteeing essential services—building the infrastructure that we need, ensuring that we have record funding for schools, hospitals and Medicare—all depends on a strong economy that delivers more and better jobs for Australians, an economy where business has the confidence to invest and an economy that enables us to provide tax relief to support hardworking Australians and their families and take some of that cost-of-living pressure off Australian households. Every element of our responsible budget that the Treasurer will deliver tonight is built on the foundation of a strong economy. So, it isn't a choice between having a strong economy and policies to spend more on essential services like health and education, on defence and on national security. The reality is that you can't do one without the other. That is why we are able to invest more on congestion-busting infrastructure around the country: on life-saving medicines like Spinraza, a groundbreaking treatment for spinal muscular atrophy, or Opdivo, a treatment for lung cancer and renal cell cancer—one life-saving drug after another going onto the PBS. We can afford to do that because we have a stronger economy. And we're seeing record jobs growth—over 1,000 a day—and last calendar year the highest jobs growth, 415,000, in any calendar year in our history. That demonstrates the strength of our economy. It's part of our plan to grow the economy with policies that back business to create jobs; build the economic infrastructure that we need; put downward pressure on the cost of electricity so that household power bills are as low as they can be; provide more opportunities for our farmers, manufacturers and exporters by securing new trade deals; and help younger Australians into work through our PaTH jobs program. Every element of that would be put at risk by a Labor government. The Labor Party does not have one policy that would create one job or deliver one additional dollar of investment. We saw in the budget in-reply of the Leader of the Opposition last year a pledge to pull out of the TPP. This was when he was urging me to stop being deluded in trying to get the TPP agreed to. Well, that agreement stands for free trade, stands for jobs and stands for investment. That's how we're creating jobs, and they're the thousands of jobs that a Labor government would threaten. Budget 23 14:14 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Howard government Treasurer Peter Costello says that he'll be dead before the government pays back its debt. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since this government came to office gross debt has increased to a record half a trillion dollars and that gross debt will be even higher in tonight's budget? 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I heard the honourable member talking about debt and deficit today. I heard him alleging that the stronger revenues he was foreshadowing in the budget were all the result of stronger global economic growth. In fact, it has nothing to do with that. He didn't give Australians any credit for any of those jobs that are being created or for the investment decisions that businesses across the country are making, and, of course, he didn't want to give the government any credit for the policies that are encouraging businesses to do just that. The one thing we know about the Labor Party is that they run debt and deficit regardless of the season. Global growth in 2010 and 2011 was 5.4 per cent and 4.2 per cent. It was very strong. That's when they ran a $47 billion deficit. They kept running deficits at a time when the iron ore price was $150 a tonne. So, even when commodity prices were high and economic growth was high, Labor, addicted to spending, kept on spending and kept on running up larger and larger deficits. They left us with a structural deficit, which we have been deliberately and consistently winding back, and that is why we are bringing the budget back into balance. The reality is this: Labor does not have a single policy that would encourage one Australian business to invest one dollar or hire one person. They used to have policies like that. They did. They had policies of reducing business taxes. Mr Bowen interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 In fact, the gentleman who is interjecting was so convinced of it he wrote a book about it. He did. It can be found wherever remaindering occurs. There are piles of them. As Clive James said, it's piled up there next to the kung-fu cookbook. You can get it anywhere—lots of them; by the gross, there are so many for sale. It's an artefact. It'll be in the museum. But the reality is that Australians need to know that they have a government that is going to back them, deliver stronger economic growth, ensure hardworking families keep more of the money they have earned, guarantee essential services and ensure government lives within its means. That's our commitment. Infrastructure 24 14:17 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent announcements in nation-building, job-creating regional infrastructure, including in my electorate of Cowper? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:18 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Cowper for his passionate advocacy for Coffs Harbour, the mid North Coast and the Coffs Harbour bypass. It is an important project. I also note the advocacy of the member for Page. This project is also going to benefit his electorate. I was in Page in March, inspecting the construction of the Harwood Bridge, another important link in the Pacific Highway. It's an absolute engineering masterpiece. Yesterday we announced founding of $971 million for the Coffs Harbour bypass. This project has been called for by the community for decades and has been committed to by this government. The Coffs Harbour bypass will reduce travel times. Perhaps more importantly, it will save lives. This project will create hundreds of jobs in construction on the North Coast. Construction will start in 2021, once the environmental aspects have been taken care of and the engineering details have been looked at, and we expect the project to be finished in 2023. The Mayor of Coffs Harbour, Councillor Denise Knight, said she was thrilled. She said, 'We've waited a long time for this. It shows what we can do when all levels of government work together.' That's exactly what's happening. I also praise the National Party state government member for Coffs Harbour, Andrew Fraser, for his passionate advocacy over many, many years. The Coffs bypass is part of our broader Pacific Highway funding package, which is now up to $5.46 billion, meaning hundreds of kilometres of upgraded highway from Sydney almost to Grafton for the thousands of people who drive along it every day. We are getting on with the job: $3.3 billion for Bruce Highway projects; a billion dollars for the M1 Pacific Motorway upgrades; $5 billion for the long-awaited Melbourne Airport rail link from Tullamarine to the CBD; $1.1 billion for further METRONET projects in Perth, to list a few of the nation-building infrastructure projects we have committed to. Our pipeline of infrastructure projects, our decade-long plan of investment, is large. It is creating 50,000 direct and indirect jobs over the 10 years, all helping people get home faster and sooner. On a bipartisan note I want to acknowledge somebody in the gallery: Peter Frazer, sitting up there in the front row with his yellow tie. I'm so pleased to see so many members wearing the yellow pin to mark National Road Safety Week, which concluded in Wagga Wagga on Sunday. Peter lost his daughter Sarah when she was travelling to Charles Sturt University to study, like so many of our kids do. They travel our regional roads, highways and byways. She lost her life, and, sadly, tow truck driver Geoff Clark, who pulled up to help her, was also killed. That happened in February 2012. Peter Frazer has been a tireless and passionate advocate for road safety. I acknowledge him, the government acknowledges him and the parliament acknowledges him for the work he has done. He has an organisation called SARAH, Safer Australian Roads and Highways, after his beautiful daughter. I commend him for his work and for everything he has done for road safety. 14:21 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler On indulgence, I join with the Deputy Prime Minister in welcoming Peter to the parliament and in acknowledging the fine work he has done in the name of his daughter, Sarah. Road safety is something that should unite everyone in this parliament, because it impacts on every one of us as individuals. All of us know people who have been impacted directly by it and we all represent constituents and families that have been tragically hurt too often by it. I think we have a bipartisan pledge to do what we can to reduce the level of road trauma around Australia. Budget 24 14:22 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Treasurer Peter Costello reckons he will be dead before the government pays back its debt. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since coming to office this government— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin will resume his seat. Members on my right. The member for Deakin and the Leader of the House will cease interjecting. The member for Rankin will begin his question again. Dr CHALMERS 37998 My question is to the Prime Minister. Former Treasurer Peter Costello reckons he will be dead before the government pays back its debt. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his government, since coming to office, has increased gross debt by nearly $10,000 for every man, woman and child in Australia? 14:23 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. It does have a great nostalgic resonance to it. The honourable member was formerly chief of staff to the then Treasurer, the member for Lilley—the world's greatest Treasurer; the king of debt himself! While the member for Rankin was carefully helping the member for Lilley to manage the finances of the nation— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin. Mr TURNBULL 885 they were responsible for failures in border protection, including a $14 billion blowout; failing to keep our borders secure; a school halls program that wasted $8 billion; a pink batts program that cost lives and also wasted $2.4 billion— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 the 16,000 stimulus cheques for $900 to people who were deceased, and 27,000 to people living overseas, presumably to stimulate economic activity outside of Australia. There was a $1.4 billion blowout— Dr Chalmers interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat for a second. I know the member for Rankin is trying to get some practice in after a bit of a break. I've warned him. He may want to go to the lock-up a little early. I'm happy to facilitate. Dr Chalmers 37998 Now? The SPEAKER 00APG No, not so soon. I know you're keen, but you're well and truly warned. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG And the member for McEwen won't be let into the lock-up, I'm sure, so there's no need for him to interject. Mr TURNBULL 885 There was an $850 million blowout in the solar homes program. There was one financial fiasco after another under the Labor government, in which the member for Rankin played a key part as the top adviser to the member for Lilley as Treasurer—the Treasurer who we all recall announcing four surpluses. Sadly for the nation, he didn't deliver one. There is no group of people in Australia less qualified to lecture any of us on debt and deficit than the Labor Party. The last Labor Party surplus was delivered in 1989. The SPEAKER 00APG Is this a question? Yes, it is the Independents' question. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'm just very fair, as you know, Rob. I can observe that. Fuel 25 14:26 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Are you aware that a report for Australia's principal representative of motoring, the NRMA, by Air Vice Marshal Blackburn said we need clear government assurances that adequate Australian controlled fuel sources exist to supply essential needs in any disruption, whether by political terrorists or armed conflict? In 2014, there was 23 days supply. Minister Frydenberg has announced shrinkage to only 20 days. Will government deliver mandating and action as taken in the US, which is delivering 24 per cent shale oil and 10 per cent ethanol, providing vital security of supply and $7 billion a year in import replacement, and overcoming Frydenberg's shrinkage as well? 14:27 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I presume the last part's out of order, Mr Speaker, so I'll concentrate on the earlier remarks. The member raises a very serious issue, and I want to thank him very much for his passion in relation to fuel security. I direct him to the government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report on the Security of Critical Infrastructure Bill 2017. The whole-of-government response said in part: The risk of espionage, sabotage and coercive influence in Australia's domestic liquid fuel refinement part of the supply chain has been assessed as relatively low, due to the sector's diversity and the resilience of the market system to respond to any disruption at a particular location. But the response went on to say: However, the sector is heavily reliant on imports, and critical port infrastructure. The infrastructure at ports that support imports of liquid fuel was a key factor in determining which ports are captured by the Bill. The critical ports captured by the Bill provide 92% of total liquid fuels imports. We went on to respond in this way: … the Government agrees that fuel supply is a critical issue. As such, the Committee's concerns, including whether liquid fuel assets should be covered by the Bill, will be considered in the next National Energy Security Assessment. I'm going to ask the Minister for the Environment and Energy to add to the answer, because he has just announced a review in relation to the issue, but it is obviously a serious issue, and I acknowledge his interest in this matter. The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Ordinarily it's the Prime Minister who delegates to different ministers. If the Minister of Home Affairs has now assumed that role, the House should be advised. The SPEAKER 00APG No, Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW But he doesn't get to pick, unless the Prime Minister gives an indication. Ministers can't, halfway through, say, 'I don't want to answer anymore; I'll flick-pass to one of my colleagues.' The SPEAKER 00APG I think you'll find that's not right. Ordinarily it's right. Ordinarily it is the Prime Minister who's been asked the question, but it is within the practice and there is some precedent for it. 14:29 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong While the Labor Party doesn't think this is a serious issue, we on this side of the House understand its importance and we understand the nature of the question from the member for Kennedy. The fact of the matter is that Australia's liquid fuels—that is, petrol, diesel, jet fuel—are extremely important. We are importing 75 per cent of our crude and more than 55 per cent of our refined product, and we're increasing our reliance on imports. Over the last decade, three out of our seven refineries have closed and our domestic oil production has decreased by one-third as some of the existing oil fields are exhausted. So, we're working with the International Energy Agency and we're working across government on this. I note the interest paid by members of this side of the House to this issue, including the member for Canning, and Senator Molan and Senator Fawcett, who have also raised issues related to fuel security. The report by the Department of the Environment and Energy will be back to government before the end of the year and will form part of our NOPSEMA report in 2019. The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the member for Chisholm, on the point of order by the Manager of Opposition Business: it was a reasonable point of order, given the circumstances. The Prime Minister of course can refer a question to any of his ministers within their portfolio area. Where a question relates to the responsibilities of both ministers, it is open and reasonable that that occurs. So, the Minister for the Environment and Energy—the question related to his portfolio responsibilities. The Minister for Home Affairs simply couldn't refer the allotted remaining time to another minister. I hope that clarifies things. That was perfectly in order. Economy 26 14:31 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services— Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member will resume her seat. Members on my left will cease interjecting. There will not be a repetition of that. The member for Chisholm. Ms BANKS 18661 My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services— Opposition members interjecting— Ms BANKS 18661 Thanks for the applause. Will the minister update the House on the importance of showing a strong economy for all Australians? And is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:32 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the very hardworking member for Chisholm for her question and for her very strong advocacy on behalf of her constituency. She, of course, can be very proud of the record funding for infrastructure in our home state of Victoria. She's been an incredibly strong advocate for that. She knows that a strong economy is absolutely vital to improving the prosperity of all Australians. We on this side of the House have been implementing our economic plan that has seen the creation of just under one million jobs since we came to government. As Minister for Women, I'm particularly pleased to note that there are more women working now, with 5.8 million women employed in Australia. The coalition, of course, has taken action to strengthen our economy by also taking action to strengthen the integrity of our taxation system. We have established the Tax Avoidance Taskforce. We have introduced and implemented the multinational anti-avoidance law, despite the fact that those opposite did not support it. We are also tackling the black economy by establishing the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce and by cracking down on those who seek to evade taxes and who would seek to fund and finance organised crime. By continuing to make sure that we have integrity in our taxation system, the government is able to guarantee the important services that Australians—millions of Australians—rely on, whether they be Medicare, defence, schools, hospitals, aged care or disability services, to name just a few. This means that we can continue our commitment to relieve the tax burden on hardworking Australians and all the businesses that employ them. I note, though, that those opposite have a very different approach. They have a high-taxing approach, which, of course, is in marked contrast to us. I'm very sorry that the member for Fenner isn't here, because he is very fond of quoting the politician, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, who said that the art of taxation consists of plucking the goose so as to get the most feathers with the least hissing. I think that even those opposite would have to agree that the more than $200 billion of new or higher taxes that the Labor Party have promised would leave both the goose and the Australian economy well and truly plucked. I think that the member for McMahon, with his audacious claims in trying to lecture the government on surpluses, should remember that he was a Treasurer and that he did not deliver a surplus. In fact, the last time those opposite delivered a surplus was in the 1980s. (Time expired) Budget 27 14:35 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister supported cutting the penalty rates of nearly 700,000 Australians by up to $77 a week. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that any personal income tax relief in tonight's budget will make up for the $77 every week that he supports cutting from the pay of ordinary workers? 14:35 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. We all recall the halcyon days when the honourable member was a great defender of the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E And the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal! Mr TURNBULL 885 He's conceded that he used to be a supporter of the Fair Work Commission, but he abandoned it when it gave a decision that didn't suit him. I want to encourage the honourable member to return to the path of good sense and the great Labor tradition of supporting the independent umpire. As for the budget, the honourable member does not have long to wait. Spinal Muscular Atrophy 27 14:36 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a strong economy enables the government to subsidise life-saving medicine for spinal muscular atrophy patients, including those in my electorate of Corangamite? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:36 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Corangamite, who's absolutely right: a strong economy is absolutely critical to guaranteeing essential services. A strong economy helps guarantee essential services such as Medicare, hospital funding, mental health funding, aged-care funding and, of course, the support through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for life-saving medicines. One of the things that this government has done since coming to office is support life-saving medicines through the PBS—approaching $9 billion of current or soon-to-be listed medicines, such as those outlined by the Prime Minister: Opdivo, for lung cancer, an almost billion-dollar investment by this government; and Keytruda, for Hodgkin lymphoma, again, another potentially life-saving medicine. On the weekend I was honoured to be joined by the member for Corangamite when we met with the families of beautiful, young children with spinal muscular atrophy. This condition is, in many cases, a tragic condition. It's the largest genetically inherited condition in terms of the taking of lives of children under two years of age. It's something which until now has had very little opportunity for treatment and very little opportunity for giving parents real and profound hope. I was honoured, with the member for Corangamite, to be able to announce that as of the 1 June, but with immediate compassionate access for every patient in Australia, the drug Spinraza will now be made available for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. This is a drug which would otherwise have cost families $367,000—beyond the reach of virtually every Australian family. What that means is that these families and these parents have hope, have the ability to give their children a better quality of life and, if delivered early enough, have the ability to have a long life and a full life. That is profound. Only a strong economy allows you to deliver those services. The proof is that not everybody is able to deliver those services. When the other side was in power, they delayed or denied the listing of seven fundamental drugs. They didn't do it because they were evil; they did it because they were economically incompetent. They were economically incompetent and they could not afford to fund the PBS. That's what this budget is about. That's what a strong economy— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. The minister does not have the call! The member for Ballarat on a point of order. Ms Catherine King 00AMR In order for the minister to be relevant— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat will resume her seat. Ms Catherine King 00AMR perhaps you can explain why you're delaying listing— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Ballarat is warned! The minister will resume his seat. The member for Ballarat has been warned on a couple of occasions now for approaching the dispatch box and not stating a point of order. I want to make it perfectly clear that next time it happens she will be ejected. The minister has the call for the remaining 19 seconds. Mr HUNT 00AMV When they were last in government, they denied the listing of medicines for asthma, schizophrenia and pulmonary conditions. So, this is about whether or not you can run the economy and guarantee essential services. That's what we're doing and that is real compassion. (Time expired) Budget 28 14:40 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to leaked reports of the budget overnight. How is it fair for the Prime Minister to give workers a $10-a-week tax cut while giving the Commonwealth Bank a $7.5-million tax handout every week? 14:41 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. I'm pleased that he's so interested in what the Treasurer is going to say at 7.30 tonight. I encourage him to pay close attention. He'll see that the budget is going to deliver the commitments we made in 2016: a stronger economy and more jobs. It's going to deliver a reduction in the cost-of-living pressures on hardworking Australian families so they can keep more of their hard-earned income. It's going to guarantee essential services and deliver vital infrastructure and it is going to ensure that the government lives within its means. That's our commitment. I'm sure the honourable member will be here at 7.30, and I'm sure he'll be paying very close attention. Energy 28 14:42 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the government's actions to create a stronger economy by putting downward pressure on power bills for hardworking Australian families and businesses since the 2017 budget? Is the minister aware of different policy approaches that may interfere with this? 14:42 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Gilmore for her question. She knows what an incredible energy mess we inherited from those opposite. Power bills went up by more than 100 per cent when they were in office. In Labor's own words, network prices skyrocketed; retail prices soared. We were saddled with a $15-billion carbon tax, and Labor in government ignored the recommendations of the Independent Market Operator when it came to gas. No-one put it better than the member for Port Adelaide himself. In his book, Climate Wars, which you can find at a good remainders bookshop, he said that, when Labor was in office, when it came to climate and energy policy, they made mistakes—they were his words—and they sent mixed messages. He said the people of Australia were determined to see the back of the Labor Party. And this guy is now running for the presidency again! When we came to office, we started to rein in the power of the networks. We abolished the limited merits review process, which, if Labor had done it previously, would've saved consumers $6½ billion. We ensured more gas could come into the domestic market rather than going for export, which the ACCC has reported has seen a fall by up to 50 per cent in the gas price. We got better deals for thousands of Australian families from their retailers, and we invested in storage, like Snowy 2.0, which will help provide a battery for the east coast of Australia, and the National Energy Guarantee, which for the first time will bring energy and climate policy together and has been warmly received by the big employers around the country as well as the energy retailers themselves. Now, what is the alternative to this? What is the Labor Party's approach? Well, firstly they're proposing a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target, a 45 per cent emissions reduction target, which the business community says is 'risky and unnecessary'. And, when you talk about Labor's priorities going all wrong, there's no better example than their national platform. In this national platform they mention the term 'climate change' more than 90 times, but how many times is the term 'power prices' mentioned? Fifty times? Forty times? Thirty times? No. It is mentioned six times. So, 90-plus times for climate change and six times for energy prices. When Labor was last in office, power prices more than doubled. If Labor got another chance, it would happen again. Only the coalition will deliver reliable and affordable power. Energy 29 14:45 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. The chair of the Energy Security Board, Dr Kerry Schott, has said that there is no way new coal-fired power plants will be developed under the National Energy Guarantee. Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr Schott, or does he agree with his colleagues the Minister for Resources, Senator Canavan, and the member for Hughes, who have attacked Dr Schott over her comments? 14:46 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The National Energy Guarantee—the government's energy policy, which brings together for the first time climate and energy policy in one market based instrument—is technology agnostic and provides a level playing field in which there is a role for every form of power generation, including thermal generation, such as coal and gas, and of course all of the different renewable and dispatchable sources of energy of every kind. It is up to the market to determine the investments to make. Everybody is entitled to have their opinion. The role of the government is to set out a level playing field so that we end picking technology winners so that the market can respond, and those who run—energy companies, generators—will be able to make their own informed business decisions. Child Sexual Abuse 29 14:47 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on progress towards a National Redress Scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse? 14:47 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for Tangney for his question. Like members on both sides, he understands the important role that the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse will play in acknowledging, supporting and providing financial assistance to people who experienced sexual abuse. The government is committed to establishing a national scheme to ensure fair and consistent treatment for all survivors. On 9 March this year, both New South Wales and Victoria announced with the Prime Minister at Kirribilli House that they were opting into the scheme. At that meeting the Prime Minister also announced that there would be a national apology later in the year, and I'm sure that's something all members of this House welcome. Since then, the ACT and Queensland have opted in, and the Northern Territory is very close. Productive discussions with Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania continue. I have also had a number of very constructive consultations with non-government institutions, and I am confident that we will achieve a truly national scheme that provides redress right across the nation. The path is clear. Last week New South Wales introduced its referral legislation, and later this week the national bill will be introduced into the House. With the will of this parliament, the redress scheme will start on 1 July this year and offer access to psychological counselling, a direct personal response from the responsible institution, and a monetary payment. In addition, the government will be establishing community based support services to support survivors during the redress application process. Survivors will also have access to free specialised legal support services. The time for survivors to wait is hopefully over. We will continue to work with the remaining governments and non-government institutions to ensure the redress scheme is truly national. Survivors deserve nothing less. I know that I speak for all members of this parliament when I say to those survivors—and I met with a group of them yesterday—that all of us in this place want to do all we can to make sure that they get the redress that they deserve. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 29 14:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I have a question to the Prime Minister. Before I go to that, may I very briefly associate the opposition with the minister's comments on the necessity for a truly national redress scheme. My question is to the Prime Minister. Labor members have been contacted by victims of the rorts and rip-offs of the banks. Those victims in some cases have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements to get compensation. Can the Prime Minister assure the victims of bank misconduct who have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements, including my constituent, that if they give evidence to the royal commission they will be protected from any adverse legal consequences? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I will ask the Attorney-General to answer the question. 14:51 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the Prime Minister and I thank the member opposite for the question. It's obviously a very serious issue. One of the points of difference between any other type of commission of inquiry that's called and a royal commission is that the processes and procedures of a royal commission are necessarily independent, completely divorced from the government and unable to be affected by government decision, as properly should be the case. Nevertheless, Commissioner Hayne has addressed this matter in several of his opening addresses at the royal commission. The situation is, of course, that many victims of the banks, by consent with the banks, entered into agreements where money was exchanged for wrongs that had occurred. In a number of cases they were subject to non-disclosure agreements or clauses as part of the overarching agreement. A non-disclosure agreement which governs one of those particular individual settlements has an effect. What the royal commission has noted is that its standing powers enable it, in effect, to override the existence of any of those non-disclosure agreements. The point that you make, I think, is there will be a small class of those agreements where a question may arise as to whether or not someone who has signed the agreement and is subject to the agreement can in the prima facie instance alert the royal commission to its existence so that the royal commission can ask questions with respect to it. What Commissioner Hayne has said—I don't have the transcript in front of me, so this is necessarily my best recollection of his approach—is very similar to the approach that royal commissioners used in the sexual abuse royal commission, which was of this nature: if any bank sought to enact a non-disclosure clause in an agreement to prevent someone alerting the royal commission as to the existence of the agreement, such that the royal commissioner could then override that non-disclosure agreement, that if he became aware of that activity he as the royal commissioner would ensure that the royal commission placed its microscope scrupulously over that bank, its conduct and the types of agreements it signed. It seemed to us at the time that that was a very proper approach and precisely the analogous approach to that taken in the royal commission against sexual abuse in organisations which we've just heard about with respect to redress. I am very happy to brief you further with the transcript, but it does seem to us as a government that the royal commissioner has done his absolute best within the confines of the law to address that situation. I have not had anyone approach my office specifically with respect to issues of this nature. If you have, then they can be brought to my attention and we can have a look at those on a case-by-case basis. Aged Care 30 14:54 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on the quality aged care services currently being provided to more than 2,600 aged care facilities across the country, including 18 in my electorate of Boothby? How has the government acted to ensure this quality of care since the 2017 budget? 14:54 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I'd like to thank the member for Boothby for her ongoing interest in aged care, for the work that she is doing within her electorate with her providers and, more importantly, for her question. Following the Carnell-Paterson review, the Turnbull government established a new independent, national aged-care quality and safety commission, a one-stop shop to prevent failures and highlight any quality concerns and have them quickly rectified. The commission will have a special focus on risk management and rapid action, including the development of a serious incident response scheme. On 17 March, I introduced unannounced visits to all aged-care providers. If they're operating at the level that is required under the Living Longer Living Better legislation, there should be no compromise on quality within any of those facilities for 365 days of the year. Since July last year, four homes have lost their licences and have been closed because they did not meet the 44 quality standards. We know that the vast majority of Australia's more than 2,600 aged-care homes and the sector's 360,000 staff give exceptional care. But, as we've seen, there can be failures, and we should ensure that we never have another Oakden occur in our country—that it's never repeated. Our reforms are in response to what came out of the Carnell-Paterson review. I'm slow to anger but I must admit that the Leader of the Opposition recently commenting that the system is in crisis and a national disgrace was not becoming of what I would expect in a bilateral and bipartisan approach to aged care. This demeans every one of those dedicated aged-care workers and it achieves nothing but to instil fear into the hearts and minds of older Australians—just like Labor did in the lead-up to the last election when they were peddling 'Mediscare' lies, designed to scare the very people most deserving. For the Leader of the Opposition to continue this aged-care fear mongering is verging on the abuse of older Australians and it must stop. In contrast, the Turnbull government's approach is positive—supporting, growing and upskilling our aged-care workforce to get the best possible care. John Pollaers has been working on a task force looking at the workforce that we need to ensure there is quality and quality workers within the aged-care sector. The care of seniors receiving care is paramount. The Turnbull government has the best interests of older Australians at heart, unlike the opposition, who wants to tax them. Labor will abolish the dividend cash refunds for pensioners and retirees on low incomes. Ours is a government that is spending on average $1 billion a year, to record levels, to ensure that we provide the best possible care for our older Australians. (Time expired) Taxation 31 14:57 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that his decision to block a royal commission for almost two years was just a political error. Is the Prime Minister aware of reports that it was 'common practice for National Australia Bank employees to falsely sign forms as witnesses'? Why is the Prime Minister awarding big business with an $80 billion tax handout, including over $3.3 billion for the National Australia Bank? The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Prime Minister should be questioned on matters that are within his responsibility. While he might be prepared to answer the question, I do think that that is stretching the boundaries of what's within the Prime Minister's responsibilities. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Leader of the House. I listened very closely to the question. The Leader of the House makes a good point with respect to one part of the question. The last part of the question, with respect to company tax cuts, was in order and the preamble was obviously in order. But, with the middle part of the question not being in order, and that's my ruling, that sort of makes that preamble rather defunct. The Prime Minister can answer the part of the question that I've ruled relevant, and that's the very last part, which relates to company tax. 14:59 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Thank you, Mr Speaker. The honourable member, by her question, indicates that the Labor Party is not simply opposed to reducing company tax for companies with turnovers above $50 million but is determined to reverse the company tax reductions that have already been legislated. So thousands of Australian owned family businesses, small and medium businesses, that are getting the incentive right now through legislation that has passed the parliament—the honourable member's question indicates Labor is going to go to the next election and say to all of those family businesses, 'You're going to have to pay more tax'. (Time expired) Ms O'Neil interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Hotham, I'm trying to call the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Mr Speaker, given that you only ruled the last part of the question in order, in order for the Prime Minister to be directly relevant, he has to be referring to the taxation levels applied to the National Australia Bank, which does not fit the definition of a small family business, which he's now referring to. The SPEAKER 00APG The last part of the question related to company tax. I don't think we're going to go through it all again. I'll keep listening to the Prime Minister, unless he's concluded his answer. He's concluded his answer. Veterans 31 15:00 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how we're supporting our veterans and their families? What services and programs have the government delivered since the 2017 budget? 15:01 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question and his longstanding interest in veterans' issues and also recognise his service in a different uniform, that of the Queensland Police Service. We argue about a lot of things in this place, but there's one area in which there's no question at all that we do have bipartisan support, and that is our commitment, our obligation and our honour to care for the needs of veterans and their families. I want to thank members across the chamber. Many of you attended Anzac Day commemorations in your own electorates on 25 April. It's a day for us to respect and remember the service of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. In the order of 102,000 Australians have lost their lives in conflicts throughout our history, and many more have been wounded in those conflicts and peacekeeping missions. As the Prime Minister himself has said on many occasions, the best way for us to remember those who have served and to recognise their efforts in earlier conflicts is to look after the veterans of today. As a new minister in this portfolio, I'm determined to make sure that we put the interests of veterans first—more precisely, put the interests of veterans and their families first. Currently, there are 288,000 Australians who are assisted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the government invests in the order of $11 billion per year to provide support services to them. This includes services provided by the medical profession and access to veterans' and veterans' families' counselling services. We know—as all members across the chamber know—that the impact of mental health issues on veterans and their families is one of great concern. We're making sure that mental health treatments are applied effectively and in a timely way because the faster we can provide support to our veterans, the better the chances of recovery. A key part of the government's commitment to our veterans is also assisting in the transition from the ADF to civilian life. The Prime Minister, through his Veterans' Employment Program, is encouraging industry and businesses throughout Australia to recognise the benefits of employing veterans throughout the nation. I have a simple message to corporate Australia and the wider business community: employing veterans will be good for your business because they have the skills, values and work ethic you need and will make a valuable contribution to your business. We should be proud in this place and we should be proud as Australians for the work we do to support our veterans across the nation, but we can always do things better. A hundred years ago, the newly formed Repatriation Commission set out to do the right thing by our returning soldiers and the families of those who didn't return. The DVA itself is continuing to transform—and I want to thank the former ministers in this place for the work they undertook over the last 12 months—the way we offer services and the way we support veterans and their families. On behalf of all members on both sides of the chamber, I want to thank those veterans for their service and also thank those who continue to serve in the Australian Defence Force. You should all be proud of your efforts to keep us safe. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 32 15:04 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said his decision to block a royal commission for almost two years was 'just a political error'. Is he aware that this meant a two-year delay of reports that the Commonwealth Bank continued to charge customers fees for advice that was never provided and charged fees even though a customer had been dead for 10 years? Why is the Prime Minister rewarding big business with an $80 billion handout, including over $17 billion for the big banks? 15:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. As I've said publicly, the decision that I took two years ago not to hold a royal commission into the banks—and I take full responsibility for it—was because I believed we should get on with the substantive reforms to protect consumers to give people real redress, and we have done that. We have put in place a one-stop shop for consumers and small business to get cost-effective relief when they've had the wrong thing done to them by banks. That's a very big reform. We've obviously strengthened ASIC. We've given it more money and more powers. We've also introduced a Banking Executive Accountability Regime and many other reforms. That was the decision that the government took, and I take full responsibility for it. I called out the problem in 2016, almost two years ago precisely, when I said that what had happened was that a culture had developed where customers were not put first. The royal commission is being held, and many of the cases that are coming before it, the honourable member says, would not have come to the light of day without a royal commission. That may well be so, but the fact of the matter is the royal commission has broad terms of reference. It is up and running. It has not simply the ability to examine the matters before it, in terms of past wrongdoings by banks and other financial institutions but the mandate to examine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the reforms we've already put in place. The important thing is putting the customers first. It's the mistake the banks and various financial advisers and others made in not putting them first, and I can say to the honourable member and all honourable members that we are determined that (1) this wrongdoing will not happen again and (2) those who have done the wrong thing will be held to account. Crime 32 15:07 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity. Will the minister update the House on the measures the government has introduced to combat serious and organised crime since the 2017 budget? 15:07 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for Robertson for her question because she knows that the first priority of this government is to keep Australians safe and secure. She also knows that, in recent decades, criminal syndicates and cyberactors have become more sophisticated than ever before, more international, better organised and more adept at using technology. And the impact of organised crime on the lives of Australians is very real. The ACIC tells us that the cost per year is around $36 billion—that's two per cent of GDP—but, of course, we know that the cost in human suffering in terms of human trafficking, child exploitation and illicit drugs cannot be quantified. We need to be more sophisticated, more international, better coordinated and more adept at using technology than ever before because these criminals are attacking us in our homes, in our businesses, in our communities, on our infrastructure, on our phones and, of course, on our computers. And, of course, that is the rationale for establishing the Home Affairs portfolio—the most significant reform to national security arrangements in this country in 40 years. Last week, the Minister for Home Affairs and I announced Australia's first transnational serious and organised crime coordinator, Mr Karl Kent, who is a deputy commissioner of the AFP. This coordinator role will deliver a new strategy for disrupting serious and organised crime and oversee the $70 million establishment of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation, which we anticipate will save more than 200 child victims each year. Better coordination across Home Affairs is already delivering results, and we saw a number of our agencies in recent months working together with our international partners to disrupt the most sophisticated criminal telecommunications network we have ever seen, Phantom Secure. Phantom Secure had more than 10,000 devices being used by criminals in this country, and it was disrupted in recent months through the very good work of our agencies. Reforms to anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing laws, as well as regulation of cryptocurrencies, came into effect last month, and we've seen unprecedented disruption of illicit drugs coming to our borders, including a 1.2-tonne seizure—over $1 billion—of methamphetamines near Geraldton. This government will work tirelessly alongside the fine men and women of our law enforcement and national security agencies to keep Australians safe. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 33 15:10 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, your government's giving a $17 billion handout to the big banks. Under your policy of giving tax cuts to big businesses, how much will go to AMP, and is now really the right time to be rewarding a company like that? 15:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I refer the honourable member to my earlier answer. I'm not going to go into specific matters which are currently before the royal commission, but as I said—and I'll repeat it—we are determined to ensure that the wrongdoing that has occurred, where customers have not been put first, does not happen again and that those who have done the wrong thing are held to account. Obviously the royal commission is operating but, leaving the royal commission to one side, we have beefed up the powers and capacities of the regulator. In terms of major banks, I would just remind the honourable member that we have, in last year's budget, introduced and legislated a major bank levy which is raising around $1½ billion a year and, cumulatively, will increase to $10 billion by 2023-24—so a very substantial increase in tax paid by the major banks. Welfare Reform 33 15:12 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor My question is to 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 since the 2017 budget? Are there any alternative approaches? 15:12 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member very much for his question and for his interest in these matters. He is aware that thousands of former welfare recipients—this is people who have now moved from the welfare system into the workforce—currently owe us $905 million in unpaid debts. This is an extraordinarily large amount, and the government believes that people who have received welfare payments that they are not entitled to are required to pay that money back. Some of these cases involve serious criminality, including one person who defrauded $800,000 from the Commonwealth but is still refusing to enter into arrangements to pay that money back. We don't think it's unreasonable to expect, when people have moved from the welfare system into employment, that they repay the almost $1 billion that they have received from Australian taxpayers and that they now owe the Commonwealth. We've been working with those who do owe us this money to enter into appropriate repayment arrangements, but those who continually refuse to engage with us will be hit, from now on, with interest on their debt. This interest will compound daily, and it will continue to compound until they either repay their debt or enter into a repayment plan to pay the taxpayers back that money. This $905 million that we're targeting and that we're aiming to recover is on top of the $1½ billion that we've already recovered over the past 18 months through our comprehensive compliance efforts. We are committed to budget repair, and ensuring that our welfare system operates with integrity and is sustainable and fair is a very important part of that. I was asked by the member about alternative approaches. Under Labor, compliance was not a priority, and it took a back seat. Penalties were soft and the Labor Party completed only 16 per cent of the compliance checks that we're undertaking today. They also slashed the recovery of debt by 50 per cent. When the Howard government left office in 2007, they were collecting $420 million of debt. By the time the Labor Party left office in 2013 they were collecting only $220 million worth of debt. We believe that the best form of welfare remains getting a job. In the past two years 120,000 Australians in the welfare system receiving the jobseeking allowance or disability or parenting payments have moved off these payments—120,000 people. This is a result of our measures which have been encouraging people into work and strengthening our compliance efforts. Of course this is a generational change in terms of the savings that will be made to the Australian taxpayer, because of the integrity with which we're running the system. We believe that most Australians in the welfare system want a job and we're committed to ensuring that they have the support that they need and the encouragement that they need to get a job. That is one of the very important parts of our budget repair, and we'll continue to prioritise that. (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER 34 STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER Budget 34 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG Before everyone departs, I want to talk a little about tonight and Thursday night. I ask all members to note that the usual arrangements and, importantly, courtesies will apply to the Treasurer's budget speech this evening and equally to the Leader of the Opposition's speech in reply on Thursday evening. As with all proceedings of the House, the member with the call is entitled to speak without interruption. In accordance with precedent, should I determine that a member be required to leave the House under standing order 94(a), the member will be advised by written note. I ask members to ensure that their guests arrive at the galleries in good time to undertake the secondary security clearance and to be seated in the galleries prior to 7.10 pm. As previously and, can I say, repeatedly advised, all guests arriving at Parliament House will be required to present photographic identification and have their ticket to enter the galleries. As was the case last year, I trust that there will be cooperation from members and their invited guests in the galleries, for whom they are responsible. It should be the aim of all members that both nights proceed smoothly for the benefit of the House and for those watching and listening to the proceedings. I thank the House. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Presentation 34 15:17 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. DOCUMENTS 34 DOCUMENTS Commonwealth Ombudsman 34 Presentation 34 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I present reports of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under section 65(6) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 for the periods 1 July 2016 to 31 March 2017 and 1 April 2017 to 30 June 2017. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 34 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report Nos 34 to 37 of 2017-18 34 15:18 The SPEAKER 00APG I present Auditor-General's reports Nos 34 to 37 of 2017-18. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. BUSINESS 34 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 34 15:18 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That: (1) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Tuesday, 8 May; and (2) standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 10 May 2018 and at that sitting, after the Leader of the Opposition completes his reply to the Budget speech, the House automatically stand adjourned until 10 am on Monday, 21 May 2018, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. This is to ensure that the Leader of the Opposition can speak on Thursday night outside the normal time limits and that the House will adjourn afterwards. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 35 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Live Animal Exports 35 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hunter proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I thank the House. Most people view the current live sheep trade controversy as an animal welfare issue, and it certainly is, first and foremost. But it is much more than that. It is true that the vision we saw on 60 Minutes right on a month ago, I think, was horrible and totally unacceptable. Indeed, the live sheep trade is neither acceptable nor necessary. This debate is not just about animal welfare; it is also about the rights of the workers on the ships which cart those sheep to the Middle East in particular, and it's about the economics of the trade and its impact on the Australian economy—and I want to say something about all three things. Unlike the cattle industry, the live sheep sector has proved itself unable to demonstrate a capacity to meet the animal welfare expectations of the broader Australian community and, indeed, I'm sure, anyone in this place. It's not as if the industry hasn't been given plenty of opportunities; it certainly has. Reports of animal cruelty in the live sheep trade go back to at least the early 1980s. My first experience of it in this place was in 2006, when the then Prime Minister, John Howard, suspended the live sheep trade. The breaches keep occurring and promises of reform keep coming, but, sadly, nothing ever seems to really change. A month ago, I came to the conclusion that a bipartisan approach was necessary to reform this sector. It was my very firm view that the best way to secure deep, meaningful and broad reform was for the major parties to work together, and I still believe that to be true. I extended a bipartisan hand to the minister, who, I'm pleased to see, has joined us for this debate—I think that's important—and he accepted that bipartisan hand, and I've been somewhat encouraged by his responses in the course of the last month. It is a big change from and a great contrast to the responses that I used to receive from the former minister for agriculture and that I'm sure I would have received if the member for New England had still been the minister for agriculture. That is because one of the core issues here is regulatory capture and the culture of the regulator, and direction of the culture within the regulator—which in this instance is the department—comes down from the minister of the day. The problem was that, when the member for New England provided a free pass for the sector, unconditional approval of the sector, as you would expect we got the wrong culture in the sector, complacency in the sector and risk-taking in the sector. The manifestation of all of that, of course, was what we saw on 60 Minutes a month ago. I just want to take the House through 10 key things the member for New England did to retard our progress on animal welfare improvements. He ignored industry warnings. We saw that front and centre with the Wellard letter which was leaked last week—the industry warning the department itself that things were going awry. He delayed the review of ASEL, the key standards for the sector, but not by a period of months. I as minister, I think, if it wasn't former Minister Ludwig, commissioned the review in 2013. Here we are in 2018, and we're told that the ASEL review is due in mid-2019. The ASEL review is critical to improving the standards. The member for New England rejected Labor's review of ESCAS, the other auditing trail for protecting animal welfare. He abolished Labor's Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. He rejected the idea of an independent office for animal welfare. He rejected regular ministerial parliamentary reporting on animal welfare and live exports. He abolished the Australian animal welfare advisory committee. He defunded the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy. He abolished the Office of Animal Welfare within his own department. He allowed exemptions from animal welfare standards without sunset provisions, something we read about in the newspapers as recently as last week. The minister will be asking why I said we were prepared to wait for the so-called McCarthy review report before taking a firmer decision on the northern summer trade in particular but on the live sheep trade more generally. I'll say, first of all, that the minister has now commissioned four reviews. I welcome all of them, but the timing of some of them has me a little concerned. There is a review into the Awassi Express incident, which is the incident we saw on 60 Minutes. The regulator reviewed the incident and declared there were no breaches. Despite the vision we saw, it declared there were no breaches. To his credit, the minister has asked the regulator to revisit that. There is a review into the horrible summer trade, where 60,000 sheep are put on a voyage for four weeks in the hottest of hottest conditions on this planet and in the deepest humidity—50-degree heat and deep humidity. There's a review into the minister's own department. I welcome and congratulate the minister for having the robustness and the courage to ask the Attorney-General's office to have a look at his own department to find out what in the hell is happening there. But I think, again, you'll find it's the culture pushed down by his predecessor. And, of course, there is a review into the ASEL standards which, unfortunately, because of the member for New England's delays, won't report until 2019. I have spoken to the minister, and I know he will endeavour to bring that ASEL review forward. So, why aren't I waiting for McCarthy to report on the review of the summer trade? Why isn't the Labor Party waiting? It is because we heard from the industry itself last week the admission that what happened with the Awassi Express was a climatic event, which was out of the control of anyone in this room, anyone in the industry and anyone in the Australian community. It was an admission from the sector itself that, no matter how much we improve standards, no matter how much we strengthen regulatory oversights, no matter how much we strengthen penalties and enforcement, the industry can't guarantee another Awassi Express incident won't happen. I don't need to wait for the McCarthy review. The industry itself has told us what the outcome is, or at least what the outcome should be. Then there is the worker welfare. Those who read the Latika Bourke story, I think, on Saturday, would have been horrified—the image of workers trying to lift sheep off the dirty decks of those ships to be thrown overboard, only to have their limbs coming away, only to be squirted by boiling blood. They are underpaid and overworked in the most atrocious conditions. On the economics—Labor wants a strategic red meat industry plan. We want to add more value here in Australia, create more jobs here in Australia, create more foreign exchange here in Australia and, of course, lift animal welfare standards. And we can do this. With the guidance of government and with the wit, we can do this in partnership with the sheepmeat producers, with the processors, and with everyone else along that supply chain. I'm absolutely determined that sheep producers will be better off under Labor's plan, not tied to the live export trade but heading for premium markets and getting bigger returns. Here's the economics of this trade at the moment. Animal welfare cruelty is being externalised. By shoving 60,000 or more sheep on a ship, you are able to deliver a premium to the sheepmeat producer. Sheepmeat producers think that's not a bad thing. However, what does that do to the competitiveness of our abattoirs? Abattoirs can't compete, because they're overstocking and sharing the benefit with the farmers. Now, I don't mind farmers receiving a benefit, but not at the expense of animal welfare. We can do better than that. Our markets are changing. Community preferences, consumer preferences, are changing right around the globe. There is an opportunity to push those farmers up the value curve, to head them in the direction of premium markets and to create those jobs in Australia. This will take time. We can't transition sheepmeat producers out of the live export trade in a hurry. But we can do it, and we're best placed to do it if we're working together. I do appeal to the minister, again, to work with us on a bipartisan basis. We can get this done. Everyone in that supply chain can benefit and, of course, the broader community will secure its expectations on animal welfare standards. 15:29 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa I thank the member for Hunter for his speech. I too feel the anger and pain that each one of us had when we saw that vision. There's no sane person that wouldn't have had the same emotive response. But this is a time for calm decisions that are predicated on science, not emotion. That's the path that I'm going to take this government down to protect those farmers and the animals, which have done no wrong in this, and to get it right. I can't change the past, but I intend to influence the future to have a sustainable and viable industry and to do that in a sensible, methodical way. It's been that way from the very moment that this incident came to light. I instigated a number of decisive measures to ensure that we put a pathway in place to support those farmers, particularly in WA, whose livelihoods will be ripped out from under them like they were in northern Australia in 2011. We can't revisit the ills of the past on emotive decisions. It has to be predicated on science. I'm proud to say that, the moment we saw that horrible vision, I made sure that the independent regulator reopened the investigation and looked at that footage, frame by frame by frame, to make sure that natural justice can take its course. It's important that we allow that to take place. It's important that we're calm around that process so that, if there are prosecutions to be made, they are able to be made and carried through to penalty. It is important that I implement a whistleblower hotline and create an environment where those that see the wrongs of animal welfare can feel comfortable to come forward, because the standard we walk past is the standard we accept. And it's not just government's responsibility to call out poor behaviour. It's the responsibility of each and every one of us to create an environment where those in the industry feel comfortable to come forward and call out poor behaviour. That's the responsibility of each and every one of us, no matter our nationality; it's just being a plain human being. It's important that we do that in a systematic way, and I'm prepared to work with those opposite and those in the animal rights industry to make a robust whistleblower program where people do feel that comfort. It's important to me. I've also made it abundantly clear that no-one is beyond reproach in this. I received a report into that shipment just before Easter. It raised enough concerns with me that I asked for my own 'please explain' of the department. Four days later, I received that footage, and I was shocked. I was horrified that that could happen when I had just received a report from the independent regulator to say that there was no standard breach. And I'm on the record—if no standard has been breached in this, from the footage I've seen, the standards quite clearly aren't good enough, and I intend to fix it; I intend to change it. I make that commitment, and I made that commitment from the get-go. But that's about being calm and decisive about our actions to support those livelihoods. I've reached out to Mr Philip Moss, who is an eminent Australian with significant experience in terms of creating an environment for investigations and prosecutions, to look at the department and the independent regulator and to make sure that they have the tools, the capabilities and the culture. It's important that we set that environment, because the regulators themselves are the ones that will create the culture in the industry. They are the ones that will set the culture of how that industry treats animals and what people think they can and can't get away with. We've got to be clear: we have one allegation against one exporter at the moment. Let's put it in perspective. That's why I'm saying we need to be calm and decisive about our decisions, to let the facts talk for themselves. But it's important that I set the environment with the independent regulator to get it right. No matter the persuasion of government and no matter who comes after me, it's my responsibility to leave a legacy whereby animal welfare is held in the highest regard. Those opposite want to talk about the former agricultural minister. Well, there have been wrongs in the past by both sides. The Beale review, in 2008, gave a clear indication of separating the independent regulator away from the department. The Labor Party, while in government at that point, did not take up that recommendation. So, ills have been done on both sides. As I said, we can't change the past, but we can definitely change the future. To suggest that we're going to sit here and predicate our decisions on industry—I won't be. The industry has let those farmers down and let those animals down. I don't intend to take directions from the industry. I intend to be giving them the directions. That's the course of action I set from the very moment this incident came to light. But it's important to understand that there are a number of different elements to this issue. We talk about the McCarthy review—another review I created—and the time it's taken. Let me say that it is a five-week review. I would challenge anyone out there to tell me how many government reviews have been done in that short period; to give us the scientific evidence that will be peer reviewed and make sure that we have the best conditions for sending sheep out into the northern summer; to stand here and say, 'We did have bipartisanship, but we're not going to do it because industry came out and they didn't give us confidence.' Well, from the start they've never given me confidence. But I'm going to take the evidence that's in front of me and let the scientists, the eminent professionals, come with me on that journey and guide me. We talk about the consultation. I've sat with those farmers in Western Australia, with the tears in their eyes because they can see what happened in 2011. They can see what happened to people up in northern Australia when their trade was ripped out from under them—the loss of income and the mental health issues that came from that. Those are real people. When you're in government, you sometimes have to make tough decisions. You've got to have the ticker not to run off with emotion but to wait for the facts—to do it properly, swiftly and decisively. We did have bipartisanship. I was proud to say that as soon as this incident happened I reached across the aisle, because I wanted to leave that legacy for those farmers who have done no wrong, and for those animals. It was great, because on 19 April the Leader of the Opposition said, with regard to the McCarthy review: 'We will honour our commitment and await its findings.' That was great, but, unfortunately, the member for Hunter backed it up on 23 April. Just banning the trade is not the answer, not the solution. We have to be far more sensible about it than that. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 A phase-out is a ban, I'm sorry. The reality is that on 3 May Labor panicked. You can't lead a nation through tough times if you don't have the ticker, if you don't have the temperament to lead your nation and to wait for the facts, to wait for the science. Two weeks is all they had to wait. Instead, they put uncertainty on the livelihoods of people in Western Australia who have done no wrong. They put them on the chopping block without any consideration, and, I dare say, without any consultation. They didn't sit out there and look those farmers in the eye and explain to them why they made this decision. Something that we as a government are proud of is that we're going to continue to stick to the pathway. My hand is still out—it will always be out. This is more important than politics or pointscoring. This is about the livelihoods and future of so many Australians who have done no wrong. It is important to think and understand that if it's not our sheep it will be another nation's sheep. There is world demand for this, and let me tell you: there are nations out there that don't have the same standards and the same values that we do. If we think we can close our eyes and say that because we banned it in Australia we can blindly feel happy, put our head on the pillow and it's all gone away, we're wrong. We've got a responsibility to stay and get it right. I'm determined to stay and get it right. My hand is across the aisle to stay and get it right. This is a time for leadership, not politics. We can prove to this nation that we can do the right thing, not only by the farmers but also by the animals. 15:39 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle The minister is right: it's time we did the right thing by Australians; it's time we did the right thing by farmers, by sheep producers and certainly by the animals that we have a responsibility to care for. It's time for the long-haul live export of sheep to come to an end. It's time for us to move to an expanded chilled and boxed meat trade that represents a high-value export industry, will create 300 to 400 additional jobs in Australia, will deliver stability for sheep producers and, above all, will stop the systematic mistreatment of animals. Above all, we have to remember that there is not a sliding scale that makes animal cruelty acceptable at a certain price. We know that ending live export is entirely possible, we know that it's entirely reasonable and we know that it's necessary. This diminishing trade has a clear alternative, and Labor has grasped that alternative. Labor, through its strategic red meat industry plan, is moving us towards that alternative by making a transition, which government leadership is all about and which parliamentary partnership and cooperation should be all about. I represent the port through which the vast majority of the trade passes, and Western Australia, my home state, produces 85 per cent of the sheep destined for live export. I want to see a transition that supports farmers in my state. I want to see a timely shift to a trade that has a future, a trade that is of higher quality and higher value and has more jobs. More than anything else, I want to see an end to a trade that produces animal welfare atrocities on a regular basis. The minister has said that this is not the time for emotion, it is a time for waiting. I can tell you, if you've lived in Western Australia or if you've lived in Fremantle, as I have done all my life, you don't need to wait another two weeks. I've lived in Fremantle for 40 years. I've seen this trade and what it produces for three decades. So it is a bit rich for the minister to suggest that people need to wait a bit longer. I welcome the commitment from Labor's shadow minister for agriculture to a sensible and balanced change under a future Labor government. I'm sorry that the minister today has talked about the move and the support for this transition as being somehow emotional—or, as the Prime Minister said, emotional and reckless. That is a lot of rubbish. Moving to end the live export trade in a sensible, managed transition is profoundly rational. It is comprehensively based on the facts, the history and the science. It does not take a genius to understand that sending tens of thousands of sheep crammed in badly ventilated, derelict metal ships to the hottest part of the world at the hottest time of the year is a recipe for intolerable animal suffering. As if that weren't enough, we know that since 2005 seventy-one separate voyages have involved the deaths of more than 1,000 sheep. We know that countless breaches and countless instances of gross mistreatment of animals have occurred without any consequences whatsoever. We know that vets' records have been falsified. We know that the International Transport Workers' Federation has highlighted the unacceptable workplace conditions faced by seafarers on these ships. We know that the department of agriculture decided there was nothing wrong with the voyages shown on 60 Minutes. We know that last year an industry stakeholder informed the department that export vessels were so decrepit that catastrophic animal welfare incidents were likely, yet nothing was done. If you want to talk about the science, we know that only yesterday the Australian Veterinary Association said the summer live export trade was incompatible with animal welfare standards. I was actually quite glad when the minister became a bit emotional when the 60 Minutes story broke. He was pretty fired up. He was a bit angry and used some strong language. I'm concerned that the minister is being drawn back into the fog. I'm concerned that the minister is going to treat us to the same old story. I'm concerned that we're going to be told that it's just a few bad apples, that it's something that can be fixed, that the industry shouldn't get a second or a third chance but should have its 76th or 77th chance. I can tell you that my community is calm and focused and is committed to seeing action. We are committed to seeing sensible and necessary change. But I can also say that Australians are angry, and they're rightly angry. They're angry when they see animals being cruelly mistreated. They're angry that this doomed, narrow, barbaric trade has gone on for so long, that it has lied so much, that it has gone completely unregulated, that it has gone completely unpunished for its multiple failures, which in every instance have involved the terrible and prolonged suffering of animals. It's enough. It's time for it to end. 15:44 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I was a farmer for 30 years, and like all farmers—like all Australians—I was appalled at the images on the 60 Minutes program about the Awassi Express. It is clear that, as a nation, we will not tolerate this kind of treatment of our animals, and the industry is unsustainable if it continues. But our response must be guided by facts. On so many issues, I am dismayed by the power of uninformed opinion to influence debate. I applaud the minister for his actions. Obviously angry, like so many of us, he ordered an immediate, sharp and stiff review and announced a stream of interim measures including mandating departmental inspectors on every boat. The stakes are high. The last time the live trade was suspended, untold damage was done to the cattle industry. While the numbers exported live are but a small part of the national market, the track record of 2011 demonstrates that the knock-on effect of termination of the industry is likely to be a significant depression on the rest of the market, far beyond whatever the differential may be at any time. I have no doubt the transportation of the sheep to the Middle Eastern markets can be done in an acceptable manner. It does happen on the vast majority of occasions. That's why we know it's possible. What we need to do is make sure that it occurs that way not just some of the time but almost all of the time. We don't know yet what the specific circumstances surrounding the Awassi Express were, and it's important that we don't make precipitate decisions until we do. Without making any presumption of innocence and without knowing that the minimum standards were or were not observed, I make the comment that even in nature things go catastrophically wrong from time to time. This is never more evident than when we find a pod of beached whales. The McCarthy review is due next week, and I ask on behalf of my farmers and my rural communities that depend on a competitive meat trade that we wait for that report, its recommendations and the minister's response. I estimate that around 10 per cent of the live trade in sheep comes out of my electorate. A friend of mine rang me last week. He doesn't often sell to the live export trade, but he said the last time he did he received a $25-a-head premium, and he remarked that, for 60,000 sheep on board, that's about $1½ million. Indeed, over the last three years the national numbers have averaged about 1½ million per annum, and if that premium is extrapolated you end up with a figure getting close to $40 million. It would not be any stretch to assume that, if the top payer in the market were taken out of the market, prices across the board would recede by a similar amount or even more. Even if we estimate a 10-million-a-year turnoff across the whole sheep sector, multiplied by a factor of $25 a head premium, it's an extraordinary loss that will be borne by farmers who have done absolutely nothing wrong. They are the innocent parties. Some of my colleagues are considering supporting a bill phasing out the live trade. I understand why and I respect their views, but I do urge caution. It is possible—indeed highly likely—that as a result of the McCarthy review operators will be required to undertake significant capital expense to bring their vessels up to standard—perhaps even to a totally new standard. If that is the case and they are presented with a termination date, it would almost certainly mean that investment would not occur, and so the trade would effectively be terminated immediately. Hardworking Australian farmers need us to take a fact-driven and considered path. While I know members are being bombarded with emails at the moment and are concerned about the repercussions, it is worth reflecting that, after the early accolades the Labor government received for suspending the trade in 2011, the situation turned poisonous as stock were left in the paddock, growing too big for the market. Farmers faced ejection from their farms, and public attitudes changed very quickly. I won't forget that process. I ask the public of Australia and the members of this place to reflect on what the end game is for organisations like Animals Australia, who are sponsoring the email campaign. Do not think that, if they win this battle, the war is over. A quick visit to the Animals Australia website will tell you they are opposed to a wide range of practices in the wool industry, including shearing, lambs being born in the paddock, mulesing and artificial insemination. They oppose greyhound racing—and we saw what happened in New South Wales a little over 12 months ago—and horseracing, citing the mental and physical stress for the horses. They are opposed to zoos, rodeos, animal testing and a plethora of other things which are normally highly regulated activities in this society. I ask people to consider who is making the bullets they are being asked to fire. 15:49 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Neither of the previous government speakers have actually stood here and apologised and recognised that it was the former ag minister, the member for New England, who has helped create this crisis. It was the member for New England who abolished Labor's independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. It was the member for New England, when he was the ag minister, who abolished the animal welfare committee and created the culture in the department of 'Don't rock the boat'. There has been no acknowledgement of what their side of politics has done to create this situation, which is allowing rogue operators to export live sheep in a very unsafe way. Everyone's saying the footage is terrible—60,000 sheep crammed on. It wouldn't have happened if the previous minister had not abolished the committee and the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare. Where is this side taking responsibility for their actions of placing their own constituents in the situation that they're in? Labor has called for work with industry to phase out live sheep exports. It's to work with industry; it's to work in partnership; it's to talk about a transition to. We on this side acknowledge that means developing markets. I have a tier 1 abattoir in my electorate. They say that the cost barriers, the extra compliance required to increase their exports, particularly to the Middle East, is something that financially they can't do. They are interested. There is an opportunity for government to work with industry to help our tier 1 abattoirs step up to that tier 2 stage. We've also talked about the importance of jobs. The jobs issue cannot be underestimated. There is work we need to do to ensure that Australians are given first opportunity to work in the meat processing industry. We currently have a problem in the meat processing industry, where they are staffed predominantly by backpackers. There's an opportunity there to create good, secure Australian jobs for permanent residents, for people living in regional areas. That's another part of this plan. If we want to phase out live export we can work towards creating good secure jobs in the regions, developing the trade, as I've said, and working to remove those non-trade and tariff barriers that exist. These are issues we need to address. We need to look at domestic transportation. Because Labor started to talk about this and create the office of animal welfare, we started to get the data in about what's been happening in live animal export. But we don't have good data on what is happening in domestic transportation. Just outside Ballarat there was a crash not long ago where hundreds of sheep were killed. In my electorate of Bendigo, when two trucks collided 800 sheep were killed. And then, in the Bendigo stockyards on a very hot day, 20 sheep were just dumped; they had died of heat exhaustion. We have to look at how we transport sheep in our country. We talk about chickens—that's another area where we have a challenge—dead on arrival. There are stacks and stacks of issues that we have with our own domestic transport. These are issues that we need to address in a constructive way, to work with industry to ensure that we are meeting not just animal welfare standards but also the standards that our consumers expect. Australians are horrified not just by this footage that they're seeing in the media but also by the stories that they're learning about how this continues to happen. This is why we need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports. I just want to pick up on another point the minister made. Labor is not talking about the beef trade. We are not talking about live exports of cattle, because the markets are fundamentally different. This is the point the government is missing. The distances are shorter. The reforms that Labor brought in in the live cattle trade are working. This is Labor saying that we need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports, just like they have done in New Zealand. The world hasn't collapsed, farmers haven't gone broke in New Zealand, where they have phased it out. We need to work with industry to develop markets, and we need to work with abattoirs to ensure that they're employing locals and they're able to export. This can be done and it can start now. 15:54 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee Humanity makes a pact with animals. We raise them, we treat them humanely, we kill them in the least painful way we can and we eat them. The lessons of human health tell us that, when the pilgrims came to the Massachusetts colony in the Mayflower in 1620, they drastically increased their red meat protein and, within three generations, life expectancy had increased by 20 years, and the height of the population had increased by 20 centimetres. Red meat protein plays a very significant role. What we have here is the same old Labor. We need to go back to our history. In 1974, 40,000 dairy cattle and beef cattle were shot and put into pits, subsidised by the Whitlam government. In 1992, when the Keating government was there, I as a 17-year-old—because my father couldn't bring himself to do it—had to shoot sheep because we couldn't get anything for them. The markets had collapsed. The live trade has come along and has underpinned that marketplace. If you want to see a broken farmer, if you want to see someone who actually sees the futile waste—he said to me: 'Can't we give these away? Can't somebody take these? Isn't there a market somewhere that will take these?' Well, there was, and it has become a market for us. We supply 80 per cent of the red meat needs for the country of Bahrain through live exports. When there were some restrictions, in Bahrain they did not stop buying sheep; they bought them from another country. If you run true to the principle that the welfare of animals is of great concern to Australia, that also means the welfare of animals from other countries. One of the great things that I have found, having looked at the live export industry, is that, when we participate in this trade, we lift animal welfare standards globally. We lift animal welfare standards in countries that we need to develop good working relationships with. When I was in Indonesia in 2014, I visited the largest receiver of Australian live cattle and they said to me, 'Can you guarantee that no government is going to shut down this trade? If you can, we will continue the further investment into better animal welfare practices and newer facilities.' The contrast between our side of parliament and the other side of parliament is that we know that a phased shutdown stops investment. A phased shutdown stops investment in better ships, in better processing, in the transition to better animal welfare. This is the contrast. The Labor Party chooses to take away some of the market opportunities for Australian farmers, take away some of that investment in animal welfare. It is proving to be the same old, same old Labor—40,000 cattle under the Whitlam government, thousands of cattle under the Keating government and cattle under the Gillard government. This just goes to prove that, if you trust Labor to look after animal welfare, it ultimately translates to perverse effects. We believe that people in other countries deserve to have access to food. We believe that in other countries they deserve to trust us that we will honour long-term contracts. The great thing that we learned out of the 2012 shutdown by the Gillard government was that they were prepared to break that nexus of long-term contracts because of a reaction to a TV program. My table grape growers— Opposition members interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Listen to this, because you'll find this interesting—still have trouble getting market access in Indonesia because of the way we treated that market. So this principle does not just run through to the live animal husbandry and live export industry; this actually runs through to all our agricultural industries. That is to say: we believe our customers have a right to food; we are going to provide that food for them; we are going to ensure, wherever possible, we can lift the standard. We want to ensure that we are consistent with our values, but we believe that markets should stay open. 15:59 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I begin by reminding the House that the topic of the MPI today is 'The need to work with industry to phase out live sheep exports'. And I say that very deliberately, because no-one on this side of the House is suggesting that the industry ought to be cut at the knees as of today. We are saying quite clearly that we understand that this is an industry that is already in decline and that we need to work with the industry for the benefit of farmers who are sheep growers to ensure that they have a future. The 60 Minutes program has once again exposed the horrific cruelty associated with the live sheep export trade. This is a cruelty that was brought to the attention of this House in a parliamentary report, a report of a Senate committee chaired by Senator George Georges at the time, which, in 1985, brought to the House's attention the need to do something about the cruelty associated with the live sheep export trade. It seems that since then, with numerous examples of animal cruelty having been exposed—never by industry, might I say—we are still repeating the debates and discussions that would have happened 33 years ago. It was the Howard government that in 2006 put a suspension on this trade because of the cruelty associated with it. So it is not something that simply arises out of the concern of members on this side of parliament. It beggars belief that industry insiders were unaware—oblivious—to the appalling conditions after years of voyages, countless exposes and the death of tens of thousands of sheep on those journeys. For the industry to pretend that this is an isolated case and something that we can deal with really takes the Australian community as fools. This is another example not only of the industry's denial but of its own failures. As the member for Hunter quite rightly pointed out, the industry has had four decades to get itself in order and has failed to do so. Then we have the response from the government and in particular from the minister—initially feigned outrage about what happened on the Awassi but then condemnation of Labor when Labor called for action commensurate with the gravity of the offence and consistent with community expectations. The exporter involved in this case is responsible for about 71 per cent of all the trade between us and the Middle East and has been the subject of previous allegations of cruelty. The exporter was prosecuted in 2008, I believe, by the Western Australian government. The Australian people do not need more inquiries, increased penalties, lower stocking rates or better ventilation on vessels in order to get the reassurance they need from this government. We already have penalties of up to five years jail and $50,000 fines that have never been applied or imposed on anybody. Yet the government's response is, 'We will increase the penalties.' Well, what's the point of that, if the current penalties are never even being applied? With respect to the lower stocking rates, the industry itself, in a submission to the Productivity Commission, stated that if you lower the stocking densities by 10 per cent or more you will increase the losses in profitability by anywhere between 35 and 100 per cent. They themselves will claim that lowering stocking densities will make the industry unviable. Yet this is the response we're now getting. Let me turn to why this industry needs to be transitioned out. It's already an industry in decline. Numbers have fallen from around six million sheep exported in 2001-02 to 1.7 million last year. Those export numbers represent only five per cent of the industry value of $5.2 billion. We know that chilled sheepmeat exports to the Middle East—the very countries where these sheep are going—increased tenfold between 2006 and 2016. So the government should work with Labor on a response that helps to phase out the industry and provide the certainty to the growers that is needed by them. The reality is that there are alternatives. We can process the sheep here in Australia, and there are markets for the chilled meat overseas. Yes, that takes time, and it needs transition time in order to get the abattoirs in Australia up to speed and with the right skills and staff required. Already the RSPCA and Animals Australia have together committed $1 million towards a transition strategy. What we need now is a government that is prepared to do the same. If the government truly cares about the farmers it claims to represent, it will work with Labor to do exactly that. (Time expired) 16:04 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to defend the hardworking farmers, truck drivers and stockmen who work across my electorate of O'Connor. I'll start by supporting the minister on his stance, and I take offence at the comment that he was showing faux outrage. I think anybody who saw the minister's response could tell that he was genuinely moved and upset by the scenes depicted on the footage that we saw on the 60 Minutes program. I share his concern, and I know that all members on this side—particularly those from the farming communities who are sitting around me here today—share those concerns. My community exports around 50 per cent of the live sheep that leave this country. Around 20 per cent come out of South Australia, and the member for Grey's electorate makes up a large proportion of that. The member for Durack's electorate would probably supply about 30 per cent of the sheep to the market, and my electorate supplies around 50 per cent. When I drive between Perth and Albany, as I do on a regular basis, I drive through the blue ribbon merino sheep breeding heartland of Western Australia. I drive through the town of Boddington, which is in the seat of Canning, and through the towns of Williams, Kojonup, Cranbrook, Mount Barker, all of which are blue ribbon merino sheep producing areas. I'd invite the member for Fremantle to get out of the latte strip one day and come down to the Wagin Woolorama and the Williams Gateway Expo and have a look at the pride that the merino breeders of that area put into their sheep to present them at shows and to breed absolutely top-quality stock. I extend that invite to you, Member for Fremantle, because you would then understand that every farmer would have been absolutely appalled by the way the sheep in that particular cargo were treated. The industry is very important to those said farmers. In terms of financial return, we're looking at between $50,000 and $100,000 per sheep operation across my electorate that comes from those sales into the live sheep trade. It's been suggested that the local processing market could pick up those sheep and process them locally, and we'd send them off in a chilled box to the Middle East. There is some market for chilled mutton in the Middle East, but consider this: the 1.6 million sheep out of Western Australia are heavy shipping wethers, between 50 and 70 kilograms. While they make up one-third of the numbers, they would probably make up about 50 per cent of the weight of product. If you'll pardon the pun, that would put an enormous weight on the domestic producer market. What we'd see, and what I've seen estimates of—and I think they're quite correct—is that it would put a dampener on the price of around $30 per head on not just live shippers but new mutton and lamb as well. If you extrapolate that across around five million sheep that are processed in Western Australia, which are all sold live, you'd be looking at about a $150-million hit to the industry as a whole. That's real money to very hardworking farmers in my electorate. The member for Hunter didn't really seem to have his heart in it today. He lived through the 2011 fiasco, and I suggest that he's probably thinking that this could end up the same way. But the Left of the party are obviously pushing very hard, and they've got this MPI up. But I'd just like to point out, Member for Fremantle, some comments from the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, in an article by Nick Butterly in The West Australian. Premier McGowan has split from federal Labor over its plan to end live sheep exports, saying many Western Australians rely on the trade for their livelihood. Mr McGowan said that the government should be working to weed out 'bad apples' rather than closing it down entirely. I think that's exactly what the minister at the dispatch box said a few minutes ago. Mr McGowan said that a lot of Western Australians who drive trucks, run farms, work on the port, or work in feedlots, rely on live exports for a living. I applaud the Premier for standing up for his constituents, for Western Australians, because that is exactly what will happen here. In the last few minutes I just want to talk very briefly about the way forward. The improvements in the live export trade over the last 20 years have been quite dramatic. The average mortality on a ship back in the early 1990s was around 1.9 per cent per cargo. That has been reduced in the last four years to 0.7 per cent per cargo. That's a dramatic decrease. We can do better. I know that, while the minister is waiting for the McCarthy review, ALEC have already instigated some measures that they were talking about making. We can reduce these mortality rates and avoid these sorts of incidents. (Time expired) 16:09 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh Here we go again, debating this issue, as we have been doing for many, many years in this place. It seems to pop up every now and again, and it does so because of the regulations that aren't up to standard. It does so because, in the standards that are in place, the bars are placed very low. For too long we've witnessed the mistreatment of animals through the live export trade. It's just not necessary and it should never be acceptable. When we look at nations across the world, we see that New Zealand, for example, has been able to phase out its live export. New Zealand exports more sheep than we do. It manages to have a market, and it does so in a humane way and in a way that doesn't lower its standards by being inhumane to animals. It does it in a way which value-adds to its workforce and the industry and ensures that it has controls on the meat that does leave the country, and it's doing quite well out of it. Only last month, we saw other nations, in South America, planning to go the exact same way. Opposing live exports has not always been a popular choice in this place. Nevertheless, many of us on this side of the House have stuck with our values and the decision that it is cruel and inhumane and that there should be value-adding to the industry here in this country. I say so because Australia is a humane nation; we are a nation that cares about our animals. It's not just people on this side. Farmers and people involved in the industry don't want to see the horrific images that we've been seeing on our TVs, on 60 Minutes, and in the newspapers. We've been seeing them for far too long. At the beginning, I spoke about the regulations and the laws that are in place at the moment. We know that the current government, when it was first elected, ignored both industry and animal welfare group warnings of systematic failure. Those warnings have been there for a long time. It delayed the review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock, rejected Labor's commitment to a review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System and—something very significant—abolished Labor's Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, which would've been able to inspect and ensure that the rules and regulations were being adhered to. It also rejected the proposal from this side for an independent office for animal welfare, which would perhaps have been able to put things in place so that these horrific images wouldn't be on our TVs. The government has also rejected regular ministerial reports to parliament on investigations into reported breaches. It abolished the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, defunded the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and abolished the Animal Welfare Unit within the department of agriculture. These are things that were put in place by Labor to try and better the industry. The industry has been given every single opportunity to clean up its act, and it's quite clear from everything that we've seen and everything that we hear on a continuous basis that it isn't doing so. Labor's decision to phase out live exports is the right decision and the humane decision; it's the decision that will value-add and create jobs here in this nation. It will make sure that the meat that we export is slaughtered in a humane way and that we have total control over it, and, most importantly, it will create jobs here in Australia. We had a great industry in South Australia, in Gepps Cross, where hundreds of people worked in the abattoirs. That's all gone. We had abattoirs all over the country where people worked. They've all gone. This is an industry where we could value-add. We could absolutely ensure that we have control over it and stop the inhumane and cruel things that are taking place that we see in the media on a regular basis. This has to stop. We are a humane nation. We are a nation that cares about our animals. We grow some of the best meat in the world. We have great agriculture. Let's not ruin it all and give ourselves a bad name by what we're exporting at the moment. It's not just the meat—the sheep and the livestock; it's the horrendous situation that workers are under to remove the dead carcasses that we've seen footage of as well. Labor's decision is the right decision. The government should look at phasing it out completely and ensure that we do the right thing. (Time expired) 16:15 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest As a farmer in this place, I've been very interested in some of the comments from those opposite, particularly around value-adding. I can tell you, through bitter personal experience, that the only value-adding out of what Labor is suggesting will be to everyone except the farmer, because that is how the market operates. For any of you that have ever been to a farm or to a sale, or maybe stood on the rails at a beef sale or anywhere, for that matter, where flocks of sheep are sold, if they're going to a meat processor, you take what you're given. You are the absolute price taker. When you give our farmers and our sheep producers no other option—'Sorry, you're not allowed to sell into any other market, and you've only got one option: it's got to go to a meat processor'—they will take whatever price is being offered. Having been in that situation myself with beef, I can tell you that's why we no longer produce it. That's what those members opposite—who, I bet, have never been on a farm, stood on the cattle rails or sold a flock of sheep—could even think about. They've got absolutely no idea. There will be very few options. As a farmer myself, like every other farmer, I was horrified by what we saw on the Awassi Express. The government and the minister have acted, and I commend the minister for his actions. The McCarthy review into the Middle Eastern summer sheep trade is due next week. If people have done the wrong thing then they will be accountable. The goal and focus should be that the animals come off the ship on arrival as good as or better than when they went on. That's what all of us, as farmers, want, and that's what the industry wants. In 2016, of the 1.9 million live sheep exported at a value of $233 million, 90 per cent came out of WA. So what we're seeing here today from Labor is a red-hot attack on the economy of Western Australia. That's what we're seeing. Make no mistake: WA will suffer. It is an attack on the 10,000 jobs that exist in the industry in rural and regional Australia. I want to talk about some of those fantastic people in the livestock transporters' patch. They do an extraordinary job. I know some of the blokes. When I talk to some of those that do the transporting, they tell me about a bloke by the name of John Logue out at Williams. Ninety-nine per cent of his business is shippers. What would he do? He's from Williams, where the population is 300 or so—is that right, Rick? It's your patch. You look at Ben Schinzig. He's out Moodiarrup way—a population of just over 100, I think. So I look all around and look at all these great small businesses that are so important to those small communities. I look at those that supply them when we take them out, which is what Labor wants to do—take them out. What happens to your local fuel distributor who supplies that transporter? What happens to the tyre dealers that they deal with? What happens to the welding businesses and all these other small businesses that keep our small communities operating? That's what those opposite have no idea about, and they literally do not care about the impact that they're imposing on those communities. The devolution of those small communities in the member for O'Connor's area, particularly, is what we'll see. What about the local service station and the local stockmen, who do an amazing job? All of those people will be affected. We're talking about real families. We're not talking about some pie in the sky, as Labor does. They've got no real contact with these people, these families and these small businesses—none. I live it. The member for O'Connor lives it. The member for Durack lives it. Other members in this House understand it really well. We're listening to idealists, not those who live in the real world as we do. We know that a lot of these people operate in marginal country. What other options do they have? That's one of the other issues that those opposite haven't thought about. Have no doubt: in spite of what's said on the opposite side, Animals Australia will not end here. The left of your party will give in, and cattle will be next. There is no question at all. They will be captives of the left, and we will see cattle next. There is absolutely no question. We saw the disaster of what Labor did in 2011. I will never forget it, and neither will the farmers of this nation, and I support them every single day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The time for the discussion has concluded. MOTIONS 44 MOTIONS Economy 44 16:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion to suspend standing orders moved earlier today by the honourable member for McMahon on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be agreed to.

The House divided [16:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 60 AYES Aly, A Bird, SL Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Byrne, AM Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gosling, LJ 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 Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 74 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 46 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 46

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017

Report from Committee 46 16:31 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's advisory report incorporating a dissenting report on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, together with an addendum to the report. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. Mr GILES 243609 by leave—I'm pleased to be able to present a report which is, in essence, a consensus report dealing with very difficult and important matters forming part of a complicated bill. Before making some short statements on the substance of the report and its significance, I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the secretariat, who dealt with a very challenging series of issues with the utmost professionalism and deep courtesy. I see that the member for Tangney is here, and I hope that he will join me in expressing those sentiments if he has the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I also acknowledge the hard and indeed tireless work of the chair, Senator Reynolds, and all of my colleagues—my Labor colleagues especially. I pay particular mention to Senator Rhiannon, who also gave her all in an effort to bring the parliament together to resolve these fundamental questions which are contained in the bill. What the work of the committee and the evidence brought before it showed was that there were fundamental flaws in this legislation. The recommendations, fairly read, show how unworkable the legislation would have been, regardless of some of the issues going to the motivations attaching to particular provisions in the bill. What this shows as a matter of process is that legislation of this nature—legislation which requires, really, the parliament to speak as one in adopting—must go through a proper consultative process and regulatory impact statement. With these steps having been taken, we may have been able to advance this vexed issue of donations reform. I have next to me in the chamber the member for Isaacs, who had carriage of these matters in government. He knows only too well that for more than 10 years the Australian Labor Party has put forward a considered package of proposals which would advance this debate. We recognise, in Labor, that this has to be a matter upon which the parties can reach substantial agreement. We have been trying to reach that agreement for some time, and I hope this report shows where progress can be made—that we need to look to the broad principles of what we are trying to achieve rather than narrow political advantage or attending in an unfair way to regulate some groups within civil society, in a way which clearly seems designed to regulate them out of existence. A strong democracy requires a very strong civil society. When we talk about a level playing field in politics, political speech and political donations, we have to recognise that a level playing field treats actors appropriately, not as if they are all exactly the same and with the same interests. Those of us who seek to hold executive roles and those of us who have legislative responsibilities are engaged in political activities of a different order than are civil society activist groups. As we debate this report and as we debate legislation—if the government brings the legislation back on—we also have to recognise that we all have a great duty to all of our constituents to raise the standards of political discourse and to rebuild trust in our political institutions. This requires us to look seriously at the influence of money on politics and to provide for much greater transparency. As I mentioned earlier, the Australian Labor Party has, for some time, set out a series of propositions which would go a long way towards this. I hope they can form the basis of further debate in this place in the very near future. We should be arguing about our competing visions for Australia, not about putting in place rules that benefit the wealthy over those who don't have those material advantages. I'm pleased that this is substantively a consensus report. In presenting this report, I note there is much more work to be done. Labor members in this place and in the other place stand ready to work with the government and with the Greens and other crossbenchers on advancing donation reform, noting that this report deals with a package of legislative proposals that don't, and can't, constitute the whole of this debate. There is much more to be done, and I ask members to think about those proposals around donation limits and real-time disclosure that the Labor Party has put forward. It's also time for all of us to consider the issue of caps on expenditure, and caps more generally, if we are to genuinely achieve the level playing field that is essential for a democracy in which everyone feels that they have their say and in which they do, in fact, have their say. 16:36 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney by leave—I join the member for Scullin in thanking the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, Senator Reynolds, and the secretariat for their work. Only Australians and Australian money should influence Australian politics and policymaking, not overseas billionaires or foreign governments. A ban on foreign money and influence should apply to all political expenditure and political campaigns in Australia. The government is not alone on this. Alternative legislation from Labor and the Greens would ban donations of foreign property to political parties and candidates or anyone who would use it for political expenditure. This would include charities. The report, in paragraph 1.32 and 1.33, makes it very clear that the Labor and Greens proposals would also extend to charities in relation to banning gifts of foreign property for the purposes of political expenditure. The majority of submissions to and witnesses before the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended that political donations should be regulated further at the federal level and that there should be further reforms. Despite broad agreement on the principles of greater transparency, there has been significant public debate about who and what activities a ban on foreign donations should apply to. What was very clear in the evidence received was that campaigns have changed over time. Long gone are the days when campaigns occurred after the issuing of the writs and when the only players in a campaign were the political parties and the candidates themselves. We now see a multitude of organisations that spend money and seek to influence voters as they make their decisions and take action as voters. Those voters deserve transparency in relation to where the money that seeks to influence them is coming from as they take part in our nation's democracy. Much public attention has been placed on the issue of charities, and that was a major focus of concern. It was a focus of concern that I think was whipped up a little bit by some people who were trying to increase the number of people subscribing to their organisations, so I'm going to spend a little bit of time on that issue today. Some in the charities sector in partnership with GetUp! wanted to create a loophole that would allow 55,000 registered charities to use foreign money to influence Australian voters and elections. What was quite interesting was that many of the organisations giving evidence to our committee were not aware of the fact that charities were already covered by the Electoral Act. They thought that being covered by the Charities Act and being regulated by the charities commission fulfilled all of their responsibilities and they need not be regulated further by the Electoral Act, even though the Electoral Act currently covers them and their activities. Those organisations campaigning for an exemption did acknowledge that they sought to influence Australian elections. They just didn't think that they should be subject to the same rules. In fact, several politically active charities gave evidence to the committee that elections are a very important time for them to achieve their objectives. The chief executive officer of the Australian Council for International Development told the committee: 'We were trying to influence voters through the campaign, all the time during an election period.' Evidence was also presented that showed charities handing out material at polling booths in support of certain candidates and asking electors to pledge their vote. The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission also confirmed to the committee that there is nothing in charities law that would prevent Australian charities from using foreign money to campaign at Australian elections. The debate is not whether charities should be trying to influence Australian voters. Most accept that the charities sector has a role to play in our democracy. They have a role to have their voice heard in relation to their causes, and I support that. But the issue is whether all political campaigns should be transparent and whether we want foreign money targeting Australian elections and influencing Australian voters at the ballot box. In evidence to the committee, Professor George Williams compared foreign political donations to water—money, like water, will find a way. Stopping foreign interests funding some political activities but not others would simply see foreign money flow to other sources. Charities, if exempt, would likely end up as proxies for foreign political donations. Professor Williams said, 'It's very clear in the US and a range of countries, including Australia, that you can't exempt one part, or that's simply where the money will flow to.' Australia's electoral laws must apply equally to all who participate in the political process. Australian charities will still be able to influence Australian voters and elections—and they should—but they should be able to use only Australian donations to do so. Charities can continue to receive foreign income as long as that income is not used to fund political expenditure. In fact, part of the scare campaign was making out that the government was trying to target charities. The actual mention of charities in this legislation was to provide a carve-out and an ability for charities to still be able to receive foreign money for their charitable purpose as long as it wasn't used for political expenditure to influence Australian voters. That is fair and appropriate. There are some issues with the current legislation. The committee has looked at that and made appropriate recommendations, particularly around the compliance burden. The committee is committed to balancing the need for transparency with compliance and ensuring entities are not adversely affected by the legislation. There are a number of recommendations that are worthy of note. I want to just highlight a few. Recommendation 2 relates to political expenditure. The uncertainty about what that meant caused great concern. The committee recommends that the government consider amending the definition to define the type of expenditure which relates to influencing voters to take action as a voter. There is a recommendation to make the registration process much simpler for all organisations that would be required to disclose under the Electoral Act. Recommendation 4—and this is very important—is making sure that we have increased reporting obligations that affect organisations at particular thresholds. Those organisations that have more significant impact on voter behaviour should have a greater burden of disclosure placed upon them, and the committee recognises that. I think it's pretty hard to argue against greater transparency for organisations that seek to influence Australian voters and Australian elections. The debate is not over yet. Some will argue that some organisations should be exempted, that they should not be treated with the same level of transparency as other organisations who communicate to voters. But only Australians should be able to influence the outcome of Australian elections. I think that's a pretty simple arrangement and one that this committee supports. I look forward to the introduction of this legislation to the House and working with the opposition to make sure that we pass this legislation in a way that keeps intact those principles that I've mentioned. 16:45 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D 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 48 16:45 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee 48 Report 48 16:45 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the committee's report entitled Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2015-16. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Human Rights Committee 48 Report 48 16:46 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 4 of 2018. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human rights scrutiny report: Report 4 of 2018. Of the new bills examined in this report, 29 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit or do not engage human rights. I would like to highlight two of these bills. Measures in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018 actively promote human rights. The statement of compatibility usefully provides a detailed assessment of the human rights implications of the bill and how it achieves positive human rights outcomes. The Biosecurity Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 limits human rights, but in ways that are permissible under international human rights law. While the bill imposes limitations on a number of rights, the statement of compatibility provides an excellent analysis of how such limitations are proportionate to achieve their stated objective. Such work by ministers and their departments in developing legislation with appropriate safeguards and preparing detailed statements of compatibility is to be commended. By addressing human rights issues at the outset, the committee's technical scrutiny function can be undertaken without the need to request further information. In this report the committee needs to request further information in relation to the human rights compatibility of 10 bills and a number of legislative instruments, and also has to provide three 'advice only' comments to legislation proponents. The committee seeks to report in a timely manner so that its technical assessment of human rights compatibility can inform the legislative deliberations of the parliament. A number of bills examined in this report are scheduled for debate this week, including in relation to: the National Disability Insurance Scheme; higher education (student loan repayments); social services (newly arrived migrants); and the Export Control Bill. Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of six bills and instruments. Following correspondence with the relevant minister, three of these bills and instruments are likely to be compatible with international human rights law. In relation to the Treasury Laws (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill, questions arose as to whether the strict liability offences in this bill were compatible with the presumption of innocence. Following further information from the minister, including the existence of relevant safeguards in the specific regulatory context, the committee could conclude that the strict liability offences were likely to be compatible. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of the proposed legislation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 4 of 2018 to the House. BILLS 49 BILLS Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 49

Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 49 16:50 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher The first duty of any government is ensuring the safety of its citizens. That's a phrase that's often used in this place—one that can be sometimes overused—but its principle remains paramount. Whether it be protecting us from crime, combatting foreign agents or cybercriminals who want to undermine our interests or defeating terrorists who want to destroy our way of life, defending our security must be our government's first priority. This government has always understood that responsibility and prosecuted it with dedication and rigour. This is a government that just last year provided an extra $321.4 million for the Australian Federal Police and, in total, has increased funding for law enforcement, intelligence and security agencies by $1.5 billion. This government is funding 100 more intelligence experts, more than 100 more tactical response and covert surveillance operators and a further 100 more forensic specialists at the forefront of the fight against crime and terrorism. This government has passed eight tranches of national security legislation to strengthen our law enforcement and intelligence agencies and to give them the tools they need to deal with terrorists. We have given the ADF the power to target international terrorists with lethal force and given our law enforcement officers the power to arrest homegrown terrorists before their plots come to fruition. We've invested $100 million in grassroots crime prevention projects and $45 million in counter-radicalisation programs to try to suppress these threats before they are fully developed. However, this government also understands that the threats we are facing are evolving and growing in complexity and sophistication. Since 2014, Australian intelligence and law enforcement agencies have successfully disrupted 14 imminent terrorist attacks and charged 85 individuals with offences relating to terrorism. Just one of these attacks, a rigorously planned plot against an A380 airliner leaving Sydney, would have led to hundreds of deaths had it not been narrowly averted. We expect the volume of passengers entering our borders to increase by 22 per cent in just the next three years, while the ongoing instability in the Middle East continues to provide a source of potential terrorists and training. At this point, I'd also like to send a huge shout-out to our armed services, our men and women in the ADF, who are doing an absolutely sterling job in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East more broadly to help keep this country safe. New technology and online channels like powerful mobile encryption, the dark web and advanced cyberwarfare techniques have given state and non-state actors alike new tools to threaten us. Research conducted by Telstra, for example, shows that as many as 60 per cent of organisations in Australia suffered some sort of cyber attack in 2016 alone. However, the government has shown through Operation Sovereign Borders that national security problems of huge scope and considerable complexity can be overcome through a coordinated and integrated approach. This dramatically successful operation has involved the cooperative work of 16 separate agencies. It shows what can be achieved when our security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies work together in a close-knit, common effort. That success and that experience has led the government to institute the Department of Home Affairs to bring together the management and coordination of our nation's national security, intelligence and emergency management agencies. It's a model that has proved its value overseas. And, like the UK Home Office, the Department of Home Affairs is now able to provide far-reaching strategic planning and policy development that incorporates knowledge from all our myriad experts. It also provides the best possible distribution of resources and closest possible coordination between ASIO, the AFP, the Australian Border Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission to ensure that Australia is a safer and more secure place. The minority who oppose this move, however, point to the many weighty and serious responsibilities that are being concentrated in the hands of one minister, the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and now Minister for Home Affairs. Personally, I can think of no-one I would rather have responsible for our nation's internal security. The minister was a Queensland police officer for a decade, protecting not only Queenslanders, in the drug and sex offenders squads, but all Australians, through the National Crime Authority. The minister saw and combatted the worst of crime in our society, and he understands what works. That knowledge and that experience have been manifest in his tireless and resolute work on national security to date. This government's amendments to the Migration Act allow the minister to cancel visas of noncitizens who are convicted of a serious crime. Those we have welcomed into our country but who have chosen to commit a crime with a sentence of more than 12 months in prison or who have chosen to commit a sexual offence against a child do not deserve to be allowed to stay in Australia, and our duty to protect our citizens requires that they should be removed. The government's new law has allowed this minister to drive a 12-fold increase in the number of these visa cancellations and keep our society safe from people who have chosen to so outrageously abuse our hospitality. Since December 2014, when this minister gained responsibility for the relevant portfolio, the coalition government has cancelled the visas of over 3,000 dangerous criminals. That includes 61 murderers, 135 rapists, 260 child sex offenders, 500 drug dealers and 170 criminal motorcycle gang members. These deportations have made my community of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast safer, as they have for every community across this country. Once again, there are 3,000 dangerous criminals who, through this process alone, can no longer threaten our citizens because of the decisive and robust action of this minister. But the minister has gone further and driven the extension of this important power to take the strongest possible action to protect us from terrorists trained overseas. By leading the legislation to give the government the power to revoke the citizenship of any dual national who engages in a terrorist act, engages in hostile activity with a terrorist organisation overseas or is convicted of a terrorist act or other terrorism-related offence, this minister has shown that he is not afraid to make the difficult decisions needed to protect our cherished way of life. Critically, this minister has also spent almost 2½ years being responsible for Operation Sovereign Borders. For more than 800 days he has ensured that not one person has arrived in Australia illegally by boat. In this way, he has saved thousands of lives and many millions of dollars while helping to keep closed 17 unnecessary detention centres. Just yesterday we saw again how important his action has been, with a people smuggler's boat carrying 131 people stopped by Malaysian authorities while on its way to Australia. He has displayed strength in pursuit of our security, but that strength has been accompanied by compassion. By protecting the integrity of our border protection and citizenship systems, this minister has helped the government to accept more refugees under our already generous humanitarian program, rising to 18,750 next year, not to mention permitting a special intake of 12,000 Syrian refugees. So, the current Minister for Home Affairs has amply and consistently demonstrated the strength, the commitment, the decisiveness and the compassion needed to shoulder the broad and serious responsibilities that come with this new portfolio. But, as a lawyer, I know that we must legislate not for the minister of today but for all the ministers who might come in the future. There must be safeguards in place to ensure that these centralised responsibilities will never be misused. The government recognised this need and from the beginning has ensured that the Attorney-General will continue to have a very powerful oversight role. However, it was the recommendation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that these safeguards be strengthened even further. The government considered these recommendations and it has responsibly and comprehensively taken them on board. That is why we have proposed these additional amendments. Transparency and clarity are at the foundation of proper oversight. Historically, it has often been the case that, where responsibilities are unclear, opportunities can emerge for the unintended and unwarranted expansion of powers. This bill therefore contains a range of measures to ensure that there is absolute clarity as to which minister is authorised to execute which powers and which minister should be held to account. First, the government's amendments embodied in this bill will ensure there is clarity as to the fact that it is the Attorney-General and not the Minister for Home Affairs who holds the key powers under the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act. Further, the bill amends 36 other pieces of legislation to ensure that it is clear when it is the Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General, other ministers, secretaries or departments that should exercise a wide range of powers and responsibilities. The government has also identified that it is critical to proper oversight that the Attorney-General continues to be responsible for issuing ASIO warrants and authorising special intelligence operations. We've also accepted the joint standing committee's recommendation that this fact needs to be made clearer. This bill therefore amends the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to reflect that important responsibility. Likewise, this bill's amendments will ensure that it is only the Prime Minister who is able to request that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security undertakes an inquiry under section 9 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act. This bill will help us to make Australia safer—safer from crime, from cyberattack, from people smugglers, from terrorists and from those who would seek to undermine our way of life. Facilitating the creation of the Department of Home Affairs will protect our national security and our prosperity at a time of increasingly complex and evolving threats. However, by clarifying the lines of responsibility and cementing the critical oversight, accountability and integrity roles of the Attorney-General, this bill will also make Australia safer by respecting the rights and liberties of all Australians. I started this speech by saying that the duty of every government—its first duty—is to protect its citizens. This is a bill, a very important bill, that seeks to proactively measure and achieve that very goal at a time of sinister new threats. For that, I commend the bill to the House. 17:04 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills    If we are genuinely to hold fast to the fundamental and most basic principles of democracy and the rule of law, we cannot remain silent—we should not remain silent—when faced with one minister collating and consolidating so much power to himself. The member for Fisher, who's leaving now, reads out the CV of Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs, as if that absolves the government of the necessity of proper scrutiny around the unchecked powers of the home affairs minister. On this side, Labor have been consistent in the argument that we've put forward that this is overreach and that the Minister for Home Affairs shouldn't just be given a rubber stamp for this unchecked power. I know the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is an administrative bill to some extent. In its original form it amended four current acts with the intention to give administrative effect, where required, to legislative changes around the establishment of the new Home Affairs portfolio. It was introduced to the House on 7 December 2017, last year, and then the government referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. There were recommendations from that committee's first report, and then the government went ahead and produced a large set of further amendments to the bill, amending 33 further acts. There was constructive negotiation between our shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, and the government's Attorney-General, and these amendments were submitted to the intelligence committee for further inquiry. The creation of the Home Affairs portfolio, including the department, has been largely realised through the machinery of government, and on this side we've taken the position that specific organisational changes to government departments are typically a matter left to the discretion of the government of the day. That's part of their machinery of government. So that's the position that we've taken. However, this should not exempt elements of the government's proposal from genuine scrutiny. The specific changes, for example, to the remit of the Attorney-General's portfolio deserve rigorous scrutiny. Many of us here have expressed significant concern with respect to the concentration of power within the Home Affairs portfolio. I've been one of those. I've previously voiced concerns in this place that the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio has been an opportunity to, if you like, collate and consolidate unchecked executive power to the minister. It's Labor's intention to ensure that the government is held accountable to its initial commitment, made by the Prime Minister during the bill's second reading speech, about the enhanced role of the Attorney-General. I think it's important to note the speech made by the Prime Minister where he identified how the Attorney-General would have an expanded portfolio, taking on 'a suite of new oversight responsibilities with our intelligence community', but would still retain his responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system. So Labor understands that the expansion of the Attorney-General's role is a necessary part of the creation of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's role as first law officer. This is a view, of course, supported by the Law Council of Australia, which supported the changes made in this bill during the council's submission to the parliamentary joint intelligence committee. While we support the substance of the bill in that respect, I think it's important to use this debate to shine a light on the abysmal way in which this government has actually gone about establishing this new department. There were a lot of articles written in the media. There was one in particular by Karen Middleton for The Saturday Paper which pointed out how changes relating to ASIO were being kept from public view, discussing how the legislation seems to no longer be subject to public scrutiny before it is passed. We are very concerned on this side of the House about the lack of transparency. We hope—and it may well be a forlorn hope—that the government reviews its processes to ensure that any changes undergo the appropriate level of public and parliamentary scrutiny. I concur with the comments made by the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, earlier when he said that the new Attorney-General clearly does not understand the bipartisan role that the intelligence committee fulfils. Even the former Attorney-General for this government, George Brandis, claimed in a speech in February that the creation of the Department of Home Affairs was 'unsettling', to use his word. I've said on numerous occasions that we should all be worried by this government's securitisation, particularly of that part of the immigration portfolio under Home Affairs. Troublingly, as I pointed out, there is a large amount of undefined or unchecked executive power under the new department. I just point out that the fact that the member for Fisher read out Mr Dutton's CV is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who the minister is. He misses the point. The point is not who the minister is. It could be Peter Dutton. It could be Mother Teresa. That doesn't matter. What matters is the structural powers that are given to that minister and making sure that the powers can be checked by the parliament and that they are not just given to a minister to concentrate his ability to dominate an entire portfolio, in the sense that he has discretionary powers that are more than even those of the Prime Minister. That's too much power for one person. In some respects this minister has built an empire through blatant disregard for the democratic process. According to the 2017 report of Liberty Victoria's Rights Advocacy Project, the Minister for Home Affairs, as I said, holds more power than any other minister, including the Prime Minister. We can't abide this, and we urge the government to put a stop to Minister Dutton's power-grabbing efforts. While the minister's power expands, his competence has been persistently called into question. An independent review of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, looking at the circumstances of the detention of two Australian citizens, was released under freedom-of-information laws earlier this year. The review revealed systematic problems in Minister Dutton's management of onshore detention centres, resulting in two Australian citizens being wrongly detained in immigration detention. Between 2016 and 2017 the then Department of Immigration and Border Protection wrongfully held two Australian citizens for 97 and 13 days respectively. That's right: this government wrongfully held Australian citizens in immigration detention. For all Minister Dutton's arrogant swagger and bluster about management of these centres, about border security, about being tough, the facts are that the incompetence is utterly staggering. There's been a lot of debate in this House around migration matters in recent months. There is more of it in the debate on this bill. During the debates on several pieces of migration legislation that we have had before us, I have noted my concerns around immigration policy under this government and the tendency of this government to securitise the immigration portfolio itself and the policy around it, particularly under the new Department of Home Affairs. Of course Labor and I support the need to keep Australia safe and secure. Indeed, I've spent much of my professional life doing exactly that. We also understand that security is only one element, albeit it an important element, of migration policy. But it's a much more complex portfolio than that. New migrants contribute economically, socially and culturally. The immigration portfolio has to have elements that are economic, social and cultural to facilitate the successful settlement of migrants in this country. There are many immigrants, including refugees and migrant workers who go on to become permanent residents and citizens, who become entrepreneurs themselves and make great contributions to Australia's economy. I feel and I see that there is a real lack of focus on those elements of the immigration portfolio, and that is a concern. We've seen several research papers that touch on this and the importance of new migrants in, for example, productivity in Australian agriculture and a whole range of sectors. The government focuses attention on security, at the expense of these other important elements. While security and keeping Australia safe are important, that's only one part of a much more complex portfolio. In that respect, I would say that the government have failed to successfully oversee the immigration portfolio and policy for this country. While we don't reject any of these amendments, on the basis that the organisation of government departments is a matter for the discretion of the government of the day, we do highlight and hold the government accountable for their incompetence when they get it wrong—that's part of our role as an opposition—and the failures and the lack of transparency that have come to define this portfolio. In what is typical of the lack of substance that characterises this government, even views expressed by the intelligence community have noted that the establishment of this department seems to be much more about political grandstanding than actual substantive change. Even the Prime Minister has acknowledged that the new ministry was not recommended in the intelligence review that was conducted by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant. It seems in some respects that this Department of Home Affairs is a product of the political bickering and infighting that have characterised this government for so long. Even TheDaily Telegraph, which tends to have stories that are very favourable to the government, mucks in, with Sharri Markson writing a tale about the Department of Home Affairs emerging—being born—out of the conflicting relationships in the Prime Minister's cabinet, claiming that the new ministry is a product of the Prime Minister's 'need to be saved from the conservative faction', and I put that in quotation marks. It appears that this department is more a product of the Prime Minister's inability to lead. The Prime Minister can't control members of his own party, and he consistently caves in to a particular faction in his party to appease them, to placate them, and in so doing just hands over all of these unchecked powers, which is not good for Australia. We on this side urge the government to take a stronger stance and to assure us and the public that the new Department of Home Affairs is based on expert advice and not the political machinations of their factions. Though it only exists to review and amend legislation, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security provides a very strong form of expert advice, and I would encourage the minister, who's here now, and the government to follow all of the recommendations of the joint parliamentary intelligence committee when constructing and continuing their work to construct the new department. 17:16 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank all of the members for their contribution to the debate on the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As the Prime Minister announced in July 2017, the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio is part of the most significant reforms to Australia's national intelligence and domestic security arrangements in many decades—in fact, since the Hope royal commissions of the 1970s and 1980s. The Prime Minister introduced this bill into the House in December 2017 and immediately referred it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The portfolio itself was stood up later in December with the creation of the Department of Home Affairs and the transfer of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Australian Federal Police and AUSTRAC into the portfolio. This new arrangement enhances the government's ability to respond to emerging threats—including terrorism, organised crime and foreign interference—through comprehensive policy development, consolidated and better integrated strategic coordination and the targeted allocation of resources to ensure a safer, more secure Australia. It is a direct response to the evolving and dynamic security environment we face. This bill implements two key elements of the reforms relating to the Home Affairs portfolio—namely, it facilitates the transfer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation into the portfolio and enhances the integrity and oversight role of the Attorney-General in relation to our security and intelligence agencies. The bill clarifies the role of the Attorney-General in relation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, which will transfer to the Attorney-General's portfolio, subject to the agreement of the Governor-General. I intend to introduce amendments to the bill which will reflect recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its two reports tabled on 26 February and 28 March this year. These amendments include measures to implement the three recommendations in the committee's first report as well as introduce further amendments proposed by the government which the committee scrutinised in its second report. On behalf of the Prime Minister, who referred the bill for inquiry, I again thank the committee for its comprehensive, timely and bipartisan efforts in scrutinising this bill and the further amendments proposed by the government. Together with the amendments that I intend to move shortly, the bill ensures that the ministerial and departmental functions and powers effected by the change in national security arrangements to establish the new Home Affairs portfolio and strengthen the Attorney-General's oversight role are clear on the face of the Commonwealth statute book. This strengthened bill will enhance the government's ability to respond to emerging threats through the integration of national security functions and reinforce the integrity of our national security systems, and I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that this bill be now read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 54 17:24 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (28) as circulated, together. Leave granted Mr DUTTON 00AKI I move government amendments (1) to (28) as circulated, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 4), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General". (3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 5), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General". (4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item, substitute: 7 Section 14 Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (5) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item, substitute: 9 Section 15 Omit "Prime Minister's", substitute "Attorney‑General's". (6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (line 9), omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 10 and 11), omit the item, substitute: 12 Section 16 Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (8) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 17), omit "Minister administering that Act", substitute "Attorney‑General". (9) Schedule 1, items 14 and 15, page 5 (lines 19 to 22), omit the items, substitute: 14 Paragraph 19(2 ) ( c) Omit "Prime Minister's", substitute "Attorney‑General's". 15 Section 20 Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (10) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 (lines 30 and 31), omit the item, substitute: 17 Subsections 29(1), (2), (2A), (5) and (8) Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (11) Schedule 1, item 18, page 6 (line 3), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General". (12) Schedule 1, page 7 (before line 16), before item 28, insert: 27A Subsection 3(4) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 27B Saving provision—declared Commonwealth agencies A declaration of a body as a Commonwealth agency, that is in effect under subsection 3(4) of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 immediately before the commencement of this item, continues in effect on and after that commencement as if made under that subsection as amended by this Schedule. (13) Schedule 1, item 30, page 7 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item, substitute: 30 Subsection 6A(1) Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (14) Schedule 1, item 32, page 8 (line 3), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General". (15) Schedule 1, item 34, page 8 (line 14), omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (16) Schedule 1, item 35, page 8 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item, substitute: 35 Subsection 9(1) (not including the heading) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) The Prime Minister may request the Inspector‑General to inquire into a matter relating to an intelligence agency. Note: This item re‑enacts the existing provision to re‑insert the reference to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 35A Subsection 9(3) (not including the heading) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (3) The Prime Minister may request the Inspector‑General to inquire into an intelligence or security matter relating to a Commonwealth agency. Note: This item re‑enacts the existing provision to re‑insert the reference to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 35B Saving provision—inquiries requested by Prime Minister The amendments of section 9 of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 made by this Schedule do not affect an inquiry started before the commencement of this item. (17) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 18 and 19), omit "section 8 or 9 by the Prime Minister or the Minister administering this Act", substitute "section 8 by the Attorney‑General or section 9 by the Prime Minister". (18) Schedule 1, item 38, page 8 (line 26), omit "the Minister", substitute "the Attorney‑General". (19) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (lines 6 to 10), omit paragraphs (5) (a) and (b), substitute: (a) if the inquiry was conducted as a result of a request under section 8 by the Attorney‑General or section 9 by the Prime Minister—the Minister who made the request; (b) in any case—the Prime Minister or the Attorney‑General, if the relevant Minister requests it. (20) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (line 12), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General". (21) Schedule 1, item 43, page 10 (line 4), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General". [referring to Attorney ‑General] (22) Schedule 1, item 47, page 10 (line 27), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General". [referring to Attorney ‑General] (23) Schedule 1, item 51, page 11 (line 10), omit "Minister administering this Act", substitute "Attorney‑General". [referring to Attorney ‑General] (24) Schedule 1, item 54, page 11 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item, substitute: 54 Subsection 28(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The Attorney‑General may grant to a person appointed as Inspector‑General leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as the Attorney‑General determines. (25) Schedule 1, item 56, page 12 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item, substitute: 56 Subparagraph 30(2 ) ( b ) ( i) Omit "Prime Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". (26) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 16), after item 59, insert: 59A Subsection 35(2) Omit "to the Minister". (27) Schedule 1, item 61, page 12 (lines 21 and 22), omit the item, substitute: 61 Subsections 35(4) and (5) Omit "Prime Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". (28) Page 15 (after line 9), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2—Other amendments Part 1—Amendments commencing on Proclamation Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 1 Subsection 3(1) Insert: ASIO Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. 2 Subsection 38A(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 3 Subsection 38A(2) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 4 Subsection 39A(8) Omit "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the responsible Minister)", substitute "ASIO Minister". 5 Paragraph 39A(9 ) ( b) Omit "responsible Minister", substitute "ASIO Minister". 6 Subsection 39B(2) (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 7 Subsection 39B(2) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 8 Paragraphs 39B(5 ) ( a), (5 ) ( b) and (6 ) ( b) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 9 Subsections 39B(9) and (10) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". 10 Subsection 43AAA(4) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "ASIO Minister". Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 11 Paragraphs (daa) and (daaa) of Schedule 1 Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979". 12 Paragraph (dab) of Schedule 1 Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979". A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 13 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Secretary ) Repeal the definition. 14 Subsection 3(1) Insert: Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. 15 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Immigration Minister ) Repeal the definition. 16 Section 57GJ (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 17 Subsection 57GJ(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 18 Paragraph 57GJ(1 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 19 Paragraph 57GJ(1 ) ( b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 116 or 128 of the Migration Act 1958 because of an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the individual is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979); or (c) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 134B of the Migration Act 1958 (emergency cancellation on security grounds) and the cancellation has not been revoked because of subsection 134C(3) of that Act; or (d) the individual's visa is cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and there is an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the individual is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979). 20 Subsection 57GJ(3) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 21 Subsection 57GJ(4) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister". 22 Paragraph 57GJ(4 ) ( b) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 23 Section 57GK Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 24 Section 57GL Repeal the section. 25 Sections 57GNA and 57GO Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". Anti ‑Money Laundering and Counter ‑Terrorism Financing Act 2006 26 Section 5 (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Department ) Omit "the Attorney‑General", substitute "the Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. AusCheck Act 2007 27 Subsection 4(1) (definition of Transport Secretary ) Repeal the definition. 28 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( ii) Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003". 29 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( iv) Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under either of those Acts". 30 Subparagraph 8(3 ) ( a ) ( v) Omit "by an issuing body, the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "made under regulations made under either of those Acts, or a decision made under the AusCheck scheme,". 31 Subsection 10(3) Omit "or the Transport Secretary". 32 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( ii) Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003". 33 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( iv) Omit "to the Transport Secretary", substitute "under regulations made under either of those Acts". 34 Subparagraph 10(3 ) ( a ) ( v) Omit "by an issuing body, the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "made under regulations made under either of those Acts, or a decision made under the AusCheck scheme,". 35 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( b) Repeal the paragraph. 36 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( c) Omit "subsection (4);", substitute "subsection (4).". 37 Paragraph 11(3 ) ( d) Repeal the paragraph. 38 Subparagraph 14(2 ) ( b ) ( ia) Omit "the Secretary or the Transport Secretary", substitute "a Secretary of a Department". Australian Citizenship Act 2007 39 Subsection 6A(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 40 Paragraphs 12(1 ) ( a) and (1A ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth", substitute "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 41 Section 16 Omit "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth", substitute "Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Australian Federal Police Act 1979 42 Subsection 43(1) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". 43 Subsection 43(3) Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". 44 Subsection 43(3) Omit "the Minister" (second occurring), substitute "that Minister". 45 Paragraph 44(b) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". 46 Section 44 Omit "the Minister" (second occurring), substitute "that Minister". 47 Subsection 47B(3) Omit "the Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "the Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". 48 Paragraph 49P(1 ) ( c) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". 49 Subparagraph 51(3 ) ( b ) ( iii) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989". Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 50 After subsection 8A(1) Insert: (1A) Before making guidelines under subsection (1), the Minister must consult with the Attorney‑General. 51 After subsection 8A(2) Insert: (2A) Before varying or replacing guidelines given under subsection (2), the Minister must consult with the Attorney‑General. 52 Subsection 18C(3) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 53 Subsection 18C(3) Omit "Attorney‑General's", substitute "Attorney‑General's". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 54 Subsection 18C(4) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 55 Paragraph 27A(1 ) ( a) Omit "Minister (the issuing Minister) requesting the issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General requesting the Attorney‑General". 56 Paragraph 27A(1 ) ( b) Omit "issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 57 Subsection 27A(1) Omit "issuing Minister may", substitute "Attorney‑General may". 58 Subsection 27A(1) Omit "issuing Minister considers", substitute "Attorney‑General considers". 59 Subsection 27A(3) Omit "issuing Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 60 Paragraph 27B(a) Omit "Minister (the authorising Minister) requesting the authorising Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General requesting the Attorney‑General". 61 Paragraph 27B(b) Omit "authorising Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 62 Section 27B Omit "authorising Minister may, by writing signed by the authorising Minister,", substitute "Attorney‑General may, by writing signed by the Attorney‑General,". 63 Sections 38 and 38A Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister". 64 Section 65 (heading) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 65 Subsection 65(1) Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". 66 Subsection 65(1) Omit "Minister" (second and third occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General and the Minister". 67 Subsection 65(1A) Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". 68 Subsection 65(1A) Omit "Minister" (second occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General and the Minister". 69 Subsection 65(3) Omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". 70 Subsection 92(3) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 71 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Minister with references to Attorney ‑General Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 72 Paragraph 127(1 ) ( aa) Repeal the paragraph. 73 Subsection 127(4) Repeal the subsection. Crimes Act 1914 74 Subsections 3ZZAE(1) and (2) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903". 75 Subsection 3ZZAF(1) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister)". 76 Subsections 3ZZAF(2) and (3) Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister". 77 Section 9A Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002". 78 Section 15GG (heading) Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister". 79 Subsection 15GG(1) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister)". 80 Subsections 15GG(2) and (3) Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister". 81 Subsection 15LD(1) Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 (the LEIC Minister)". 82 Paragraph 15LD(1 ) ( g) Omit "Minister", substitute "LEIC Minister". 83 Subsections 15LD(2) and (3) Omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "LEIC Minister". 84 Subsection 23WJ(6) (including the note) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 85 Paragraph 23WT(1 ) ( ca) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 86 Paragraph 23XWU(1 ) ( d) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 87 Sections 23YQA and 23YQB Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 88 Section 23YUK Repeal the section. Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 89 Section 3 (paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised person ) Omit "Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Department". 90 Paragraph 37(6 ) ( c) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 91 Subsection 41(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 92 Subsections 48(4), (5) and (7) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1976 93 Section 13 Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)". 94 At the end of section 13 Add: (2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made: (a) for the purposes of section 8 (offences) or 9 (forfeiture and seizure) of this Act; or (b) for or in relation to the matter mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of this section. (3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003. Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 95 Section 30 Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)". 96 At the end of section 30 Add: (2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of Part II (offences) of this Act. (3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003. Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990 97 At the end of section 22 Add: (3) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of this Act. (4) Subsection (3) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003. Criminal Code Act 1995 98 Section 5 Before "The Governor‑General", insert "(1)". 99 At the end of section 5 Add: (2) For the purposes of the Legislation Act 2003, the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is the rule‑maker for regulations made for the purposes of the following provisions of the Criminal Code: (a) Division 71 (offences against United Nations and associated personnel); (b) Division 72 (explosives and lethal devices); (c) Division 73 (people smuggling and related offences); (d) Part 5.1 (treason, urging violence and advocating terrorism or genocide); (e) Part 5.2 (offences relating to espionage and similar activities); (f) Part 5.3 (terrorism), other than Division 100 (preliminary provisions); (g) Part 5.4 (harming Australians); (h) Part 5.5 (foreign incursions and recruitment);    (i) Division 270 (slavery and slavery‑like conditions); (j) Division 271 (trafficking in persons and debt bondage); (k) Division 272 (child sex offences outside Australia); (l) Division 273 (offences involving child pornography material or child abuse material outside Australia); (m) Chapter 9 (dangers to the community); (n) Chapter 10 (national infrastructure). (3) Subsection (2) applies despite subsection 6(1) of the Legislation Act 2003. 100 Section 72.28 of the Criminal Code Repeal the section, substitute: 72.28 Delegation by AFP Minister (1) The AFP Minister may, by writing, delegate to: (a) the Secretary of the Department administered by that Minister; or (b) an SES employee, or an acting SES employee, in that Department, where the employee occupies or acts in a position with a classification of Senior Executive Band 3; all or any of the AFP Minister's powers under sections 72.18, 72.19, 72.24 and 72.25. (2) A delegate is, in the exercise of a power delegated under subsection (1), subject to the written directions of the AFP Minister. 101 Section 72.36 of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 102 Subsection 100.1(1) of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 103 Subsections 105.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 104 Subsection 105.37(4) of the Criminal Code Omit "by the Department", substitute "by the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency or by another Commonwealth, State or Territory agency that is authorised or approved by the Commonwealth to issue security clearances". 105 Subparagraphs 105A.19(3 ) ( a ) ( iii) and (iv) of the Criminal Code Omit "Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister". 106 Paragraph 105A.20(a) of the Criminal Code Omit "Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister". 107 Paragraph 105A.20(b) of the Criminal Code Omit "the Department", substitute "that Department". 108 Subsection 117.1(1) of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 109 Section 300.2 of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 110 Section 470.1 of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 111 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. 112 Paragraph 474.17(2 ) ( d) of the Criminal Code Omit "Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Department administered by the AFP Minister". 113 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Minister with references to AFP Minister 114 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Attorney ‑General with references to AFP Minister Criminology Research Act 1971 115 Paragraphs 33(4 ) ( a) and (b) Omit "Attorney‑General of the government that the person represents", substitute "Minister of the Commonwealth, State or Territory who appointed the person". 116 Amendment of listed provisions—substituting references to Attorney ‑General with references to the Minister Customs Act 1901 117 Subsection 208DA(1) (definition of prescribed officer ) Omit "Attorney‑General's". 118 Subsection 208DA(4) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister". Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 119 Paragraph 202(1 ) ( b) Repeal the paragraph. 120 Subsection 202(4) Repeal the subsection. Migration Act 1958 121 Section 143 (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 122 Subsection 143(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 123 Paragraph 143(1 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General's". 124 Paragraph 143(1 ) ( b) Omit "that Department", substitute "the Department". 125 Subsections 143(2) and (4) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 126 Section 144 Omit "Attorney‑General may", substitute "Minister may". 127 Subsections 145(1), 146(2) and 147(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister". 128 Paragraph 162(1 ) ( a) Omit ", the Attorney‑General", substitute "—the Minister". 129 Subsection 162(2) Omit "the certificate, the Attorney‑General or authorised official", substitute "a certificate given under section 146 or 148, an authorised official". 130 Subsection 202(3) Omit all the words from and including "unless", substitute "unless the Tribunal confirms the assessment". Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 131 Paragraph 604(5 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979". 132 Paragraph 604(5 ) ( b) Omit "the Attorney‑General's", substitute "that Minister's". 133 Paragraph 610(4 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979". 134 Paragraph 610(4 ) ( b) Omit "the Attorney‑General's", substitute "that Minister's". Ombudsman Act 1976 135 Subsection 14(3) Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Minister)". 136 Subsection 14(3) Omit "Attorney‑General" (second occurring), substitute "ASIO Minister". 137 Subsection 14(3) Omit "that Minister", substitute "such a Minister". 138 Section 16 Omit "Prime Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Prime Minister". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Prime Minister: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 139 Subsection 35B(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering section 7 of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002". Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 140 Section 6 (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Secretary ) Repeal the definition. 141 Section 6 Insert: Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. 142 Section 6 (definition of Immigration Minister ) Repeal the definition. 143 Subsection 200C(4) Omit all the words after "must give", substitute "a copy of the order, and information likely to facilitate identification of the person, to the Secretary of the Department administered by the Minister administering the Migration Act 1958, for the purposes of administering that Act". 144 Section 278C (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 145 Subsection 278C(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 146 Paragraph 278C(1 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 147 Paragraph 278C(1 ) ( b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the person's visa is cancelled under section 116 or 128 of the Migration Act 1958 because of an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979); or (c) the person's visa is cancelled under section 134B of the Migration Act 1958 (emergency cancellation on security grounds) and the cancellation has not been revoked because of subsection 134C(3) of that Act; or (d) the person's visa is cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and there is an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979). 148 Subsection 278C(2) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 149 Subsection 278C(3) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister". 150 Paragraph 278C(3 ) ( b) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 151 Section 278D Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 152 Section 278E Repeal the section. 153 Sections 278GA and 278H Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 154 Subsection 4(1) (paragraphs (a) and (c) of the definition of equitable sharing program ) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 155 Subsection 4(1) (definition of prescribed officer ) Omit "the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "the Department". 156 Subsection 20(3A) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister". 157 Subsection 23(2) Omit "Attorney‑General or of a person authorised by the Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance Act or of a person authorised by that Minister". 158 Subsection 30(4A) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Minister". 159 Subparagraph 34C(1 ) ( a ) ( i) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 160 Subparagraphs 34C(1 ) ( a ) ( ii) and (iii) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance Act". 161 Subsection 34D(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 162 Subsections 69(2) and 72(3) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance Act". 163 Subsection 75(2) Omit "Attorney‑General or to an officer of the Attorney‑General's Department specified by the Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance Act or to an officer, of the Department administered by that Minister, specified by that Minister". Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 164 Paragraph 297(c) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987". 165 Paragraph 297(d) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987". 166 Section 338 (definition of senior Departmental officer ) Omit "Attorney‑General's". Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 167 Section 13A (subparagraph (b ) ( i) of the definition of authorised officer ) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 168 Subsection 100(4) Omit "Attorney‑General for the Commonwealth", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979". Social Security Act 1991 169 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Attorney ‑General ' s Secretary ) Repeal the definition. 170 Subsection 23(1) Insert: Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. 171 Subsection 23(1) (definition of Immigration Minister ) Repeal the definition. 172 Section 38N (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 173 Subsection 38N(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (first occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 174 Paragraph 38N(1 ) ( a) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 175 Paragraph 38N(1 ) ( b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute: (b) the person's visa is cancelled under section 116 or 128 of the Migration Act 1958 because of an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979); or (c) the person's visa is cancelled under section 134B of the Migration Act 1958 (emergency cancellation on security grounds) and the cancellation has not been revoked because of subsection 134C(3) of that Act; or (d) the person's visa is cancelled under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and there is an assessment by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979). 176 Subsection 38N(2) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 177 Subsection 38N(3) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister". 178 Paragraph 38N(3 ) ( b) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 179 Section 38P Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 180 Section 38Q Repeal the section. 181 Sections 38SA and 38T Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". Surveillance Devices Act 2004 182 Subsection 12(2) Omit "by the Minister under subsection (3)", substitute "under subsection (3) by the Minister referred to in that subsection". 183 Subsection 12(3) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Judiciary Act 1903". 184 Subsection 13(1) Omit "Minister", substitute "Minister administering the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Minister)". 185 Subsection 13(2) Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister". 186 Paragraph 13(3 ) ( b) Omit "Minister", substitute "AAT Minister". 187 Subsection 42(6) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". Telecommunications Act 1997 188 Section 7 Insert: AFP Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Home Affairs Department means the Department administered by the Home Affairs Minister. Home Affairs Minister means the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Home Affairs Secretary means the Secretary of the Home Affairs Department. 189 Subsections 58A(1) and (4) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 190 Subsections 275B(2) and (5) Omit "Minister administering the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", substitute "AFP Minister". 191 Subsection 275D(2) Omit "Minister administering the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", substitute "AFP Minister". 192 Paragraph 295Y(b) Omit "Minister administering the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", substitute "AFP Minister". 193 Subsections 295ZB(1) and (2) Omit "Minister administering the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", substitute "AFP Minister". 194 Subsection 295ZD(1) Omit "Minister administering the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977", substitute "AFP Minister". 195 Subsection 581(3) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 196 After paragraph 55A(1 ) ( a) of Schedule 3A Insert: (aa) the Home Affairs Secretary; and 197 Subclause 55A(2) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "each of the Secretaries mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) and (aa)". 198 Subclause 55A(3) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department received the copy of the application, the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "a Secretary receives a copy of the application, that Secretary". 199 Paragraph 55A(3 ) ( c) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "he or she". 200 Subclause 55A(7) of Schedule 3A Omit "The Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "A Secretary who gives a notice under paragraph (3) (a)". 201 Subclause 55A(7) of Schedule 3A After "the notice", insert "under paragraph (3) (a)". 202 Subclause 55A(8) of Schedule 3A Repeal the subclause, substitute: (8) A Secretary who gives a notice under paragraph (3) (a) may revoke the notice by giving the ACMA a further written notice. 203 Subclause 55A(10) of Schedule 3A Omit "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Secretary who gave the notice". 204 Paragraph 55A(11 ) ( b) of Schedule 3A Omit "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Secretary making the submission". 205 Paragraph 57(a) of Schedule 3A After "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", insert "or the Home Affairs Secretary". 206 Subclauses 57A(1) and (4) of Schedule 3A Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 207 Subclause 58(5) of Schedule 3A (heading) Omit "given by Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "preventing grant of permit is". 208 Paragraph 58(5 ) ( b) of Schedule 3A After "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", insert "or the Home Affairs Secretary". 209 After paragraph 70(1 ) ( a) of Schedule 3A Insert: (aa) the Home Affairs Secretary; and 210 Subclause 70(2) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "each of the Secretaries mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) and (aa)". 211 Subclause 70(3) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department received the copy of the application, the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "a Secretary receives a copy of the application, that Secretary". 212 Paragraph 70(3 ) ( c) of Schedule 3A Omit "the Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "he or she". 213 Subclause 70(7) of Schedule 3A Omit "The Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "A Secretary who gives a notice under paragraph (3) (a)". 214 Subclause 70(7) of Schedule 3A After "the notice", insert "under paragraph (3) (a)". 215 Subclause 70(8) of Schedule 3A Repeal the subclause, substitute: (8) A Secretary who gives a notice under paragraph (3) (a) may revoke the notice by giving the ACMA a further written notice. 216 Subclause 70(10) of Schedule 3A Omit "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Secretary who gave the notice". 217 Paragraph 70(11 ) ( b) of Schedule 3A Omit "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "Secretary making the submission". 218 Paragraph 71(aa) of Schedule 3A After "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", insert "or the Home Affairs Secretary". 219 Subclauses 72A(1) and (4) of Schedule 3A Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 220 Subclause 73(5) of Schedule 3A (heading) Omit "given by Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", substitute "preventing grant of permit is". 221 Paragraph 73(5 ) ( b) of Schedule 3A After "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department", insert "or the Home Affairs Secretary". 222 At the end of Part 5 of Schedule 3A Add: 90 Delegation by the Home Affairs Secretary (1) The Home Affairs Secretary may, by writing, delegate any or all of his or her powers under this Schedule to an SES employee, or acting SES employee, in the Home Affairs Department. (2) A delegate must comply with any directions of the Home Affairs Secretary. 223 Application of amendments relating to consultation about permits (1) Clauses 55A, 57, and 58 of Schedule 3A to the Telecommunications Act 1997, as amended by this Schedule, apply in relation to the making of a decision on or after the commencement of this item on an application for a protection zone installation permit, even if the application was made before that commencement. (2) Clauses 70, 71 and 73 of Schedule 3A to the Telecommunications Act 1997, as amended by this Schedule, apply in relation to the making of a decision on or after the commencement of this item on an application for a non‑protection zone installation permit, even if the application was made before that commencement. Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 224 Subsection 5(4) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 225 Paragraph 68(l) After "Department", insert "administered by that Minister". 226 Section 68A (heading) Omit "Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department". 227 Subsection 68A(1) After "Department", insert "administered by the Attorney‑General". 228 Paragraph 68A(1 ) ( a) Omit "the Secretary", substitute "that Secretary". 229 At the end of paragraph 71(2 ) ( a) Add "or". 230 After paragraph 71(2 ) ( a) Insert: (aa) the Minister; or 231 At the end of paragraph 71(2 ) ( b) Add "or". 232 Subsection 140(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister". 233 Paragraphs 180M(1 ) ( b), (c) and (d) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 234 Paragraph 180M(4 ) ( a) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 235 Paragraph 180M(4 ) ( b) Omit "Minister" (first occurring), substitute "Attorney‑General". 236 After subparagraph 180M(4 ) ( b ) ( i) Insert:    (ia) the most senior Minister administering this Act; 237 Subsections 180M(7) and (8) Omit "Minister", substitute "Attorney‑General". 238 Amendments of listed provisions—re ‑inserting references to the Attorney ‑General Note: This item re‑inserts the references to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 239 Amendments of listed provisions—substituting references to Minister with references to Attorney ‑General Terrorism Insurance Act 2003 240 Subsection 6(1) Omit ", after consulting the Attorney‑General,". 241 After subsection 6(4) Insert: (4A) Before making a declaration under this section, the Minister must consult the Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. Part 2—Amendments contingent on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (International Crime Cooperation and Other Measures) Act 2018 Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 242 Paragraph 68(la) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 243 Subparagraph 68(la ) ( ii) After "Department", insert "administered by that Minister". 244 Paragraph 68(lb) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Attorney‑General". Note: This item re‑inserts the reference to the Attorney‑General: see item 3 of the table in subsection 19(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. 245 Subparagraph 68(lb ) ( ii) After "Department", insert "administered by that Minister". 246 Section 68A (heading) Omit "Secretary", substitute "Secretary of the Attorney‑General's Department". 247 Subsection 68A(1) After "Department", insert "administered by the Attorney‑General". 248 Paragraph 68A(2 ) ( a) Omit "the Department", substitute "that Department". 249 Paragraph 68A(2 ) ( b) Omit "the Secretary", substitute "that Secretary". Part 3—Amendments contingent on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2018 Crimes Act 1914 250 Subsection 22B(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Minister administering the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Minister)". 251 Subsection 22B(2) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "the ASIO Minister". Part 4—Amendments contingent on the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017 Telecommunications Act 1997 252 Section 7 Repeal the following definitions: (a) definition of Attorney‑General's Department; (b) definition of Attorney‑General's Secretary. 253 Section 311 Omit: The Attorney‑General may give directions to a carrier or a carriage service provider in certain circumstances where certain activities may be prejudicial to security. The Attorney‑General's Secretary may obtain information from carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries if the information is relevant to assessing compliance with the duty of those persons to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference or unauthorised access. substitute: The Home Affairs Minister may give directions to a carrier or a carriage service provider in certain circumstances where certain activities may be prejudicial to security. The Home Affairs Secretary may obtain information from carriers, carriage service providers and carriage service intermediaries if the information is relevant to assessing compliance with the duty of those persons to protect telecommunications networks and facilities from unauthorised interference or unauthorised access. 254 Division 5 of Part 14 (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 255 Sections 315A and 315B Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 256 Division 6 of Part 14 (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary's", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary's". 257 Section 315C (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 258 Subsections 315C(1), (2) and (4) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 259 Sections 315E and 315F Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 260 Section 315G (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 261 Subsections 315G(1) and (2) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 262 Subsection 315J(1) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 263 Subsection 315J(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 264 Paragraphs 315J(1A ) ( a) and (b) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 265 Paragraph 315J(1A ) ( f) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 266 Subsection 315J(2) Omit "Attorney‑General's Secretary", substitute "Home Affairs Secretary". 267 Subsection 315J(2) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 268 Subsection 315J(3) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 269 Subsection 315K(3) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 270 Subsections 564(1) and (2) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 271 Subsection 564(3A) (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 272 Subsection 564(3A) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 273 Subsection 571(1) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 274 Subsection 571(4) (heading) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 275 Subsection 571(4) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 276 Section 572A Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 277 Subsections 572B(1), (3), (4) and (5) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 278 Subsection 572B(5) Omit "Attorney‑General's Department's", substitute "Home Affairs Department's". 279 Subsection 572B(5A) Omit "Attorney‑General", substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 280 Subsection 572B(5B) Omit "Attorney‑General's", substitute "Home Affairs Minister's". 281 Subsection 572C(1) Omit "Attorney‑General" (wherever occurring), substitute "Home Affairs Minister". 282 Subsection 572C(3) Omit "Attorney‑General's", substitute "Home Affairs Minister's". Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2017 283 Subitems 35(2) and (3) After "Attorney‑General", insert "or the Home Affairs Minister". Part 5—Transitional rules 284 Transitional rules (1) A Minister administering an Act amended by this Schedule (the amended Act) may, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the following: (a) the amendments or repeals of the amended Act made by this Schedule; (b) the effect of section 19 or 19A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, in relation to a provision of the amended Act, because of an Administrative Arrangements Order made during the period:    (i) beginning on 20 December 2017; and    (ii) ending on the day before this item commences; (c) the effect of a substituted reference order, made during the period mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subitem under section 19B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, in relation to a provision of the amended Act. Note: Subparagraph (b) (i)—20 December 2017 is the day an Administrative Arrangements Order was made to provide for certain matters to be dealt with by a Department of Home Affairs. (2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following: (a) create an offence or civil penalty; (b) provide powers of:    (i) arrest or detention; or    (ii) entry, search or seizure; (c) impose a tax; (d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in an Act; (e) directly amend the text of an Act. (3) This Schedule (other than subitem (2)) does not limit the rules that may be made for the purposes of subitem (1). (4) Rules made for the purposes of this item that are registered under the Legislation Act 2003 before the end of the period of 12 months starting on the commencement of this item: (a) may be expressed to take effect from a date before the rules are registered; and (b) apply despite subsection 12(2) (retrospective application of legislative instruments) of that Act. In addition to these amendments, I will move amendments to a further 32 acts. Last December when the Prime Minister introduced the bill into the House he immediately referred it to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I'd again like to thank all parties who made submissions to the committee's inquiry and the committee for its comprehensive consideration of the bill and timely report on 26 February. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security made three recommendations to amend the bill so that, firstly, only the Prime Minister is empowered to request the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to undertake an inquiry under section 9 of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act; secondly, generic references to the minister in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act are replaced with references to the Attorney-General; and, thirdly, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended to reflect the ongoing role of the Attorney-General in issuing ASIO warrants and authorising special intelligence operations. Importantly, the committee also recommended that the bill should be passed if these amendments are made. The government accepts these recommendations in full, and the amendments I have moved today comprehensively address them. There are also additional amendments which, taken as a whole with the bill, amend 36 acts to ensure ministerial and departmental functions and powers affected by the significant change in national security arrangements are clear on the face of the Commonwealth statute book. This includes clarifying which minister, secretary or department exercises certain powers and functions, consistent with the principles of interpretation in the Acts Interpretation Act, to remove the need to refer to the substituted reference order and Attorney-General's authorisation made on 20 December 2017. The amendments relate to functions and powers which, on the one hand, relate to the Home Affairs portfolio, given the transfer of responsibility for national security, law enforcement and emergency management, and on the other hand relate to the Attorney-General's portfolio, linked to the Attorney's role as first law officer with responsibility for the administration of criminal justice, as well as strengthen oversight and integrity functions. We also asked the committee to scrutinise these further amendments to ensure they get the balance right, and the committee confirmed in its second report tabled on 28 March that they do just that. The proposed amendments have been publicly available on the committee's website since March. If passed, this strengthened bill will facilitate the full establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio as well as strengthen the integrity and oversight role of the Attorney-General—and it will reinforce the integrity of our national security systems. Once again, I thank the committee most sincerely for its work on this bill and commend these important amendments to the House. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 75 17:28 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 75 BUSINESS Rearrangement 75 17:28 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 75 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018 75

Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018

Second Reading 75 17:29 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Labor supports the Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill, subject to an amendment. 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 the importance of effective oversight and regulation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in ensuring the protection of Australian consumers, given increasing reports of misconduct in the banking and financial services industry'. Labor will always support a strong and well resourced watchdog in the financial services sector. We've always supported ASIC and its work and made sure that it was well resourced to do the job for which it was constituted. That's in stark contrast to the approach that this government has taken with respect to ASIC. We all know that, during the first Abbott government budget, it dramatically cut the amount of funding to ASIC, resulting in job losses. In the wake of that, we saw some of the scandals that occurred in the financial services and banking industry that are now the subject of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, which has uncovered some shocking evidence of not just plain misconduct but potentially criminal actions. It's clear that we need a strong and effective regulator, but it's taken a royal commission to help this terrible government to see that a little bit more clearly. This bill amends the ASIC Act to provide the Governor-General with the discretion to appoint a second deputy chairperson of ASIC. We support an additional deputy chairperson and note the government's intention to nominate Mr Daniel Crennan QC to this role. Amending the ASIC Act to provide for two deputy chairs will help ASIC to be an effective and efficient regulator and will provide greater flexibility for the commission to determine how it undertakes its oversight and other governance functions. A second deputy chairperson will also support ASIC in engaging with stakeholders to better communicate its role, its priorities and how its resources are allocated. ASIC's role has also been expanding, with new directions powers to boost its oversight of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, the so-called one-stop shop for dispute resolution that the government is in the process of establishing. We also note that the government has proposed that ASIC be responsible for the management of expected additional disclosures following reforms to whistleblower laws, and ASIC may soon also have new responsibilities for administering the new Asia Region Funds Passport regime. It's also the case that legislation has been introduced into the parliament to expand ASIC's oversight and give it a competition mandate, albeit one similar to, and incidental to, the role that's performed by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, and this is contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill. As Australia's corporate markets, financial services and consumer regulator, we need it to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. That's why Labor will be supporting this bill. Labor supports protections for mum-and-dad investors, superannuation holders, general members of the public who hold bank accounts and those who invest in managed investment schemes, different types of investment vehicles and, indeed, corporations that operate under Australian Corporations Law. We seek to ensure that they're protected from fraud and from some of the activities that we've seen being undertaken by the big banks and other big financial service providers in the royal commission. To paraphrase a former Prime Minister, Paul Keating: 'It's the royal commission that we really had to have.' For too long, the Turnbull government did nothing. It ignored Labor's push for a deeper inquiry, through a royal commission, into what was going on in banking and financial services, despite the many scandals that had plagued this industry: the collapse of Storm Financial, Trio Capital, Timbercorp and a number of other investment vehicles; the scandal that was going on in the Commonwealth Bank with their wealth management division; the CommInsure scandal; and the fact that all of the big banks had been the subject of ASIC inquiries and had charged fees for services that weren't supplied and been required to pay back customers' funds for advice that wasn't given or was levied in an inappropriate manner. There's been a litany of cases through which scandal and misdemeanour have plagued this industry, and for 600 days the Prime Minister sat in this parliament and said to the Australian public that there was no need for a banking royal commission. Well, the Prime Minister and other members of the government now have egg on their faces. Even in the first weeks, the veracity and the value of the royal commission was proven in the evidence that was given. The history has already been written. Yet again, all the evidence shows that the Turnbull government got another call wrong—another big call wrong—when it came to highlighting what was going on in this industry. They even shut down calls for action amongst their own backbench. That's exactly how out of touch the senior members of this government are. It was only after getting the green light from their mates in the financial services sector and the big banks that the Liberals and Nationals finally relented and agreed to what they hoped would be a very short and sharp royal commission. Now, of course, they're already talking about extending the time frame if the commissioner requires it. In the early stages of the commission, it's already shown just what happens when light-touch Liberals prioritise banks and financial institutions over the people. The banking royal commission has highlighted the hypocrisy of Malcolm Turnbull, Scott Morrison and in particular, I've got to say, the finance minister, Senator Cormann. During his time in parliament the finance minister has consistently supported the banks and financial planning industry above the interests of everyday Australians. The finance minister and the Turnbull government have been more concerned with what they call 'red tape' and the banks' costs of doing business, despite the fact that these corporations are already generating superprofits. We've seen in recent days that both ANZ and Westpac have reported their half-year profits, and it's no surprise that once again they're in rude health. We need only look at Senator Cormann's maiden speech to see that he emphasised an ideological importance of checks and balances on government power but made no mention at all of the checks and balances on the power of the banks and the financial corporations. This hands-off, light-touch approach that the Liberals have taken has been at the cost of the welfare and livelihood of many Australians. The seeds of this approach were really sown in 2014. That was the time when this government tried to gut the core of Labor's Future of Financial Advice reforms. These laws had previously been introduced to help prevent the same scandalous behaviour—driven by greed and distorted financial incentives—that we're today seeing uncovered in the royal commission. At the heart of the Future of Financial Advice reforms was a best-interest test for clients, a legal obligation for financial advisers to do the right thing by their customers. It's hard to believe this, but prior to FoFA becoming law there was no legal obligation in any statute for financial advisers to act in the best interests of their customers. And guess what? They didn't; many of them didn't. That's the evidence that's being uncovered in the banking royal commission at the moment and that was uncovered through numerous parliamentary inquiries initiated by the previous Labor government into the likes of schemes like Trio Capital, Westpoint, Opes Prime, Timbercorp and all of these other financial collapses where many Australians who'd entered the retirement phases of their lives and had basically put the lot of their retirement income into these schemes lost the lot. They not only lost their life savings and their retirement incomes but in many cases lost their kids' inheritance as well, because some of them had remortgaged their homes to go deeper into some of these financial schemes on the advice of these financial advisers. Labor, in government, acted with the FoFA reforms, which were strongly opposed by the financial advice industry. Never forget that: the banks and the big financial advice industry houses, like AMP and the Financial Services Council, opposed what Labor was doing in introducing a best-interest test into the industry. And guess who it was also opposed by? None other than those opposite. Yes, that's right. Members of this coalition government, led by the Prime Minister, led by the finance minister, led by the Treasurer, opposed the introduction of a catch-all provision in the best-interest test. So the very scandalous behaviour that is being uncovered by the royal commission at the moment would not be illegal if the Turnbull government had its way. That's a very important point to remember. It has been forgotten in much of the commentary associated with the royal commission. If the Turnbull government had its way, the behaviour that's being uncovered by the royal commission at the moment would not be illegal; it'd just be a bad look. That in itself is scandalous. Not only did they oppose the original FOFA legislation but, when they were elected in 2013, they quickly set about dismantling that best-interest test, despite the pleas of consumer groups to leave the scheme in place. Let's not forget that Senator Cormann said at the time of Labor's changes that they 'went too far' by having a legal obligation requiring financial advisers to take any reasonable steps in their clients' interests. The Abbott government had once again sided with the big banks and the financial advice industry over the interests of customers. Labor had to fight tooth and nail to help retain those laws despite the coalition's persistent efforts to undermine these groundbreaking changes. Thankfully, most of the Senate crossbench agreed with the Labor Party, and we were able to stop that. The government actually got that reform to water down the best-interest duty in the FOFA regulations through the parliament. It passed the House of Representatives. It passed the Senate. It was only through the good work of Labor senators in putting a rescission motion in and managing to convince the crossbench of the idiocy of what they'd done in agreeing with the government that we were able to overturn that. Thankfully, we did. If this government had its way, there'd be no laws against what the banks and the likes of AMP have done—to some extent. It would be simply a bad look for them, and ultimately there would be no accountability. For Liberal and Nationals MPs to now come into this place and in public express their outrage about the behaviour uncovered by the royal commission is rank hypocrisy. It is rank hypocrisy. We still have no idea why this government would want to water down financial protection laws in Australia. But that is exactly what it tried to do in the early stages of this government. The heart-wrenching stories of mum-and-dad investors losing everything in a string of financial scandals in the wake of the global financial crisis were not enough for this coalition government to stop it removing from customers the protection from dodgy financial advice. In 2012, Senator Cormann and his Liberal colleagues strongly argued against the introduction of the FOFA reforms. In a dissenting report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, in the inquiry into the FOFA legislation, Senator Cormann and his Liberal colleagues said the legislation would 'increase red tape and costs for both businesses and consumers for no additional consumer protection benefit'. In 2014, when introducing a watering-down of consumer protections, Senator Cormann also said: Labor's changes in government went too far [and] imposed too many additional costs without a proportionate consumer protection benefit. That was the view of the finance minister in 2014—that introducing a best-interest duty to protect customers from the behaviour that we're seeing in the royal commission and for the likes of AMP to act in the best interests of their customers was going too far and was increasing red tape. Now they've got the hide to come in here and say to the Australian public that the royal commission is the right thing to do. Some of them have said, 'We've always supported this style of laws and this type of inquiry.' These laws have been previously introduced to help prevent the same scandalous behaviour, driven by a lack of regulation and enforcement, that we are seeing today. To highlight one of the examples of the importance of FOFA, ASIC's own Financial advice: fees for no service report revealed in October 2016 that the big four banks and AMP had spent years taking fees from customers for financial advice services that were never provided. That's a classic case of not acting in the best interests of the customers: charging customers for services that weren't provided. It's debatable whether or not that would be illegal, if FoFA weren't around and there weren't this best-interest duty. Yes, there were systems in place to record the rivers of cash coming in. But, no, there was little in place to prove that customers were getting anything in return. That report found that the customers who initially signed up for financial advice had been charged fees for services they did not even receive, and in some cases after they'd had contact with their bank. It is very sad to see this evidence being uncovered in the royal commission. According to ASIC, the amount of the fees that were improperly charged was over $200 million, excluding interest. That's $200 million extracted from mum-and-dad investors, who Labor wants to protect. On the matter of ASIC, it was the Abbott and Turnbull government that tried its best to gut the regulator in its first budget by undermining its ability to cover and prosecute unconscionable financial conduct. Let's look again at the evidence and the recent history. In 2014, in its first budget, the Abbott government slashed ASIC's funding by $120 million. The result, not surprisingly, was a devastating loss of staff and expertise, with a significant effect on the ability of the corporate and financial services regulator to address misconduct. The result was a further kick in the guts for victims of financial rip-offs. Despite the depth of the cuts to ASIC and the massive impact that this had, the government took zero action and only partially unwound the cuts after Labor began to shine a light on the industry and some of these scandals were being uncovered. It actually makes it worse. They reacted to this only because of community pressure, because of the Labor Party and because of Australians being put in these very difficult situations. Millions of Australians have been let down by the Turnbull government, none more so than the victims of financial advice. These hardworking Australians really do deserve an apology from the Prime Minister for failing to support FoFA in the initial stages, for trying to undermine it when they got to government and for refusing to support a banking royal commission two years ago that could have gotten to the bottom of what's been going on in this industry. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the amendment seconded? 17:47 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 78 17:48 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack by leave—I move: That the Treasury Laws Amendment (ASIC Governance) Bill 2018 be referred to the Federation Chamber for further consideration. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 78 17:48 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce by leave—I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit concerning the draft budget estimates for 2018-19 for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office. This is not the most exciting of words but it is an important legislative and statutory requirement, which we're obliged to make. Each year the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider draft budget estimates of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of parliament. I rise today to fulfil this requirement and to make a statement, as required, on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these offices is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates. With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee has been informed that the PBO is not seeking supplementation in the 2018-19 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has met with the committee and advised the committee that existing resources will be sufficient for the PBO's estimated expenses in 2018-19. The committee has also noted that the PBO's special appropriation is expected to be fully drawn down by the end of 2020-21. We will continue to consult with the PBO regarding future resourcing requirements. I will just explain what that means, because this is an important point. The PBO in effect has been living on its annual appropriation but also slowly drawing down on an accumulated special appropriation to meet its ordinary expenses, given its role has grown. It's estimated that in a couple of years that reserve fund, if you like—the special appropriation—will be exhausted and they will need to then look for supplementary funding. A number of us on the committee are going to be working with the PBO to explore arrangements that will ensure the Parliamentary Budget Office's independence and ability to draw on resources as required, because we are particularly concerned to ensure the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an officer of the parliament and never put the PBO in a position where in the middle of a financial year it has to go begging to the Department of Finance. The committee also notes the recent independent review of the PBO, which made 16 recommendations. Under the direction of the new Parliamentary Budgetary Officer, work is continuing to implement these recommendations, including establishing a panel of expert advisers to consult on policy costings and fiscal policy issues and issuing an information paper outlining the PBO's costing processes, time frames and prioritisation framework, a consultation paper outlining how minor parties could be included in the post-election reports, and information papers explaining the methodological issues associated with various policy costings. Mr Deputy Speaker, I do appreciate your earnest, attentive face to my statement here. It's gratifying and greatly comforting—inspiring even. The committee endorses the proposed 2018-19 budget for the PBO and commends the PBO for its contributions to the parliament and the public through high-quality fiscal analysis and research. That's part A, if you like. Part B relates to the Australian National Audit Office and the Auditor-General. The committee has been informed that the ANAO is not seeking supplementation in the 2018-19 budget. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that the ANAO's estimated expenses can be met within existing resources and that he anticipates completing approximately 48 performance audits over the period. The ANAO has flagged its continuing focus on audits of Commonwealth entity annual performance statements. The committee looks forward to reviewing the ANAO's work in this space, with a view to improving the quality of performance information provided to the parliament under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. In that light, the committee endorses the proposed budget for the ANAO in 2018-19 and thanks the ANAO for its work in supporting public accountability and transparency, including through audits under the Commonwealth performance framework. In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work programs and the draft budget estimates of the PBO and the ANAO. As independent authorities accountable to the parliament, not the executive, the PBO and the ANAO need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the work of the parliament. The committee thanks the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General for their work in support of the parliament and their efforts to maintain a strong working relationship with the committee. We meet regularly with both the Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They've made themselves available for regular briefings and provided invaluable advice to the committee on a variety of matters. We look forward to continuing these productive relationships. I ask leave of the House to present a copy of my statement. Leave granted. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with this evening's schedule, the House is now suspended. Sitting suspended from 17:54 to 19:30 BILLS 79 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 79

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

First Reading 79 Second Reading 79 19:32 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. "What have you achieved? What are you going to do now? What does it mean for me?" These are the questions Australians are asking and want answered tonight. So let me get to it. A stronger economy. More jobs. Guaranteeing essential services. The Government living within its means. That is what this Budget is about. The Australian economy is now pulling out of one of the toughest periods we have faced in generations. The Global Financial Crisis was significant. But coming off our once in a hundred years mining investment boom had an even bigger impact, ripping $80 billion out of our economy over the four years to 2016-17. This directly impacted Australians and their families, including holding back wages. During this difficult time, the Government has been working to strengthen the Australian economy and get the budget back on track. And we've been making real progress. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that almost a million jobs have been created since we were first elected, as promised. More than a thousand jobs a day last year alone, three quarters of which were full time. Businesses are responding to improved conditions by investing again, confidence is up. More new businesses are being started. We've backed small and medium sized businesses with legislated tax cuts and investment incentives. We have invested at record levels to build the roads, railways, airports and energy infrastructure Australia needs for the future. Landmark export trade deals are backing our farmers, miners, manufacturers and service industries to crack new markets. We have made responsible Budget savings—$41 billion legislated since the last election—to get spending under control. We are no longer borrowing money to pay for everyday expenditure like welfare payments, no longer on the credit card. We have retained Australia's international AAA credit rating from all three agencies, one of only ten countries in the world to do so. Our national economy is strengthening, but it is also true that the benefits are yet to reach everyone. This will take more time. That is why it is important to stick to our plan. There is more to do. We cannot take a stronger economy for granted. We live in a very competitive world. If we make the wrong calls, other countries will 'cut our lunch'. There is a lot to gain and there is much to lose. We can't ease off. In this year's Budget there are five things we must to do to further strengthen our economy to guarantee the essentials Australians rely on. 1. Provide tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians and reduce cost pressures on households, 2. Keep backing business to invest and create more jobs, especially small and medium sized businesses, 3. Guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, like Medicare, hospitals, schools and caring for older Australians, 4. Keep Australians safe, with new investments to secure our borders, and, as always 5. Ensure that the Government lives within its means, keeping spending and taxes under control. That's our plan. Mr Speaker, I will turn first to the key financial outcomes in this year's Budget. In 2017-18, the Budget deficit will be less than half what it was just two years ago, at $18.2 billion. This will be the best budget outcome since the Howard Government's last budget a decade ago. The deficit will fall again to $14.5 billion in 2018-19. The Budget is forecast to return to a modest balance of $2.2 billion in 2019-20 and to projected surpluses of $11.0 billion in 2020-21 and $16.6 billion in 2021-22. Over the medium term the surplus is projected to rise to over one per cent of GDP, without breaching our tax speed limit, consistent with our fiscal strategy. The forecast outcome for 2019-20, as always, is subject to Treasury's assessment of economic conditions at the time of the Budget. As a Government we have put constraints on how much we spend and how much we tax, to grow our economy and responsibly repair the budget. Real expenditure growth remains below two per cent, the most restrained of any Government in more than fifty years. This will see Government spending fall to 24.7 per cent of GDP, below the 30 year average over the forward estimates. We are also keeping taxes under our speed limit of 23.9 per cent of GDP as set out in our fiscal strategy. Higher taxes to chase higher spending never ends well. Australians always end up paying for it one way or another. With the budget returning to balance we will start paying down debt. We have reached the turning point on debt. Net debt will now peak at 18.6 per cent of GDP this year, in 2017-18, and will fall by around $30 billion over the forward estimates. Over the medium term net debt will fall to 3.8 per cent of GDP by 2028-29—more than $230 billion. Gross debt will peak during 2019-20 at less than 30 per cent of GDP. Over the medium term gross debt will be $126 billion less in 2027-28 than was estimated at the mid year update in December. It has been a long road back from where we started in 2013 and where the previous government left us. We are close to our destination. We must stick to our plan. Mr Speaker, I turn now to the measures in tonight's Budget that form part of our plan for a stronger economy. In this Budget we are providing tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians and to reduce the cost pressures on households. Tonight, I announce a seven year personal tax plan to make personal income tax lower, fairer and simpler. The plan will result in more working Australians paying lower rates of tax. It will be enshrined in legislation. The plan has three parts. One. Tax relief for middle and low income earners now. Two. Protecting what Australians earn from bracket creep. Three. Ensuring more Australians pay less tax by making personal taxes simpler. Under our personal tax plan, 94 per cent of Australian taxpayers will pay no more than 32.5c in the dollar as a marginal rate. That compares to 63 per cent if we leave the system unchanged. This means more working Australians paying lower taxes on every extra dollar they earn. There must be reward for effort. Step one starts permanent tax relief to middle and lower income earners of up to $530 on what they will pay in tax next year, and every year after that. That is what can be responsibly afforded, while keeping the Budget on track. Those earning up to $37,000 and paying 19c in the dollar will have their tax reduced by up to $200 on what they have paid in tax. The average tax paid by Australians in that tax bracket in 2015-16 was $1,900 per year. For those earning more than $37,000 paying 32.5c in the dollar, their tax will be reduced by up to a maximum of $530 per year. 4.4 million taxpayers with an income between $48,000 and $90,000 will receive the maximum tax relief of $530. For middle income households with both parents working on average wages, this will boost their 'kitchen table' budget by more than $1,000 every year. For those earning above $90,000 the tax relief reduces to zero at just over $125,000. Step one will be delivered by an additional targeted tax offset through annual tax returns. This tax relief will not be clawed back by other increases on tax, including the Medicare levy, which will remain unchanged. Step two of the plan ensures that a pay rise, extra overtime or working more hours does not get eaten up by higher tax rates. In the 2016-17 Budget we increased the top threshold for the 32.5 per cent tax bracket from $80,000 to $87,000. This kept 500,000 Australians from paying more tax at 37 cents in the dollar. This threshold will now be set at $90,000 from 1 July this year. This will stop an additional 210,000 Australians paying 37 cents in the dollar. In 2022-23 we will make more substantial changes. The $37,000 threshold will be lifted to $41,000, stopping half a million Australians paying 32.5 cents in the dollar and the $90,000 threshold will be raised again to $120,000, preventing 1.8 million Australians paying 37c in the dollar. Step three of the plan makes our tax system simpler. In 2024-25 we will simplify the personal tax system by abolishing the 37 cent tax bracket entirely. Australians earning more than $41,000 will only pay 32.5 cents in the dollar all the way up to the top marginal tax rate threshold. Under the Turnbull Government's personal tax plan most working Australians earning above $41,000 are likely to never face a higher marginal tax rate through their entire working life. Bracket creep will be no more for them. The top tax threshold will be adjusted to $200,000, to account for inflation and expected wage movements over the next seven years. The plan is affordable and it is funded. The total revenue impact on the Budget and forward estimates is $13.4 billion. The overwhelming majority of this cost commences in 2019-20, the same year the Budget is forecast to return to balance. This is not spending—it's their money. It's not a giveaway—it's their money. This is Australians keeping more of what they have earnt. Our tax relief is also not being achieved by increasing taxes elsewhere. You don't have to punish some people with higher taxes, who are already paying the majority of tax, to give others tax relief. Everyone pays the price of higher taxes—it weakens the economy and it costs jobs. In this Budget there are other ways we are reducing cost pressures on Australian households. Through the Australian Taxation Office we will be proactively finding your lost super and have it sent automatically to your active superannuation account, ensuring it doesn't get eaten up in ongoing fees. We're banning exit fees on superannuation accounts for when you want to change funds, because you should be able to do so when you want to. We will stop superannuation funds from forcing young people under 25 or with low balances to pay for life insurance policies they have not asked for or do not need. The Pension Loans Scheme will be opened to all older Australians, including full rate pensioners and self-funded retirees, so they can boost their retirement income by up to $17,800 for a couple, without impacting on their eligibility for the pension or other benefits. An expanded Pension Work Bonus will allow pensioners to earn an extra $1300 a year without reducing their pension payments. For the first time, the bonus will be extended to self-employed individuals who can now earn up to $7800 per year. We believe it's never too late and you're never too old to start a business. And we will oppose unfair tax grabs on retirees and pensioners, by enabling everyone who has invested in Australian companies that issue franked dividends, to keep their tax refunds. We will ease financial pressures on families in regional areas, by relaxing the Parental Income Test for access to Youth Allowance from January 1, 2019 by an additional $10,000 per annum and an additional $10,000 for each additional child. The National Energy Security Board estimates annual power bills will fall by $400 on average for every Australian household from 2020, following the introduction of our national energy guarantee. We will maintain our responsible and achievable emissions reduction target at 26-28 per cent, and not the 45 per cent demanded by the Opposition. That would only push electricity prices up. And we will not adopt the 50 per cent renewable energy target demanded by the Opposition because that will only put electricity prices up. All energy sources and technologies should support themselves without taxpayer subsidies. The current subsidy scheme will be phased out from 2020. And we will keep the pressure on the big energy companies to give you a better deal. Already this has led to households saving several hundred dollars a year. In this Budget the Turnbull Government is backing business to create jobs. We have already legislated tax cuts for small and medium sized businesses. Full implementation of our Enterprise Tax Plan is needed for our businesses to remain internationally competitive, invest, create more jobs, boost wages and increase trade for smaller businesses. For small business we will once again extend the instant asset write off for businesses with a turnover of up to $10 million for purchases of up to $20,000. In this Budget we are making sure small businesses don't get ripped off by other businesses who deliberately go bust to avoid paying their bills, with tough new anti phoenixing measures. And we will invest more in our people, providing an additional $250 million for the Skilling Australians Fund to deliver business with the people and skills they need to grow their business. Tonight we also announce a new 21st century medical industry plan to create more jobs in this fast growing sector of our economy. The health sector represents 7 per cent of our economy and 14 per cent of jobs. Our plan will provide more support for medical research projects, new diagnostic tools, clinical trials of new drugs, scientific collaboration, and development of new medical technologies that can be sold overseas. In particular we will back in Australian medical scientists through the largest single investment of the Medical Research Future Fund to date of $500 million over ten years for Australia to become a world leader in genomic research. This is about building another strong and competitive industry in Australia that will generate income for the nation and jobs, from the white coats in the labs to the workers making new medical devices on the shop floor. But it's not just science and technology in the medical industry we're supporting. The Government will invest more than $2.4 billion in Australia's public technology infrastructure. This includes supercomputers, world class satellite imagery, more accurate GPS across Australia, upgrading the Bureau of Meteorology's technology platform, a national space agency and leading research in artificial intelligence. It's exciting, setting up our manufacturing, agriculture, transport and service industries for success. They rely on this public infrastructure to do their own research, develop new products and services and run their businesses more efficiently. To support companies genuinely investing in research and development we are refocusing the R&D tax incentive to give more support to the companies that invest a higher proportion of what they spend in R&D, over and above what others would just do anyway. And we're backing farmers to create more jobs. In addition to better weather and GPS services, there will be additional funding to protect against pests, diseases and weeds. We are funding new technology to better detect biosecurity risks and we will increase our efforts to negotiate away technical trade barriers to agricultural exports in more countries. Our ten-year $75 billion rolling infrastructure plan will continue—strengthening our economy, busting congestion in our cities, making rural roads safer and getting our products to market. Tulla Airport Rail. Western Sydney Airport rail. Brisbane Metro. Perth Metronet. The M1 upgrade. At a more local level. The Shoalhaven Bridge. Avalon Airport. New works on the Geelong line and an electrification upgrade for the Frankston to Baxter rail line. The Bridgewater Bridge. The Coffs Harbour Bypass. The Bunbury Outer Ring Road. Boosting the Bruce Highway from Pine River to Caloundra and the notorious Section D from Cooroy to Curra. The Buntine Highway in the Northern Territory and the Adelaide North South Corridor. But we always know that more needs to be done. That's why tonight I am announcing a $1 billion Urban Congestion fund to support projects at a State level to fix pinch points and improve traffic flow and safety in our cities. There will also be a $3.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance Initiative upgrading key freight routes. This initiative will boost our regional economies and will be backed in by a new funding round for the Building Better Regions fund. A strong economy also needs a strong, accountable and competitive 21st century banking and financial system. We will continue to roll out our stronger penalties, powers and enforcement to take action on misconduct in the sector. The legislated bank levy will continue and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority will stand up on 1 November of this year and our Banking Executive Accountability Regime, already law, starts on July 1. In this Budget we are also moving forward with our Open Banking Regime and the consumer data right, giving small businesses and households more control, more choice and better deals. Mr Speaker, our plan for a stronger economy means the Turnbull Government can guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. Just because you are getting older does not mean you should have to surrender your dignity or your choices. We're living longer. It's a good thing. We want to preserve and increase the choices of older Australians. To support the choice of older Australians who wish to stay at home and avoid going into residential aged care the Government will be increasing the number of at-home care places by 14,000 over 4 years at a cost of $1.6 billion, in addition to the 6,000 additional places provided last December. By 2021-22, over 74,000 high level home care places will be available, an increase of 86 per cent on 2017-18. We will also be providing $146 million to improve access to aged care services in rural, regional and remote Australia. We will provide $83 million for increased support for mental health services in residential aged care facilities, especially to combat depression and loneliness. And we will stand up for older Australians to keep them safe and prevent elder abuse, with new support services and a national online register for enduring powers of attorney. In addition to the Pension Loans Scheme and Pension Work bonus changes, the Government will back the choices of older Australians who choose to stay in work. This will be done by supporting them to transition their skills, providing wage subsidies of up to $10,000 for employers who take them on, and combat age discrimination in the workforce. We will expand the Entrepreneurship Facilitators program, and create a new Skills and Training Incentive to provide mature age workers with the opportunity to update their skills. We will help Australians plan for a longer and healthier life with new online skills and health checkups at ages 45 and 65 years, linked to programs that can help them better prepare. We will fund targeted programs run by local sporting organisations and community groups to encourage older Australians to remain physically active for longer. It is all part of our More Choices for a Longer Life plan. For parents and students, our legislated needs based funding for schools delivers $24.5 billion more over the next 10 years. That's 50 per cent more funding per student, on average, over a decade. This year schools will receive a record $18.7 billion, with a legislated rise to around $30 billion in 2027. The issue of funding is addressed. Now it is to focus on how the money must be best spent to give teachers the tools to equip students to grow and succeed. That is the Turnbull government's focus. In this Budget we are extending the National Schools Chaplaincy programme on a permanent basis, with a special new anti bullying focus. The National Partnership Agreement on universal access to early childhood education will be extended for a further year at a cost of $440 million. On July 2, the Turnbull Government's new child care package will come into effect. Our new five year hospitals agreement, which is being signed onto by the states and territories, will deliver $30 billion in additional funding, a one third increase over the previous five years. And following last year's Budget, funding for Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, has been guaranteed in law. This Budget includes an extra $1.4 billion for listings on the PBS, including medicines to treat spinal muscular atrophy, breast cancer, refractory multiple myeloma, and relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, as well as a new medicine to prevent HIV. Lifeline Australia will receive additional support as will funding for Mental Health Research, with $125 million over 10 years from the Medical Research Future Fund. The Government will also provide support for parents and infants by funding tests for new conditions to ensure that debilitating conditions are picked up at the earliest opportunity. The Government will provide $154 million to promote active and healthy living in the community, improving existing community sport facilities, and to expand support for the Sporting Schools and Local Sporting Champions programs. In rural and regional areas we have funded a plan to get more doctors to where they are needed through a new workforce incentive programme—3,000 more doctors; 3,000 more nurses. This plan includes the establishment of a new network of five regional medical schools within the broader Murray Darling Region. And we have moved to guarantee rural and remote access to dental, mental health and emergency medical services through increased financial support for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. Indigenous Australians also benefit from our commitment to address remote housing needs in the Northern Territory and through our primary health care model. Our veteran centric reform package will continue with a planned additional $112 million in this Budget, as will our support for ongoing veterans' mental health and employment initiatives. And every dollar and every cent committed to delivering the National Disability Insurance Scheme remains in place and always will. The Liberal and National parties can always be trusted, Mr Speaker, to keep Australians safe. Stopping the boats and keeping them stopped. Protecting Australians from the threat of terrorism. Hunting down criminals. Giving our defence forces what they need to do their job to protect our values and our freedom. Protecting Australia from those who would seek to do us harm and exert unwelcome influence on our soil. This is what the Turnbull Government is doing. In this Budget we are taking further action, directly investing to harden up security at our airports. ● $50 million to upgrade security infrastructure at 64 regional airports. ● $122 million to enhance screening capability for inbound air cargo and international mail, ● $122 million to increase police and border force presence and capability at nine major domestic and international airports. There is also additional investment to improve scrutiny of visa processing and passenger screening, and clearance of visitors and goods at our borders. And we are investing more than $160 million to help our police, criminal intelligence and domestic security agencies fight crime and prevent terrorism, including to disrupt, prevent and investigate child exploitation and abuse. New powers will be sought from this parliament to back in States and Territories to crack down on offenders and criminals with outstanding warrants and fines by withholding their welfare payments. Lastly, in this year's Budget, the Turnbull Government will ensure that the Government always lives within its means. A stronger economy keeps spending under control by getting Australians off welfare and into work. After record jobs growth, the proportion of working age Australians now dependent on welfare has fallen to 15.1 per cent—the lowest level in over twenty five years. Improved compliance and better targeting has also assisted in getting welfare spending under control and we will continue to take action in this area on behalf of tax payers. This Budget includes new measures also to further improve integrity of our tax system. We are cracking down to ensure that the R&D tax incentives are used for their proper purpose, with enhanced integrity, enforcement and transparency arrangements, saving taxpayers $2 billion over the next four years. Our crack down on multinationals has already brought around $7 billion a year in sales revenue by multinationals into our tax net. But we need to do more. We will close down another tax loophole opened up by the Rudd Government back in 2008 that gave foreign companies a tax break over Australian companies, by changing the tax treatment of stapled structures. We are also further tightening the rules to stop multinationals from fiddling with how they account for debt, to reduce their tax liabilities. But the next big challenge is to ensure big multinational digital and tech companies pay their fair share of tax. Over the past year I have been working with counterparts at the G20 to bring the digital economy into the global tax net. In a few weeks' time I will release a discussion paper that will explore options for taxing digital businesses in Australia. At home we also need to shine the light on the black economy. Taxes should be lower, simpler and fairer, but taxes must also be paid. Honest and fair businesses and taxpayers are being ripped off by those who think they are above paying tax. In response we will be implementing the recommendations of our Black Economy Taskforce, targeting sectors where there is a risk of under reporting of income. This is expected to yield $5.3 billion over the next four years. These measures include outlawing large cash payments of greater than $10,000 in the Australian economy. This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It's not clever. It's not OK. It's a crime. Mr Speaker, our plan for a stronger economy will create more jobs and guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. Our record of financial responsibility means that under our plan, Australians can plan for their future with confidence. We must stick with this plan because it's working. We can't afford to risk the alternative. So to be clear, our plan for a stronger economy is: ● Tax relief to encourage and reward working Australians, ● Backing business to invest and create more jobs, ● Guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on, ● Keeping Australians safe, and ● Ensuring the Government continues to live within its means. Once again, Mr Speaker, I commend our plan for a stronger economy and this Budget to the House. Debate adjourned. BUDGET 86 BUDGET Documents 86 20:03 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks For the information of honourable members, I present the following documents in connection with the budget for 2018-19: Budget strategy and outlook—Budget paper No. 1—2018-19. Budget measures—Budget paper No. 2—2018-19. Federal Financial Relations—Budget paper No. 3—2018-19. Agency resourcing—Budget paper No. 4—2018-19. Ordered that the documents be made parliamentary papers. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 86 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Regional Australia—A Stronger Economy Delivering Stronger Regions 2018-19 86 20:04 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I present the following ministerial statement: Regional Australia—A stronger economy delivering stronger regions 2018-19. Details of the statement will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BILLS 86 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019 86

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

First Reading 86 Second Reading 86 20:05 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018 ‑2019, along with Appropriation Bill(No.1)2018‑2019 and Appropriation(Parliamentary Departments)Bill(No.1)2018‑2019, are the Budget Appropriation Bills for this financial year. This Bill seeks approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $13 billion. I now outline the significant items provided for in this Bill. First, the Department of Communications and the Arts will receive just over $5 billion. This will be used to provide NBN Co. with a Government loan on commercial terms to support the completion of the National Broadband Network. Second, the Department of Defence will receive just over $3 billion to enable the purchase of military equipment and the construction of support facilities, as announced in the 2016 Defence White Paper. Third, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities will receive approximately $2.4 billion, including equity investment for the delivery of Western Sydney Airport and Inland Rail, and concessional loan funding for Stage 2 of the WestConnex project. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the Schedules to the Bill and the Portfolio Budget Statements tabled in the Parliament. Debate adjourned. Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019 86

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

First Reading 86 Second Reading 86 Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 87

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

First Reading 87 Second Reading 87 20:09 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, the government introduces the supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills. These bills are: Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018; and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018. These bills underpin the government's expenditure decisions. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018 seeks approval for additional appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of approximately $1.7 billion in 2017-18. I now outline the significant items provided for in this bill. First, this bill will provide the Department of Defence with just under $948 million to better align available Defence Integrated Investment Program funding with Defence capability project operational requirements. Second, the Department of the Environment and Energy will receive just under $435 million to continue to deliver the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan, designed to protect, and improve, the health of the Great Barrier Reef, and to support world-first research. Third, the Department of Education and Training will receive just over $167 million. This includes funding to implement the Research Infrastructure Investment Plan, informed by the 2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018 87

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

First Reading 87 Second Reading 88 20:11 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018, along with Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018, which I introduced earlier, are the supplementary additional estimates appropriation bills for this financial year. This bill seeks further approval for appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of just over $6.2 billion for 2017-18. The majority of the amount in the bill relates to the Department of the Environment and Energy, which will receive approximately $6 billion to facilitate the Australian government's purchase of the New South Wales and Victorian governments' shares in Snowy Hydro Limited. The purchase will build on the government's reforms to ensure reliable and affordable energy for businesses and households. This bill will also provide the Department of Home Affairs with just over $94 million to upgrade its risk assessment and identity management ICT capabilities. Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in the schedule to the bill and the portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements tabled in the parliament. I commend this bill. Debate adjourned. House adjourned at 20:13 NOTICES 88 NOTICES QUESTIONS IN WRITING 93 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Phone Calls (Question No.867) 93 Question No.867 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 5 December 2017: In respect of the following telephone lines for each month between 1 January 2017 and 1 December 2017, (a) myGov help desk (132 307), (b) Medicare general enquiries (132 011), (c) Older Australians (132 300), (d) Financial Information Service: Information on financial issues (132 300), (e) Child support enquiries (131 272), (f) People with disability (132 717), (g) Centrelink employment services (132 850), (h) Newstart Allowance—22 years of age and over (132 850), (i) Help in an emergency (132 850), (j) Job seekers: Youth Allowance—job seeker under 22 years of age (132 490), (k) Indigenous Australians: Centrelink Indigenous Call Centre (1800 136 380), (l) Centrelink complaints and feedback (1800 132 468), (m) Centrelink debt (1800 076 072), (n) Centrelink families (136 150), (o) Report income (133 276), (p) Aged Care Fee Assessments and Services (1800 227 475), and (q) National Disability Insurance Agency (1800 800 110), (i) what was the average telephone waiting time, (ii) what was the average telephone waiting time for callers who then speak to a human operator, (iii) what proportion (as a percentage) of telephone calls resulted in a conversation with a human operator, and (iv) what proportion (as a percentage) of telephone calls resulted in an engaged dial tone. Mr Keenan E0J The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: It is difficult to accurately reflect busy signals on each of the telephone lines requested as repeat calls, through the use of redial applications, artificially inflate call demand and trigger call blocking parameters. The use of these applications is estimated to account for almost 20 per cent of busy signals. For example, 100 unique phone numbers generated a quarter of a million busy signals in 2016–17, with one caller ringing more than 1,600 times in one day. Tables 1 and 2 below provide information by month for the requested phone lines. i. and ii. Table 1 provides the average speed of answer by month for each month between 1 January 2017 and 1 December 2017 for the requested telephone lines (132 307, 132 011, 132 300, 131 272, 132 717, 132 850, 132 490, 1800 136 380, 1800 132 468, 1800 076 072, 136 150, 133 276, 1800 227 475 and 1800 800 110). iii. All answered calls have resulted in a conversation with a Service Officer. iv. Table 2 provides the proportion (as a percentage) of telephone calls received on the telephone lines specified (132 307, 132 011, 132 300, 131 272, 132 717, 132 850, 132 490, 1800 136 380, 1800 132 468, 1800 076 072, 136 150, 133 276, 1800 227 475 and 1800 800 110) that resulted in an engaged dial tone. Busy signal figures are not reflective of unique callers. Table 1: Average Speed of Answer by Month Note: Results do not align to the KPI target of 16 minutes due to additional telephony lines being included Results are displayed as hours:minutes:seconds Table 2: Percentage of calls that received a busy signal Busy signal figures are not reflective of unique callers Note: Medicare Public calls receive a congestion message rather than a busy signal Energy, (Question No. 892) 93 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 06 December 2017: What sum was spent on advertising of the National Energy Guarantee policy (a) Australia wide, (b) in Western Australia, and (c) in the Perth Metropolitan Area, (i) on television, (ii) in newspapers, (iii) online, and (iv) in any social media sponsored or boosted posts. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A reference to the proposed National Energy Guarantee was included in national television advertising for one week in November 2017 as part of the Australian Government's Powering Forward campaign. This advertisement had a limited run on Perth metropolitan and regional television. At the time of the honourable member's question, there was no advertising of the National Energy Guarantee in any other national or Western Australian media or social media. The Powering Forward campaign aims to raise awareness of and engagement in national energy policy reform, and to help consumers access more affordable and reliable energy in their homes and businesses. Details of the campaign, which is still under way, will be provided in the 2017-18 Annual Reports of the Department of the Environment and Energy and the Department of Finance. Australian Universities, (Question No. 896) 94 Mr Wilkie C2T asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Training, in writing, on 05 February 2018: (1) What total number of executive positions (those considered by a university to form part of its executive leadership team, including vice-chancellors, deputy vice-chancellors and pro-vice chancellors) existed in Australian universities in (a) 2006-07, (b) 2007-08 (c) 2008-09 (d) 2009-10 (e) 2010-11 (f) 2011-12 (g) 2012-13 (h) 2013-14 (i) 2014-15 (j) 2015-16 and (k) 2016-17.(2) What total sum was spent on remuneration for these executive positions in each of the above financial years.(3) Can the Minister provide other relevant data on university executive staffing and remuneration held by the government Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The government does not collect this information. State governments have legislative control over universities and set the disclosure requirements for university Annual Reports. These vary from State to State but generally do include information on staffing, senior officers, council members and in one case Vice Chancellor remunerations as well as the need for financial reporting. Universities prepare and publish audited General Purpose Financial Statements in compliance with Australian Accounting Standards, Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) Interpretations, Statements of Accounting Concepts, the Framework for Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements, Australian Government, State or Territory Legislative and regulatory requirements. Relevant disclosures in relation to the number of executive positions and the remuneration for these executive positions is published in the notes to the audited financial statements generally under Key Management Personnel Disclosures. (2) Refer Question 1 above. (3) The government does not hold data on university executive staffing and remuneration. The Department of Education and Training had previously prepared the following drawn from university audited financial statements. Superannuation (Question No. 897) 95 897 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018 ‑ To ask the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services—What Government financial protections are available to superannuation account holders if (a) there is a major economic downturn, (b) their related registerable superannuation entity becomes insolvent, and (c) their account is with an employer-run superannuation fund and the employer goes bankrupt Ms O'Dwyer LKU The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Superannuation account holders are afforded general protections under the prudential and regulatory framework for superannuation, primarily set out in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The framework is designed to ensure that trustees bear the primary responsibility for the viability and prudent operation of superannuation funds and that they make decisions in the best interests of all the members of a fund. This framework takes a proactive and preventative approach to corporate trustee insolvency. Under the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA) licensing regime, superannuation fund trustees need to demonstrate that they meet minimum standards of fitness and propriety, possess adequate resources and have appropriate systems in place to manage the fund. These include mechanisms to identify, measure and manage risks to the trustee and to the fund and apply equally to trustees of all types of superannuation funds, including employer-sponsor and corporate funds. Trustees of regulated superannuation funds are also required to formulate an investment strategy that has regard to the risk and return of the fund's investments, expected cash-flow requirements, diversification and liquidity of investments, and the ability of the fund to discharge its liabilities. Given the long term and compulsory nature of superannuation, maintained until retirement, trustees of superannuation funds are able to manage market volatility over time through a progressive rebalancing of their investment strategies, in response to changes in market conditions. APRA has a number of powers to ensure compliance with trustees' regulatory requirements which are proposed to be further strengthened through the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation) Bill 2017. The proposed new directions powers will allow APRA to intervene, at an early stage, to address prudential concerns in a manner that ensures funds act in the best interests of members. Small Business Loans, (Question No. 901) 96 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace, and Deregulation, in writing, on 05 February 2018: Separately against each recommendation, what steps have been taken by the Government to respond to the 15 recommendations of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman's report Inquiry into small business loans (12 December 2016, pages 7 and 8). Mr Laundy 247130 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government directed the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (ASBFEO) to undertake an inquiry into the small business lending practices of the major banks and other lenders. The ASBFEO report made 15 recommendations, 11 of which were directed at industry (numbers 1 to 10, and 12), with 4 directed at the Government (numbers 11, 13, 14, and 15). Steps taken in response to the 4 recommendations directed at Government are as follows. In response to the ASBFEO recommendations about enhancing small business access to external dispute resolution (Recommendation 11 and 13 refer), the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services wrote to the Ramsay Review Panel to ask them to take particular account of those recommendations as it developed its final report, which was released on 9 May 2017. The Government accepted all the recommendations of the Ramsay Review, including the central recommendation to establish a one-stop shop external dispute resolution body – the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). AFCA will be a free, fast and binding dispute resolution service for consumers and small businesses in relation to all financial disputes, including superannuation disputes. For small business credit facility disputes, AFCA will be able to consider complaints about credit facilities of up to $5 million and award compensation of up to $1 million. This is almost triple what is currently in place, and gives effect to the Ombudsman's recommendation to establish a one-stop shop with the expertise to resolve disputes relating to credit facilities up to $5 million. In addition, Primary production businesses will be eligible to receive compensation of up to $2m for small business credit facility related disputes. The Government has introduced a Bill to establish AFCA, which was passed by the Senate in December 2017 and will now be considered by the House of Representatives. The Government has also indicated that the Royal Commission into Banking and Financial Services will not delay the establishment of AFCA. AFCA is due to commence in the second half of 2018. The ASBFEO report also recommended a nationally consistent approach to farm debt mediation (Recommendation 14 refers). The Australian Government is continuing to work with the states and territories to investigate the development of a nationally consistent Farm Debt Mediation Scheme. While consensus on an approach is yet to be achieved, work towards a harmonised approach continues, with further discussions between jurisdictions expected to occur at the Agriculture Senior Officials Committee and Agriculture Ministers Forum meetings in April 2018. The ASBFEO report also recommended (Recommendation 15) that ASIC establish a Small Business Commissioner. ASIC has since established an Office of Small Business that reports directly to ASIC Commissioner, John Price. Taxation (Question No. 902) 96 902 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 5 February 2018 ‑ (1) Why does the excise rate for beer differ depending on the size of the commercial keg in which it is transported.(2) Are kegs over 48 litres used more frequently than kegs under 48 litres in the transportation of beer in Australia.(3) Is the Government aware that kegs over 48 litres are commonly manually handled at pickup and delivery locations.(4) Does the Government realise that the lower excise rate on beer in kegs over 48 litres could be incentivising greater utilisation of kegs over 48 litres for transportation.(5) What data does the Government have on the number of serious workplace health and safety (WHS) incidents that occur in the manual handling of beer kegs and what does this data conclude on the relationship between the size of the kegs and the prevalence of WHS incidents.(6) Will the Government consider adopting a flat excise rate for beer kegs of all sizes; if not, why not. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As part of the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000, excise on beer products was increased following the removal of the previous wholesale sales tax regime. The rates of excise on draught beer (beer packaged in an individual container exceeding 48 litres) are lower than for beer packaged in smaller containers. Similarly, the excise rates vary depending on the alcohol strength of the beer. (2) & (3) The Hon Member would need to refer to industry in relation to these questions. (4) The size of kegs used for transportation of beer is a commercial decision for the supplier of the beer and for the commercial premises selling the beer. (5) Safe Work Australia collects and publishes a range of data on workplace injuries and the Honourable Member may make enquiries direct to Safe Work Australia regarding this. (6) Refer to (1). Solar and Battery Storage, (Question No. 905) 97 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 05 February 2018: In respect of a statement by the Prime Minister on 1 September 2016 that the Government would provide more support for community groups to install solar and battery storage in the electoral division of Mayo, since then: (a) how many solar and battery storage projects have commenced under the Solar Communities Program (or other programs), (b) how many have been completed; and (c) what outcomes have they achieved. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Government's $5 million Solar Communities Program provides funding for community groups in selected regions across Australia to install rooftop solar photovoltaic, solar hot water and solar-connected battery systems to reduce emissions, reduce their electricity costs and support renewable energy. The programme builds on the success of the Solar Towns Programme which supported over 100 solar projects in community organisations across Australia. Round 1 of the Program opened in January 2017, and provided over $2.8 million in support for 218 community groups including; sporting clubs, Scouts, welfare centres, surf lifesaving clubs and Country Women's Associations. Round 2 of the program opened on 13 March this year for community groups to apply for funding of up to $12,500 for their projects. To date, no Solar Communities projects have been undertaken in the electorate of Mayo. However, Mayo is an eligible region, with $100,000 in total available to be applied for under Round 2. This will allow up to seven community groups to reduce their energy bills and direct more of their resources towards activities relevant to their community. Estimates provided by the Clean Energy Regulator suggest that around 21,900 photovoltaic systems have been installed in Mayo since 2001, which have received support under the Government's Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES). Of these systems, an estimated 69 were installed since 2014 with concurrent battery storage. Lower Lakes, (Question No. 907) 97 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment and Energy, in writing, on 05 February 2018: Has the Government now fully delivered on its 2016 federal election commitment to provide $200,000 of funding for the Lower Lakes under the 20 Million Trees Program; if not, (a) why not, and (b) when will the full sum of this funding be delivered. Mr Frydenberg FKL The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No. (a) The project is ongoing and the completion date is 30 June 2020. (b) The project is on track and funds are paid in accordance with agreed milestones set out in the Funding Agreement. $196,500 (GST excl.) has been paid to date, with the final milestone payment of $3,500 (GST excl.) due on acceptance of the project's 2018/2019 annual report to the Department. Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship, (Question No. 910) 98 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Rural Health, in writing, on 05 February 2018: (1) What measures is the Government taking to ensure that participants in the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship (MRBS) scheme are completing their return of service obligations to work in a rural or remote area for up to six years. (2) How many doctors who were recipients of an MRBS are yet to complete their return of service obligations. (3) What other measures has the Government taken to ensure a proportionate distribution of doctors across regional and rural Australia. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Rural Health has provided the following answer to the honorable member's question (1) The Australian Government is looking at ways to maximise its return on investment of an estimated $172.6 million from 2000-01 to 2020-21 in the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship (MRBS) Scheme and is considering how best to support MRBS participants to undertake their Return of Service Obligations. This includes reforms to the Bonded Programs (which includes both the MRBS and Bonded Medical Places Schemes) to provide greater flexibility in relation to the return of service obligations, more support for bonded doctors and to better target return of service to underserviced areas in most need. Rural Workforce Agencies (RWAs) currently provide assistance to bonded doctors as part of their funded activities to attract, recruit and support the rural and remote health workforce. Options to deliver earlier and more effective support for participants of Bonded Programs by expanding the role of RWAs are being considered. The Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training Program which includes Rural Clinical Schools and Regional Training Hubs provide access to rural clinical training and promote rural careers to health professionals including bonded medical students. (2) 1,106 Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship (MRBS) participants are yet to commence their Return of Service Obligations (RoSO) as they have not reached the Fellowship stage. A further 268 MRBS participants are currently undertaking their RoSO and 33 have completed their RoSO. 107 MRBS participants have left the program and will not complete their RoSO. The number of MRBS participants commencing their RoSO is expected to increase over time as more doctors complete their vocational training and attain Fellowship. (3) Other measures to address the distribution of doctors across regional and rural Australia include: Rural Health Multidisciplinary Training (RHMT) Program Through its RHMT Program, the Australian Government is providing $542.8 million over the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018. This program is designed to encourage the recruitment and retention of rural and remote health professionals by universities delivering effective rural clinical training experiences to medical, dental, nursing and allied health students. The program supports a network of 18 Rural Clinical Schools, 15 University Departments of Rural Health, 6 dental schools offering extended rural dental placements; and 26 Regional Training Hubs. Rural Health Outreach Fund (RHOF) The Australian Government is providing $82.9 million from 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2020 for the RHOF, which improves access to medical specialist, GP and allied and other health outreach services for people living in regional rural and remote Australia. Funding is provided to address a range of disincentives incurred by health professionals in providing outreach services such as travel, accommodation and lease of equipment. The RHOF is administered by fundholders in each state and the Northern Territory and they are responsible for needs assessment and prioritisation of outreach services to where they are needed most. Rural Clinical Schools Rural Clinical Schools support the clinical training of medical students and provide an ideal environment to promote rural careers to Bonded Medical Places (BMP) and Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship (MRBS) students and to support them while on rural clinical placement. This includes ensuring that students are well supported by rural academic staff, health professionals and community representatives. They ensure that students receive positive, relevant rural practice training opportunities to an equivalent standard of that delivered in metropolitan settings. Regional Training Hubs Regional Training Hubs have been established at existing Rural Clinical Schools and University Departments of Rural Health sites across Australia to support the coordination of rural training opportunities for doctors at all stages of their medical training (from undergraduate through to vocational training). These Regional Training Hubs provide an enhanced level of support to Rural Clinical School students/trainees in their region. They consist of a team of people that are dedicated to integrating medical training opportunities for students within their catchment area, and can provide general and specific information for all students including BMP and MRBS students about the steps and pathways into rural careers and contacts for assistance. National Rural Health Commissioner The Government has established a National Rural Health Commissioner (the Commissioner) to address the shortage of doctors in regional, rural and remote areas, with a particular focus on rural generalists that provide skills to meet community need. The Commissioner will develop national training pathways for rural generalists to help attract and retain more doctors in regional, rural and remote communities. District of Workforce Shortage A Distribution Working Group has been established by the Government to consider the implications of changing the existing policy for the District of Workforce Shortage system. The working group will also provide advice on how to improve the levers designed to attract more Australian trained doctors to regional, rural and remote areas. Recommendations proposed by the working group will inform future rural health workforce distribution policy. Rural Workforce Agencies The Government provides support to the regional, rural and remote health workforce through recruitment, retention and sustainability which includes $86 million over three years from 2017 for the network of Rural Workforce Agencies. Rural Workforce Agencies are located in each state and the Northern Territory, and they are funded to support a range of on-the-ground activities to meet community needs. This includes providing increased access to health professionals, as well as building the quality and the sustainability of all health professions in regional, rural and remote Australia. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the Act) is one of the key distribution mechanisms used by the Government. Section 19AB of the Act requires overseas trained doctors and foreign graduates of an accredited medical school to work in a location that is classified as a district of workforce shortage in order to access the Medicare benefits arrangements. This restriction applies for a period of ten years from when the doctor gained medical registration in Australia. Rural Junior Doctor Training Innovation Fund (RJDTIF) The RJDTIF gives rurally based interns an opportunity to experience rural primary care. Exposing interns to rural primary care, typically General Practices or Aboriginal Medical Services will make it more likely they will practice in these locations after becoming more qualified. The RJDTIF is a part of the Government's Integrated Rural Training Pipeline for Medicine. Around 121 junior doctors will rotate into rural primary care each year under the first round. A second round is currently being finalised which will improve the national distribution of the program to support training in more rural areas across Australia. Specialist Training Program The Specialist Training Program seeks to extend vocational training for specialist registrars into settings outside traditional metropolitan teaching hospitals, including regional, rural and remote and private facilities. The program aims to improve the quality of the future specialist workforce by providing registrars with exposure to a broader range of healthcare settings. Specialist Training Program also aims to have a positive influence on future workforce distribution. The Government has recently implemented two key reforms to STP that will bring significant benefits to rural, regional and remote communities: From 2018, distribution targets have been implemented for the 13 participating colleges to enhance training in rural areas and the private sector. These targets must be achieved over the next three years of funding. The new rural training target that will increase rural posts by over 18 percent, up to 400 of 900 Specialist Training Program posts. Through the Integrated Rural Training Pipeline for Medicine measure, we are supporting a targeted expansion of the Specialist Training Program to provide up to 100 dedicated new training places in rural areas. Fifty new posts commenced in 2017, with the remaining 50 being implemented in 2018. Australian General Practice Training (AGPT) Program The AGPT program is a Commonwealth funded postgraduate vocational training program for medical graduates wishing to pursue a career in general practice. The AGPT program provides training towards three endpoints: Fellowship of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Fellowship of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; and Fellowship in Advanced Rural General Practice. Entry to the program is competitive, with 1,500 new training places available each year. In 2017 there were 5,423 doctors training on the program with 50% of these doctors training and providing services to patients in rural and remote locations across Australia. Breeding Techniques, (Question No. 911) 99 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister representing the Minister for Rural Health, in writing, on 6 February 2018: What potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by each panel member in the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand Expert Advisory Group on New Breeding Techniques. Mr Hunt 00AMV The Minister for Rural Health has provided the following answer to the honorable member’s question Members of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Expert Advisory Group on New Breeding Techniques have made the following declarations: Declarations of interest – EAG NBT members Internship, (Question No.914) 100 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, in writing, on 12 February 2018: (1) In respect of the Youth Jobs PaTH program from its inception until 31 January 2018, how many internship placements were (a) fully completed, (b) partially completed, (c) rural placements, (d) urban placements, and (e) hosted at employer organisations with aggregated annual turnover of (i) greater than $50 million, (ii) between $10 million and $50 million, (iii) between $1 million and $10 million, and (iv) less than $1 million.(2) What was the breakdown of internship placements by industry or sector.(3) How many internship placements were converted into post-placement employment.(4) What was the breakdown in the type of post-placement employment between (a) casual employment, (b) part-time employment, (c) full-time employment, and (d) apprenticeships.(5) For those partially completed placements, what was the numerical breakdown of the recorded reasons that the placement was not completed.(6) How many complaints did the department receive, and what was the numerical breakdown of the complaint type for those complaints, from (a) host employer organisations, and (b) internship placements. Mr Pyne 9V5 The Minister for Jobs and Innovation has provided the following answers to the honourable member's questions: 1. As at 1 April 2018, 4,752 internship placements had commenced, of which: a. 2,707 placements were completed b. 1,381 placements ended early Of the remaining placements, 565 we still active and 99 were pending outcomes being recorded. In relation to questions 1c and 1d, the Department of Jobs and Small Business does not use the definitions of rural and urban locations. The department can provide information using regional and metropolitan areas: c. 1,923 (40 per cent) internship placements were in regional areas d. 2,829 (60 per cent) of internship placements were in metropolitan areas e. The department does not collect information from host businesses on their annual turnover. 2. As at 1 April 2018, the breakdown of the 4,752 internship placements by industry was:   Note: Percentage total may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 3. As at 1 April 2018, 1,820 internship placements were recorded as resulting in employment with either the host business or another employer (67 per cent of completed internships) immediately following the internship. 4. Details of the employment position is recorded in the department's IT system by the employment services provider and may not reflect actual employment arrangements. Actual employment arrangements are collected through post-program monitoring surveys. The following data is available for 2,061 jobactive job placements that occurred within 55 days following an internship. As at 1 April 2018, of the jobs (2,061) following an internship: a. 1,271 (62 per cent) job placements were recorded as casual employment b. 443 (21 per cent) job placements were recorded as part-time employment c. 347 (17 per cent) job placements were recorded as full-time employment d. 74 (four per cent) job placements were recorded as an apprenticeship. 5. As at 1 April 2018, of the 1,381 placements that ended early: 675 (49 per cent) were recorded as ended by the participant 545 (39 per cent) were recorded as ended by the host 161 (12 per cent) were recorded as ended by the provider. 6. As at 1 April 2018, out of 4,752 internship placements, the department had received 43 complaints concerning PaTH Internships. Of these: 8 were from host businesses 16 were from interns, and 19 originated from other parties, including prospective host businesses, family members of interns and job seekers wishing to be connected to an internship. The vast majority of complaints (93 per cent) relate to service delivery by providers—63 per cent originating from job seekers and 30 per cent from current or prospective host businesses. The remaining seven per cent related to job seekers' internship placements. Cider (Question No. 915) 102 915 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, in writing, on 12 February 2018: Further to part (2) of her answer to question in writing No. 842 (House Hansard , 5 February 2018, page 201), why does raspberry, blackberry and blueberry cider not meet the definition of cider under the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Raspberry, blackberry and blueberry ciders have substances added to the base cider product to provide flavouring. The definition of 'cider or perry' is in section 31-5 of the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 (the Act) and provides that 'cider or perry' is the product of the complete or partial fermentation of the juice or must of apples or pears. The Act specifies that the cider or perry must not have had added to it, at any time, any liquor or substance (other than water or the juice or must of apples or pears) that gives colour or flavour, except as specified in the regulations. At this time, there are no regulations specific to cider or perry in the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Regulations 2000. Food Labelling (Question No. 924) 102 924 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 15 February 2018: Did his department take action in 2016-17 against any food importer for providing incorrect information on their food labels; if so, (a) in how many cases was action taken, and (b) what was the nature of the action taken. Mr Littleproud 265585 : The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. (a) Approximately 1,516 consignments were identified that did not comply with Australian food standards for labelling; (b) The specific action taken with the non-compliant food may vary between the consignments and include one of the following - relabelling to comply with Australian standards, supervised destruction or export from Australia. In addition, regardless of the action taken with the non-compliant food, future consignments of similar food imported by that food business were subject to an increased rate of inspection by the department to verify ongoing compliance with Australian food standards. Cambodia, (Question No. 926) 102 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 February 2018 : Further to part (1) (b) of her answer to question in writing No. 850 (Hansard , 8 February 2018, page 101), will the Government: (a) support a strong resolution on Cambodia to return to democracy at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, and (b) engage key members of the United Nations to put Cambodia on the agenda of the next meeting of the General Assembly. Ms Julie Bishop 83P the answer to the member's question is as follows: Australia considers all UN resolutions on their merits. At the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Australia joined a New Zealand-led joint statement on Cambodia, which was delivered on 21 March. The statement urges Cambodia to ensure a credible democratic process in advance of its July national election. Australia regularly engages with other UN Member States on priority issues ahead of General Assembly meetings and these consultations inform Members' decisions regarding the agenda. Cambodia, (Question No. 927) 102 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 February 2018 : Further to part (1) (c) of her answer to question in writing No. 850 (Hansard, 8 February 2018, page 101), what specific steps(a) has the Government taken to encourage Cambodia to return to democracy and improve its human rights record, and (b) will the Government take to encourage Cambodia to return to democracy and improve its human rights record at the Australian-ASEAN Special Summit in March 2018. Ms Julie Bishop 83P the answer to the member's question is as follows: Australia remains deeply concerned by the political situation in Cambodia, particularly actions to restrict free media, constrain civil society, and repress the opposition ahead of the 29 July national election. Australia has responded to events in Cambodia as they have occurred, including the Foreign Minister's statement issued on 17 November 2017, and through direct and regular representations to the Cambodian Government, including during the recent ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in Sydney. At the 37th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Australia joined a New Zealand-led joint statement on Cambodia, which was delivered on 21 March. Cambodia, (Question No. 928) 103 Ms Sharkie 265980 To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs — Further to part (2) of her answer to question in writing No. 850 (Hansard , 8 February 2018, page 101), why is it a matter for the United Nations Secretary-General and not the Government, to contact the Indonesian and French co-chairs of the Paris International Conference on Cambodia to see whether there is interest in reinvigorating the mechanisms under the Paris Peace Agreements. Ms Julie Bishop 83P the answer to the member's question is as follows: Article 29 of the Paris Peace Agreement states that "upon the request of the Secretary-General, the two co-chairmen of the Paris Conference on Cambodia, in the event of a violation or threat of violation of this Agreement, will immediately undertake appropriate consultations, including with members of the Paris Conference on Cambodia, with a view to taking appropriate steps to ensure respect for these commitments". Cambodia, (Question No. 929) 103 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 February 2018 : Further to part (3) of her answer to question in writing No. 850 (Hansard , 8 February 2018, page 101), has the Government (a) attached conditionality to any component of its bilateral aid program with Cambodia that would require improvements in Cambodia's democracy and human rights record before any or additional official development assistance is expended, or (b) considered attaching conditionality to its bilateral aid program with Cambodia that would require improvements in Cambodia's democracy and human rights record before any or additional official development assistance is expended. Ms Julie Bishop 83P the answer to the member's question is as follows: Australian aid supports the Cambodian people and is directed to sectors, such as agriculture and health, where there is significant need. Placing conditionality on this aid would harm the most vulnerable.   Prawn Industries (Question No. 930) 103 930 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 26 February 2018: 1. Is he aware that both the farmed and wild caught prawn industries in South East Queensland have been decimated in the last two years by white spot disease, an exotic disease fatal to prawns and other crustaceans transmitted by diseased, low quality imported raw prawns being used by recreational anglers for bait in local waterways. 2. Is he aware that the Queensland Government is now spending millions on advertising the risk to recreational fishing that the pathogens in these prawns present and that this initiative will not connect with many in the fishing fraternity—it really is only a matter of when, not if, other fisheries are affected. 3. Is he aware that this disease, if not eradicated totally (and banning imported product is the logical first step), has the potential to wipe out both the inshore commercial and recreational fisheries. 4. Are our local commercial and recreational fishing industries not worthy of the same protection from this exotic scourge that the banana industry received after cyclones Larry (2006) and Yasi (2011) decimated the local banana industry and there was a strong push from retailers to import foreign bananas but biosecurity risks, concerns and issues ensured that banana imports never went ahead. 5. Will the Australian Government consider permanently suspending the importation of raw foreign prawns and associated raw prawn products in light of the biosecurity disaster currently emerging in South East Queensland; if not, why not. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 1. I am aware of the impact the white spot disease (WSD) outbreak had on farmed and wild caught prawn industries in south-east Queensland. However, the cause of the outbreak has not been determined, and a number of plausible pathways exist. It is possible that the cause of the outbreak may never be known. 2. I am aware the Queensland Government has employed a communications campaign regarding the use of imported prawns as bait. The cost of this campaign and its effectiveness is a matter for the Queensland Government. 3. I am aware of the potential impact of WSD if it becomes an established disease. Enhanced import conditions have been put in place and future import conditions will be considered through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources review of import conditions for prawns and prawn products, which is currently underway. 4. It is important that the biosecurity risks associated with imports are appropriately managed, regardless of the commodity being imported to ensure that our unique biosecurity status is maintained. It is important to note that the biosecurity risk posed by the importation of different commodities is assessed and managed in different ways, as they face unique risk factors. 5. Our two-way trading relationships are vital for Australian producers who rely on selling their products overseas and the government has an obligation to allow agricultural imports, where the science says it is safe to do so. Trade cannot be stopped without a valid reason, as this would inevitably lead to reciprocal actions from other countries. This would be undesirable for a nation like Australia that relies on selling its agricultural products overseas. However, it is important that the biosecurity risks associated with imports are appropriately managed. Imports of uncooked prawns and prawn meat are only allowed under stringent import conditions that manage the biosecurity risk associated with this product. Future import conditions will be considered through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources review of import conditions for prawns and prawn products, which is currently underway. Suicide, (Question No. 944) 104 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 27 February 2018: (1) How many male suicide deaths were there in Australia in each of the last three years for which figures are available, and of those deaths how many were (a) married men, and (b) divorced or separated men. (2) How many female suicide deaths were there in Australia in each of the last three years for which figures are available, and of those deaths how many were (a) married women, and (b) divorced or separated women. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1-2) The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has responsibility for reporting causes of death information in Australia through the Causes of Death, Australia collection. The information below was sourced from the ABS, however, due to a number of limitations; the ABS does not routinely report suicide deaths by marital status. Limitations regarding the data: The data is collect via the Death Registration Form which is completed by the Funeral Director; and Each jurisdiction has a different format for the variable in relation to marriage and these formats have changed over time. Subject to these data limitations, the below table indicates death by suicide in Australia, sorted by marital status and sex, for the last three years of available data.   Hearing Services, (Question No. 947) 104 Mr Zappia HWB asked the Minister for Aged Care, in writing, on 26 March 2018: What number of new clients of the voucher component of the Hearing Services Program are expected to become ineligible in (a) 2018-19, (b) 2019-20, (c) 2020-21, and (d) 2021-22, if the recommendations in the report Review of services and technology supply in the Hearing Services Program (PricewaterhouseCoopers Australia for the Department of Health, September 2017) are adopted. Mr Wyatt M3A The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There are no recommendations in the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report, Review of services and technology supply in the Hearing Services Program that affects outright eligibility for the Hearing Services Program. Recommendation 2 – Review the Minimum Hearing Loss Threshold, only affects eligibility for Assistive Hearing Technology. PwC suggest consideration be given to the World Health Organisation (WHO) threshold for disabling hearing loss, i.e. hearing loss greater than 40dB in the better hearing ear in adults. The Department of Health has not modelled the impact of this PwC recommendation as the WHO hearing loss threshold referred to is for categorising disabling hearing loss, it is not purported to be the hearing loss threshold at which aiding should occur. The Australian Government is considering the PwC report along with the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health Aged Care and Sport Inquiry into Hearing Health and Wellbeing, in the context of the broader health system. The Department of Health is working together with industry and consumer stakeholders to develop a Hearing Health Roadmap which will provide the basis for a collective understanding of the issues and co-ordinated approach to developing actions that will lead to improvements in hearing health for all Australians. Age Pension (Question No. 958) 105 958 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 28 March 2018: (1) In 2018 will the Government raise the Commonwealth Rent Assistance payment for recipients of the Age Pension by more than the ordinary indexation rate; if so, by how much; if not, why not. (2) Will the Government (a) advise if it has considered establishing an independent tribunal to assess the base rate of the Age Pension to determine the best mechanism for annual review, and (b) establish such a tribunal. (3) Will the Government (a) advise if it has considered establishing a roundtable (or similar) to review services to people on the Age Pension, and (b) establish such a roundtable. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Rates of pension and Rent Assistance are calculated according to provisions in social security legislation. Base pensions are indexed twice a year, in March and September, to the higher of the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the increase in the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index. After indexing to price increases, base pension rates are then benchmarked to 41.76 per cent of Male Total Average Weekly Earnings for pensioner couples combined. The single rate of pension is two-thirds of the combined couple rate. Rent Assistance is indexed on 20 March and 20 September to increases in the CPI. The Australian Government considers a wide range of policy options. It does not disclose the contents of these deliberations. The Government needs to balance a range of competing priorities when determining the direction of policy. It is committed to maintaining a strong safety net for all Australians who need help and cannot support themselves. Manufacturing (Question No. 959) 105 959 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 28 March 2018: Will the Government adopt the recommendation of the ACCC in its New Car Retailing Industry market study (December 2017), to introduce a mandatory scheme that sets out rules for car manufacturers to share technical information with independent repairers; if so, when; if not, why not. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows The Government is considering the recommendation to introduce a mandatory scheme to share automotive repair and service data.