2018-06-25 45 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 25 June 2018

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00 made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Today I present the 25th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament. Each petition received by the committee is carefully examined against standing orders 204 and 205. These standing orders determine the form and content of petitions and the rules for signatures and allow the committee to ensure that all petitions presented in the House are genuine petitions from people with genuine concerns. The standing orders also determine that members are not permitted to sign a petition or be a principal petitioner to a petition. The secretariat regularly works with petitioners to ensure that their petition meets the standing order requirements and provides advice and education on petitioning matters to all interested parties. I'd like to take this opportunity to advise all members that the secretariat is available to provide advice to members' staff, constituents and them, and I encourage members to contact the committee with any questions they may have about petitions and/or the work of the committee. The Petitions Committee are heartened by the level of engagement that petitioners are having in this parliament and we look forward to this continuing. Thank you, and I will continue to provide updates to the House on the work of the Petitions Committee. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Human Rights 1 Indigenous Affairs 1 Medicine 2 Scoliosis Screening 2 Feral Cats 2 PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Responses 2 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I present the following ministerial response to petitions previously presented: Organ Transplant Donation 2 BILLS 3 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 3

Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 10:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I move: That this bill be now read a second time. One of the great frustrations that Australians have with the state of politics in this country is that so often the parliament seems consumed by arguments that are not relevant to their daily lives. But this legislation is not one of those moments. This legislation is as real, as practical and as urgent as it gets. This is not some esoteric matter. This legislation will restore the Sunday penalty rates of up to 700,000 Australian working people. It will protect their take-home pay into the future. For tens of thousands of Australians, cutting penalty rates means ripping money out of people's pay. Those on the other side of the House don't just think this is acceptable; they actually think it is commendable. It is their version of how they think this country should be run—that you can take money off the vulnerable, yet at the same time provide $80 billion this week in legislation to those at the top end of town and the big banks. We will in this legislation protect the take-home pay of Australian workers. We will protect a principle as old as the Labor Party and the trade union movement: a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Every single member of my Labor team supports this legislation. Because we support penalty rates. We support working Australians. We support fair reward for the sacrifices that people who work the uncomfortable hours make, so that they can be paid properly. We know that penalty rates are not a bit extra. They're not just the cream on the cake. Penalty rates help people put food on the table and petrol in the car. That $70 extra on a Sunday might not mean much to the frontbench of this coalition government, but it does mean that your child can go on that school excursion. It means that you can pay the rent on time or your utilities bills, which keep going up and up under this government. We understand that this is a broader economic question too, because cutting penalty rates hurts our economy. Cutting penalty rates means that working people have less money to spend in small businesses, in the shops and in the cafes. Cutting penalty rates dampens confidence and it deepens inequality. Cutting penalty rates is also bad news for young people, and it's bad news for Australian women. On current pace, under this government, Australia is 150 years away from closing the gender pay gap. When the government cuts pay in industries where the majority of employees are women—such as retail and such as hospitality—it is the cause of working women that gets further put to the back of the queue. Cutting penalty rates is a shocker for the regions too. It takes millions of dollars out of the pockets of regional workers and the economies of those regional towns. I say to those National Party MPs who proudly boast about a great record of achievement: why are you so proud of representing electorates that are persistently the most disadvantaged? When does the National Party get with the program of lifting working people's conditions? When we talk about lifting people's conditions, what the government refuses to admit—or, indeed, they just lie about—is that when working people have an increase in their penalty rates and when those penalty rates are not arbitrarily cut away for weekends and public holidays, what it means is that these people spend the money they earn. When you live on $40,000, $50,000 and $60,000 a year, you don't have the option to invest your money in beautiful schemes to minimise your tax. You spend every dollar you get. When this government engages in policies that advance wage stagnation and restrict the growth of workers' wages, what they are actually doing is starving the economy. They are starving the economy not just of expenditure but of confidence. We know that, under this government, power bills are through the roof. We know that out-of-pocket healthcare costs that have gone up, up and still further up under this government. And they have the lowest wages growth on record. What the Liberals and Nationals have been doing in the last week is talking about putting money back in people's pockets. Well, I say to them: here's your chance, right here and right now. If you want to do something that actually helps people, then vote for this legislation to restore penalty rates. This isn't a proposition on the never-never. If this legislation is passed, we can save people's incomes on 1 July this year. And the only way to prevent these cuts to penalty from going ahead is to bring this legislation on for a vote and vote for it. And the only way to protect hairdressers and workers in clubs around Australia, who are next on the chopping block if cutting penalty rates becomes the norm, is to vote for this legislation. This is not the first time that Labor has put this case forward. Honourable members will recall that, in March of last year, I moved legislation in this parliament seeking to overturn the first round of cuts to penalty rates. We predicted then that the cuts to penalty rates would stagnate and lead to the stagnation of wages growth. The evidence is in, but the stubbornness of the government and their wage-cutting agenda for working people in this country defies the evidence and the negative consequences to families and households. When you look at the legislation this government brought on last week, they are providing $7,000 tax cuts for people on $200,000 a year and yet they can't support restoring $70 a week for shop assistants, retail workers and people in hospitality. It screams much about their values. When they had a chance to help the union of barristers and the association of investment bankers, they brought the vote on in record time. When they had the opportunity to write a taxpayer cheque for the club of millionaires and the top end of town, they moved at lightning speed. Never get between a Liberal and a tax cut for a millionaire. The Prime Minister tours the country, demanding applause and confetti and doing those proof-of-life videos showing that he can actually speak to Australians, where he obviates the need to talk to them by going through his selfie proposition—'I'll have a selfie as that avoids my talking to you and listening to you, and deals with any awkwardness, because I haven't got a clue about your life!'—and then he goes on to expect praise for his $10 a week tax refund. I say that he'll get a lot more praise if he comes to the dispatch box, instead of hiding in his office, and says, 'Yes, I will support restoring penalty rates arbitrarily cut.' What we have seen from the government propaganda machine is that they say Labor supports cutting penalty rates because we endorse enterprise bargaining. There is a world of difference between workers consenting to and bargaining for improvements in their overall rates of pay, and arbitrary penalty-rate cutting, with no compensation, any hour of the day, any day of the week. When we listen to their ministers carry on, always remember when you hear their ministers and the Prime Minister talking about workers that the reality is they get the microscope out but they have no knowledge of how people really construct their lives. Next time, ask them: 'Have you ever negotiated a pay rise for a worker? Have you ever sat there and bargained constructively with business, but always on the side of workers? Have you ever stood up to improve their redundancy pay? Have you ever stood up to give them a greater say in their rosters and their shifts?' Of course not. This government likes to talk about life experience—no life experience, ever, representing workers and getting them better, safer, more reliable and secure jobs in their lives. Of course, we'll hear the other argument about penalty rates—the second argument, which is that we're now in a 24/7 economy, that somehow penalty rates are a thing of the past, because somehow we now live 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as if we never did before penalty rates. The point is that if we want a seven day a week, 24 hour economy, there's always a worker making that happen. We believe, and we make no apology for saying it, that when you're on $40,000, $50,000 and $100,000 a year we actually want to see you do better. We appreciate the work you put in for our economy. Fundamentally, this legislation about penalty rates goes to the heart of the national priorities of this parliament and to the values of the two competing parties and movements that seek to form a government in this country. We think that if you earn penalty rates you're not selfish or greedy, you're not an inconvenience to business, you're not just another loaf of bread for which we should try to find the lowest unit price, as the Prime Minister once famously said of the exchange of labour for pay. We respect the contribution of working people and we honour it. If you work unsociable hours away from your family and the opportunity to have quality family time, we think you should be paid something for this. We do not, and never have and never will, support the arbitrary cutting of penalty rates. There is no economic theory that backs this up, other than if you have an addiction to increasing inequality in this country. The fight for people's penalty rates is not some esoteric matter. This is a critically important week in the life of this parliament. This week, the Australian people will find out whether its parliament is prepared to back-in legislation giving away $80 billion, principally to the top end of town, whilst at the same time refusing to protect the penalty rates of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. It is the starkest test of the priorities of the government and the opposition. This government's attitude to penalty rates sums up its attitudes to the priorities of the nation. In parliament this week will we tell 700,000 Australians that they'll have to have a cut in their living standards? At the same time, will we tell the top end of town that we have $80 billion we want to give you? Labor will always back working people in this country. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? 10:13 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018 5

Banking System Reform (Separation of Banks) Bill 2018

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 10:14 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I move: That this bill be now read a second time. With the great upheavals that have occurred in the western democracies—the so-called free economies, which are really mixed economies—the greatest one being the Great Depression of 1929, to understand what has taken place you must read John Kenneth Galbraith's very erudite and readable The Great Crash, 1929. You must read Trevor Sykes's The Bold Riders: Behind Australia's Corporate Collapses about the dreadful crash of the late 1980s in Australia and the Laurie Connells and the Alan Bonds, and you must read, of course, The Big Short, the American book that came out after the GFC collapse. Having said that, the Great Depression was immediately addressed by the United States Congress with the Glass-Steagall act of 1933. The Depression hit right at the end of 1929, effectively starting in 1930, and within three years they had drafted legislation to ensure that this would not occur again. In that small but magnificent work of Galbraith's, he quotes the congressional hearings. I don't know the names of all the companies, but they asked Goldman Sachs, 'So, you in fact owned and floated a company called Whitehaven?' They said, 'Yes'. 'And Whitehaven's total assets were shares in Blue Seas?' 'Yes.' 'And Blue Seas' total assets were ownership of Silver Surf, and Silver Surf's total assets were shares in—' and it went on and on and on. In actual fact, the only thing that any of these 19 companies owned was shares in the parent company, right back to Goldman Sachs, who'd floated it off with about 0.000001 per cent of their shares. They floated off the company with a share issue in Goldman Sachs, which was of negligible value to Goldman Sachs and negligible value to the people. What we're talking about here is derivatives: when you don't buy a loaf of bread; you buy a contract to buy a loaf of bread. That is what we call a derivative. Glass-Steagall came in and it overcame the vast bulk of those problems so that the American economy ran fairly effectively, making it three, four, five times the size of any other economy on earth, until Mr Bill Clinton, 'Mr Free Markets' himself. Even in the notorious movies about him, he addresses workers, telling them all, 'You'll be much better off when we free all the markets up, though you will take some pain in the shorter term.' In 1999, he abolished the Glass-Steagall act. Within two years, the dotcom collapse occurred, taking down trillions of dollars of savings, superannuation and retirement moneys of Americans and the rest of the world, and in 2008, as we're all familiar with, came the GFC. Clearly, that time line indicates the necessity for Glass-Steagall legislation in this place. I must single out, by way of thanks and because it's one occasion where I did not do the hard work on the bill, Anne Pleash, my chief of staff, and Robert Barwick, associated with a number of organisations in Australia. He's very articulate and intelligent and he's done some excellent work here. Wilson Sy is one of the great Australians. He was a whistleblower, but also—I don't like that term—he was a man who had the courage to say the truth when the truth was going to cost him greatly but would be a great contribution to this nation, so we owe Dr Wilson Sy a very great debt. Bob Butler did a lot of solid work in drafting this bill and bringing the Australian economy into it. Swan put money into circulation the minute the GFC hit, and history books will be very, very kind to Wayne Swan as a Treasurer. The opposition complained that it was given to people to just go out there and spend. Well, that's exactly what you do in a depression to head off the depression. It was an incredibly stupid statement by the opposition at the time. Swan and Hockey guaranteed the big four banks, and that was a very good thing for both sides of the parliament to do. I think that that needed to be done. So we headed it off. The other thing that really headed it off was the terrible evil in Australia which is recourse lending. If you can't make your house repayments, the house is taken away from you and sold out from under you for less than its loan value, so the bank has the debt and you become a wage slave for the rest of your life. You carry that debt and that debt accumulates interest for the rest of your life, unless you take bankruptcy. The situation in Australia is ugly and it is evil, and this legislation is needed to overcome those problems. Effectively, what it says is: 'Mr Bank, you are no longer out there in the market, the arena, buying and selling. No, your job is to loan to people who buy, sell, develop and invest. You don't do that; you judge them.' The 'bold riders' were the Laurie Connells, the Alan Bonds and all of those people from that period. In fact, if Alan Bond had been restrained by prudential bank action, he would today be a great hero because he did a lot of wonderful things. Similarly with Christopher Skase, if he'd been restrained and controlled by prudential banking—APRA is not worth two bob. They left great monuments for the Australian people, one of them—which is not working today, because of another bold rider—being the nickel plant in Townsville. They left the most beautiful tourist resorts in the world. These were the things that these people created. But, because they had a non-prudential banking system that allowed them to do whatever they liked, they went out on splurges which destroyed all of their good work and took millions of Australians down and destroyed their savings, their superannuation and the little bit of security that they had. I include on this note that I jumped university, because everyone was making a fortune in mining, and my now wife invested some money in a company called Toledo. I read the prospectus, and there was more copper in my pocket—this was the year before decimal currency—than they had in all of the copper reserves of that so-called mining company. I said: 'I love this share market! This is the greatest mechanism ever devised by man for a smart country boy to take money from dumb rich city boys.' So I jumped university to go out in the mining boom. The crash came, but we still brought mines into production. The housing boom in Australia today—does anyone seriously think that we are not sitting on the brink of disaster? A quarter of Australia's population, maybe a third, live in Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. The average price of a house is over $800,000. That means that 50 per cent of the houses are over that value. Yet the average income for an Australian after tax is about 50 grand a year. So how are they going to make the repayments on a house? And yet they're buying houses. The banks are financing them. The banks make money when you go broke and they sell the house out from under you. They don't lose money; they make money out of what has occurred. They should be held responsible. I would love to be in a business that is guaranteed by the government. If I buy a corner store and I know that, if I go broke, the government's going to give me the money, everyone will be buying corner stores in Australia. They are given this, but there is no responsibility placed upon their shoulders to act in a prudential manner. The recent economic history of Australia proves absolutely that they were never involved in that. I conclude with a quotation from Robert Menzies: 'Government must be involved if our economic prosperity is to be preserved.' I don't often quote him, but I will on this one. (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I'm delighted to second the indefatigable member for Kennedy's bill and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Telecommunications Amendment (Giving the Community Rights on Phone Towers) Bill 2018 7

Telecommunications Amendment (Giving the Community Rights on Phone Towers) Bill 2018

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 10:26 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 to give the community greater rights in relation to the placement of mobile phone towers and other telecommunications infrastructure. Specifically, it requires owners and occupiers of land to be notified of a proposal to either build or modify a telecommunications tower within 500 metres of their property and provides that notified owners and occupiers have 30 days in which to respond to the proposed development. It provides that new telecommunications towers cannot be declared to be low impact. It disallows ACMA from considering commercial interests when determining the importance of a facility in a telecommunications network. It requires ACMA, when considering developments near community sensitive sites, to be satisfied that all alternative sites are unfeasible and it enables local communities to appeal the granting of a facility installation permit to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. What has prompted me to table this bill—in fact for the third time—is a current proposal in my own electorate for a mobile phone tower to be established in Hill Street in West Hobart. However, this is hardly the first mobile phone tower proposal that has been brought to my attention by concerned residents. In fact, there have been many other episodes before this. For example, there were two proposals in Sandy Bay in the eight years I've been in this place, a proposal for a tower in Merton Street in Glenorchy and a proposal for a very large installation at the Cadbury sports grounds in Claremont. I would add that, since I've been outspoken about greater community rights when it comes to phone towers, in that time I have been approached now by many people from right around Australia who have been telling me their stories and seeking my assistance. In every one of these cases, the community has felt that they have been locked out of the process and they have felt that their genuine concerns have not been adequately addressed—concerns like the effect on amenity, the effect on their views, the effect on their land values, the effect on the impact on the heritage value of their neighbourhood and the effect of building a phone tower on the local environment. And, yes, of course many people have been concerned about issues of safety and radiation. To be fair to the telcos, sometimes they have responded, and I was delighted that in one of those Sandy Bay instances the phone tower proposal was dropped. When it came to the Merton Street Glenorchy proposal, Telstra did move the phone tower further up the hill and away from houses. But in other cases—for example, the other Sandy Bay phone tower and the installation at the Cadbury sports ground—the telcos just ran roughshod over the local community. I'm concerned that, again, with this Hill Street West Hobart proposal, the telco—in this case Telstra, working in concert with Visionstream—will simply ignore the wishes of the local community. That should not be allowed to happen, because, frankly, communities have rights. It's self-evident they have rights. When members of the community have legitimate concerns about a phone tower proposal, those legitimate concerns should be addressed. How would you, Speaker, or anyone in this House or the management of telcos like Telstra like to have a phone tower installation literally outside their bedroom window? Of course it wouldn't be acceptable to them. How would you like it that a big and ugly phone tower goes right in the middle of a heritage area or right out the front of, perhaps, your investment property, if you're lucky enough to have an investment property, and then, all of a sudden, you find it's that much harder to get tenants because people don't want to be renting a property with a dirty big phone tower literally outside their lounge room or outside their bedroom windows? No wonder so many people have come to me over the years—and people have come to me in recent weeks about the Hill Street West Hobart proposal—and they're unsettled by these proposals. Sometimes they are downright scared. When it comes to the safety of phone towers, in my opinion that's still an open question. I know every time the issue of safety is mentioned by members of the community, or members in this House, the government and the telcos are very quick to lean on the standards. But, frankly, there is quite a bit of evidence now around the world which casts some doubt on those standards, and I think it would be in the public interest for that matter to be revisited by government. This is not the first time I've tried to do this. In fact, in 2011 and again in 2014, I tabled versions of this bill virtually identical to the bill I'm tabling today, and in 2011 and again in 2014 those bills were not considered by this House and they had no support from the Liberal Party, the National Party or the Labor Party. I'm very concerned about that, because surely our job is to represent our community and to ensure that, when members of our community have legitimate concerns, they should be addressed. People in this House should be concerned. Because of the federal law and the way it—again to use that term—rides roughshod over state and local government laws, members in this House should be concerned that members of the community have virtually no rights. The telcos have all the rights. Particularly if they're able to put up something and call it 'low impact', it doesn't even go to planning approval. Even when there's something more substantial which a state government or local government might object to, at the end of the day the telco virtually has an unrestrained right to build the thing and to just trample all over the concerns of the community—and trample they often do because, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters to the telco is the most convenient and the cheapest site. Maybe more often telcos should be required to find a slightly less convenient, slightly more expensive site. Maybe they're going to have to run a power cable a little further up the hill. Maybe it is going to cost the telco a little more. Maybe the cost of that should be socialised so that we all pay an extra few cents a month on our phone bill to ensure the services that we need. I don't doubt that we need our mobile phones and other mobile devices. That's not the issue here, but we should be prepared to pay for the delivery of those services in a way that respects the rights of the communities into which so many of these mobile phone towers are being built. I make the point again: of course we need this technology. On my desk here, I've got a mobile phone and I've got a tablet, and I rely very heavily on those. Particularly with people in areas that are prone to natural disasters, they're relying on their phones to get texts to warn them about bushfires or floods or cyclones—who knows whatever else? That technology, and the value of that technology, is not in dispute here. The matter before the House is that, as that technology is rolled out—and, with the arrival of 5G, soon there'll be a lot more phone towers rolled out—the telcos must be required to respect local communities and any legitimate concern a local community might have. Telcos have got to better respect amenity, views, land values, heritage, environment and safety. If that means moving a tower or putting a tower in a slightly less convenient spot or perhaps having to invest a little bit more money to run the power up to one or to bulldoze a track to get to it then so be it. I commend Telstra, in fact—with the Merton Street, Glenorchy, project a couple of years ago now, they did move the phone tower up the hill. But the problem, though, is that, when we do have these wins, it's almost always at the end of a long and painful battle by the local community. Communities shouldn't have to fight for everything. Surely in this place we can put in place a legislative framework that gives communities the same rights as the telcos so that, if there's a fight to be had, it might have to be fought by the telco and not every time by the local community. This is the third time I've moved this bill. It was unsuccessful in 2011. It was unsuccessful in 2014. I commend it to the House and I encourage the government and the alternative government to stop kowtowing to the telcos and start respecting the community and start understanding that your job, first and foremost, is to represent your community and to put in place legislation to protect your community. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Bandt M3C I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Amendment (A Living Wage) Bill 2018 8

Fair Work Amendment (A Living Wage) Bill 2018

First Reading 8 Second Reading 9 10:37 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I move: That this bill be now read a second time. We are a wealthy country, but almost one in four people in Australia who are in poverty are working full time. That is a statistic that should shame us all. It is getting to the point in Australia where working full time and having a full-time job is no longer a guarantee of security. When you look at the rising costs of housing, the rising costs of energy because we fail to regulate electricity prices and the low wage growth that we've seen over many, many years because our industrial relations laws have tied workers' hands behind their back, you understand how we've ended up in this situation. But, again, I repeat that, when just under one in four people who are living in poverty are working full time, something is wrong with our society. We are heading down the road of becoming a US-style unequal society where the divide between the very wealthy and everyone else continues to grow and grow. It is up to us here in parliament to do something about it. It is recognised in many other places around the world that 60 per cent of the median weekly wage is a good measure of what the minimum wage should be because it means, if you're working full time and earning the minimum wage, you're likely not to be in poverty. In other words, if you do a full-time week and get at least 60 per cent of the median wage then you probably won't be living in poverty. In the United Kingdom, they have put into law a requirement that their Low Pay Commission, as it's called there, must ratchet up the minimum wage to 60 per cent of the median wage. It's time that we did the same here in Australia. To give people an understanding of what we're talking about, we'd be talking about around $20 an hour for someone who works full time. Most people in this country, I would bet, think it's fair enough that, if you're working a full-time job, you should earn at least 20 bucks an hour. But at the moment where are things at? Last month the Fair Work Commission increased the minimum wage by 3½ per cent to $18.93 an hour, up from $18.29 an hour. Stepping back, prior to the latest decision the minimum wage was 55.1 per cent of the latest figures for median earnings for full-time workers. When the updated corresponding figures for median wages come out for 2018, if they have grown in line with measly wages growth, the national minimum wage will probably be only 55.6 per cent of the full-time median wage. The change that's happening isn't transformative. It isn't even incremental. It's ineffective. It's barely noticeable. The gains that the lowest paid workers in this country are granted will be wiped out by rising costs, rendering them almost worthless. In a rich country like Australia people earning a full-time wage shouldn't be struggling to make ends meet. If you're working full-time and living in poverty, what does that mean for people earning even less, like part-time or casual workers? What does it mean for low-income people, single parents, pensioners or students who are relying on government support from a government that doesn't really support them? What does it mean for the homeless and the long-term unemployed? It's time for a circuit breaker. It is time for this parliament to act on rising equality in this country. This bill that I'm introducing, the Fair Work Amendment (A Living Wage) Bill 2018, amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to lift the national minimum wage to a living wage of 60 per cent of the median full-time weekly wage as determined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) will determine the phase-in period, which should be no longer than six years, and will be required to publish a timetable for how we get there, so that it can be phased in over a period of time that will be short enough to make a difference but will be done in such a way that it will not have adverse impacts on the economy. Indeed, in the legislation the Fair Work Commission (FWC) must have regard to matters including reducing inequality, the state of the economy and the circumstances of particular industries and classes of employers. After the timetable for the intended phase-in has been declared the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will continue to conduct annual wage reviews and issue orders annually but will only depart from the planned phase-in if there are exceptional circumstances. If you go back a decade or two—to around 20 years ago—the national minimum wage was above 60 per cent of median full-time earnings. Working people then weren't necessarily doing great, but things weren't as tough as they are now. But fast-forward to now and things are very different. Inequality is skyrocketing—it's at a 70 year high—housing is unaffordable, insecure work is rising, and underemployment is also stubbornly high. We hear a lot from the Treasurer about unemployment statistics; what he doesn't talk about is underemployment, the number of people who say, 'I am not getting enough hours at work to make ends meet.' We are now in the crisis situation where one in three young people in this country either don't have a job or don't have enough hours of work. The alarm bells should be ringing. The effect of years of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics has slowly but surely shifted power away from workers towards profits and big business in this country. But I say to everyone who is doing it tough that there are solutions. It requires a bit of political will, but there are solutions. The union movement at the moment recognises this, and the Greens recognise this as well. ACOSS recognises this. Even some business organisations recognise that the gap is growing too much. That's why the Greens are supporting the ACTU's push to change the rules and why for many years now, including today, we've been introducing legislation into this place that would actually change the rules. I have previously introduced legislation that would extend to workers in the gig economy the right to the minimum wages and conditions that regular employees have, and to give workers 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave. The Greens led the campaign to protect penalty rates. We went to the election being the only party saying that we'd reverse the decision of the Fair Work Commission. I'm very pleased to hear the opposition this morning introducing legislation to reverse the cuts. I note that they said before the election they'd do exactly the opposite—that they'd just abide by the Fair Work Commission's decision. It shows that, if you want to protect minimum standards in this country, you need the Greens in this place because we lead the charge and then, ultimately, others come around. That's why today I'm introducing legislation to resuscitate the minimum wage, to put a floor under it so that people working full time will avoid living below the poverty line. Of course there is so much more we need to do to help people in this country doing it tough. We need to lift Newstart and youth allowance. I'm encouraged by reports that, again, off the back of Greens and community organisations campaigning on this for this ages, some other parties in this place might be shifting. But it's worth reminding ourselves that people are losing faith in politics—and it is no wonder why. It's because, in many respects, we know how to solve problems like growing inequality in Australia, but the political will isn't there from the old parties. It's because our old parties are ruled by backbench dinosaurs and factional war lords and it's because the political class bickers about personality politics while everyday people, in many instances, are working full time but struggling to put food on the table. And it's because this place took years to do things like legislate for marriage equality even though the population wanted it for years and years and were just demanding the politicians get on with it. Australians want to make sure that egalitarianism does not die in Australia. People in this country want to make sure that Australia is a place where the gap between the wealthy and everyone else does not blow out. So we are ringing the alarm bells here. We are ringing the alarm bells and saying, 'When people work full time but still end up in poverty, something is wrong.' If we lift the minimum wage—in today's figures, it would be around about $20 an hour—then we can help lift people out of poverty and make sure Australia remains an egalitarian society. I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I am delighted to second the member for Melbourne's bill, and I reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. Regional, Rural and Remote Education Commissioner Bill 2018 10

Regional, Rural and Remote Education Commissioner Bill 2018

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:48 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is the second in a series of private members' bills that I've brought to this House around regional higher education. I'm trying to convince the government, and in particular the Prime Minister and the Minister for Education and Training, that one size does not fit all when we're talking about education. I'm calling on a national, coordinated approach to how we address the significant problems we have in rural and regional Australia with education and training, but today I'm particularly talking about higher education and training. I'll talk about why this is so important in my electorate of Indi and, by default, around regional Australia. I finish with a call of action to the minister and the Prime Minister and to the people in rural and regional Australia: this bill provides a way forward to ensure that regional Australia has a comprehensive education, training and research strategy underpinned by policy decisions of government. The bill is intended to progress the recommendations and actions outlined in the Independent Review into Regional, Rural and Remote Education authored by Professor John Halsey. The bill establishes a regional, rural and remote education commissioner to establish a national focus on education, training and research to enhance access, outcomes and opportunities of individuals and businesses in regions right throughout Australia. The commissioner will provide advice to the minister about education, training and research to enhance access, outcomes and opportunities and about strategies to support the role of educational institutions—childcare providers, schools, universities and vocational education and training providers—in developing regional economies, sustaining economic growth and supporting employment in regional, rural and remote Australia. It will develop a national strategic framework for regional, rural and remote training and education, beginning with a national regional higher education and training strategy. The role of the commissioner is to be ongoing, with a national regional higher education training and research strategy to be completed within six months of commencement and revised every six years. Colleagues and members of the gallery: why is this important and why do I persist? Because the data is overwhelmingly showing that people in rural and regional Australia are way behind the eight ball with education. The universities tell us it can't wait. My community tells me that this is a priority. Deputy Speaker Mitchell, here are some statistics for my electorate that I'm sure also apply to your electorate: 24 per cent of people living in Indi are aged under 19. But the next cohort, the 14-to 20-year-olds, make up only 4.9 per cent of the population. The greatest export out of my electorate is young people. Then we look at the next statistic: only 6.2 per cent of all the people in Indi have tertiary degrees. You might think that statistic is not relevant, but, when you compare it with the average of 17.8 per cent for Victoria, something is clearly going wrong. If you look at the percentage of Melbourne people, or urban adults, who go to university, it's roughly a third; but it is only 12.7 per cent in inner regions and 12.5 per cent in outer regions. Clearly, something is going on here that needs serious rectification. But, before I move on to that, I just want to stress this statistic: while I understand that a tertiary degree is not the only form of education that's relevant, can you believe that, in my electorate of almost 100,000 people, 6.2 per cent have a tertiary degree? It's a shocker. I've mentioned it to my colleagues, particularly on the government side. When I've asked what happens in their electorate, they say, 'It's about the same.' This is not just a problem for me and Indi or Victoria; it's a problem right across rural and regional Australia, where one size is not fitting everybody. We have a one-size approach to education, and clearly it's missing the mark. I make reference to Minister Wyatt at the table. Minister, I've recently been in the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia as part of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. At every single hearing we've gone to, we've been talking about education and making it accessible. This is a problem in regional Victoria, in regional New South Wales and in our more isolated areas, but we specifically know it's a problem with our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. One size is not fitting all. I am absolutely sure that the answer is not only to have a solution for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We need to have a solution that's place based, that works with all our communities. My effort today with this legislation is to say that a commissioner is a really good place to start, and I ask the help of the minister at the table to bring it to the attention of his colleagues as one important step in moving forward. I've spoken to both the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government and the Minister for Education and Training about this, because, of course, they've got the Halsey review in front of them, and we're looking for the government response to it. So here's a really important opportunity that government could take to move it forward. I also acknowledge colleagues in the gallery. This bit of legislation has been well circulated through the university sector to the G8s, to the RUN universities, to La Trobe and to CSU. It's got the widespread support of my community and the education sector, because the education industry understands that, if you don't actually pay attention to rural and regional education, if you just make it compete with the cities, then we lose it. Certainly, in my local papers, there's been enormous publicity recently around the problems that our universities in Albury Wodonga are facing: '"Must try harder": government failing regional universities' and 'Education cuts ring alarm bells in regions'. So we've got a significant problem there that we must address. For me, not only is the data there and not only are the universities saying we must do more but the call is from my community. As I've said recently in this parliament, I've undertaken the 2018 budget survey, and the overwhelming response to that survey is the importance of education: 10.33 per cent of respondents ranked it as the second most important issue, but 81 per cent of respondents ranked education and training as very important and only 0.21 per cent of the 1,000 people who filled in the survey said it was not important. Just let me give you a couple of quotes. In Benalla: 'Tertiary education for country students, the extra costs associated with having to travel and or move to another facility.' In my electorate of Indi, I've got universities in Wodonga and an outreach in Wangaratta, way up to the north. But for everybody else in the community they've actually got to leave home. Not only is there the dislocation of that going to the university but there are the expenses incurred with it and the enormous difficulty that we face. So I'm hoping that this commissioner will be able to do the on-ground work that's needed to advise the government on how we could actually get a decent strategy happening so that we solve the problems in the location where they are. I'm talking to the minister for education about his regional hubs. I think he funded eight in the budget, and applications are currently open. But we should be having higher education hubs in almost every single town in the country. Just like we've got high schools in country towns, we need to have university hubs, not just for young people but so all the training can happen. While we've got a fantastic system of telehealth, we don't have a fantastic system of tele-education, and it's one important aspect that this commissioner could work with. Let me go back to Wangaratta, with one of the quotes I got: 'Because country students are at a distinct disadvantage to city students who can stay living at home. Not all courses are available in the country. Much higher living costs, stresses.' The students need to work as well as study to make the money, and they've got less time to study. The flow-on effects are the high rate of students not continuing their courses, but there's also a particular problem we have of kids taking gap years and then not going on because they need the money. Just in closing, my call to action, really, to the government is: you've got to pay attention to rural and regional Australia. To my community: we really need to get behind this effort. Maybe, if we can't get the government to have a strategy, my call to action is: let's have an Indi strategy on higher education. Let's make this an election issue. Let's really take it up to the Liberal Party and the National Party at the next election and say: well, what is their approach to rural and regional education right across Australia? It has not been an electorate issue. It really needs to be, and we really need to see my colleagues opposite. I say particularly to the National Party that they need to stand up. They not only need to support a strategy but actually need to come out with policies to say what they're going to do about the enormous inequality that we experience in the regions with education. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the motion for the second reading of the member for Indi's excellent bill and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 12 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Economy 12 10:59 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I move: That this House: (1) recognises the positive effect of the Government's measures for a stronger economy mean that essential services are guaranteed including the Government's: (a) support for education and childcare; and (b) measures to support more choices for Australians to live longer, healthier lives; and (2) notes with deep concern that the Opposition has no plan for a stronger economy that will deliver essential services to Australians. As a very proud member of the Turnbull government I am delighted to move this motion this morning. We in the coalition recognise that the ability of our local communities to thrive and prosper relies on a federal government's capacity to balance the books. We appreciate how a stronger economy ensures that essential services are guaranteed and note that the alternative approach is to have no plan. I and many on this side of the House who have worked in and run businesses know—unlike those on the other side—the well-known adage from the business world: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. That is the case for those in opposition. They have no plan. Unlike the Labor Party, we on this side understand that guaranteeing essential services like health care, education and child care does not come from big promises and reckless spending. Instead it comes from the fiscal responsibility and sound economic management that the Turnbull government is proud to champion. Guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on means that we can make critical medicines available to patients, support mental health initiatives, support our hospitals and provide resources into areas for medical research. Having a strong, well-managed economy means that parents can be comforted that the Turnbull government has ensured childcare and preschool support, including access to 15 hours of quality early learning and more accessible and affordable child care. For schools and education, having a strong economy means that over 20,000 students in our community will enjoy an average increase of 50 per cent per student for fair, real, needs based school funding over the next decade as part of the Turnbull government's education reforms. It means older Australians have more secure choices to lead longer and healthier lives, including more home-care packages and aged-care funding, including with better health care, demonstrating our government's respect to those who have built modern Australia. This care for education, for senior Australians, for health and for other essential services can only be supported by targeted, measurable funding that only a responsible government like ours and a strong economic outlook, such as the Turnbull government's plan for a stronger new economy, can provide. Where Labor and Bill Shorten had 27 special secret school-funding deals— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I remind the member for Chisholm to refer to members by their correct title, please. Ms BANKS 18661 I withdraw. My apologies. Where Labor and the Leader of the Opposition had 27 special secret school-funding deals and focused only on providing for union mates or their proposed tax grab from pensioners and older Australians on low incomes, the Turnbull government knows that Labor's typical uncontrollable spending spree is not a substitute for delivering real outcomes for all Australians. Labor forgets that the essential purpose of government is to create the foundation of our society that ensures equality of opportunity. The Turnbull government's impressive economic growth is also harnessed by having just passed our Personal Income Tax Plan through the parliament. We have ensured all Australians paying tax will be better off. Mums and dads, retirees and hardworking students doing part-time work will be paying less tax and will be rewarded for their hard work both now and into the future. After years of working in business, I know firsthand the pride and sense of dignity that comes from work and reward for effort, a sentiment I know is shared by all hardworking and aspirational Australians. Seeing money earned through work going down the drain through the reckless spending of the Labor Party and offensive tax grabs is an insult to Australian taxpayers, Australians who have worked hard their whole lives only to have their hard-earned money stolen to prop up Labor's habit of always focusing on higher taxes to satisfy their relentless spending. We on this side of the House are about lower taxes. Those in opposition are about higher taxes with lower returns. When Labor run out of money, they simply tax more. They come after the money of hardworking Australians. They don't realise it's the money of the hardworking Australians. We on this side, the Turnbull government, are proud of our track record in delivering for Australians, and I'm personally very proud to be delivering so many tangible and measurable initiatives locally in Chisholm thanks to our strong economy. Australians can rest assured that the Turnbull government has a plan—a plan for growth, a plan for job creation and a plan that grows our economy and provides and guarantees the essential services Australians rely on. The Turnbull government is building our economy and the future of Australians. Our health and our schooling are secure. I commend this motion to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded? Ms Henderson ZN4 The motion is seconded. I reserve my right to speak. 11:04 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I can only assume from the speech that the member for Chisholm just made that she hasn't spent much time in her office lately, because I can tell you that any member of parliament who has actually been in their office lately will have noticed the extraordinary increase in the number of people who are coming into our offices for assistance with basic essential services like Centrelink, aged care, child care and the NDIS. They're coming in in far greater numbers because this government, in spite of its plan to give $80 billion handouts to big business and multinationals, or perhaps because of it, has been cutting essential services across the board. Any member of parliament who actually takes notice of the people who are coming into their office will know that. People are coming into my office in greater numbers over issues that we haven't had to deal with before, every single day. It's because, I think, families are more vulnerable at the moment than they've been for a long time. They're struggling with flat wages growth, massive hikes in their electricity bills and increasing costs for education and health bills, and stable housing, of course, is out of reach for many. So, when something goes wrong, they're more vulnerable than we've seen them ever before. We on this side are deeply concerned about the extremely long periods that many are waiting for even simple claims like the age pension to be processed. I have two couples in my electorate who have worked all their lives who are facing homelessness at the moment because of delays in processing their claims for the pension. Disability support pension is particularly bad. On youth allowance, a person in my electorate has been phoning my office every day. They lodged their Newstart application and waited two months and, while there was no response, their application was put on hold and closed automatically. For two months they've been waiting for Newstart without any response. Centrelink is in crisis, and the Turnbull coalition government are doing nothing about it. In fact they're making it worse. The number of people who are calling my office about the NDIS has skyrocketed. We're handling five or six a day. There are parents who are caring for a child suffering with ASD. The situation is time critical because he requires an intensive ASD-specific early intervention before age five. He turns four in August. The paediatrician recommended two years of 15 to 25 hours per week before age five. NDIS funded 1½ hours per week, even though level 5 was recommended. I've had representatives of people who are amputees telling me of a two-year-old who'd been waiting six months for a prosthetic limb—at the age of two! It is incredibly important that a two-year-old moves. That's what two-year-olds do. I've had a sole parent, a mum, of a profoundly disabled teenager. His father was the carer. His father died. They reviewed the assistance and cut it. They cut it after his carer died. Another family in my electorate whose child has an intellectual disability applied for an NDIS plan including services for speech therapy, occupational therapy and speech assistance software. The letter said that they had been approved for $22,000, but the digital copy stated a different amount altogether. We had to sort that out. My office had to sort that out. Calls like this come in every single day. The government has cut funding from TAFE and universities, which are also essential services. The government cut $2.2 billion from universities and $98 million from Western Sydney University alone. Believe me: it's an essential service. Labor will uncap university places and will ensure that 200,000 more Australians get a university education. We'll also ensure proper funding for TAFE, also an essential service. The last budget saw another $270 million in cuts to TAFE. The government has cut 120,000 apprenticeships out of the system. Since September 2013, Parramatta's lost 1,123. That's 46 per cent. Then there's the investment in making sure our kids have a better future. Labor will invest $100 million in a rebuilding TAFE fund to renovate campuses and workshops and will waive up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE courses. Child care is an essential service. Under this government's childcare package, 279,000 families will be worse off, and families who stand to be worse off are families in the lowest income cohort. That is families who have an income of less than $65,000. In Parramatta, that means that 2,698 families will be worse off—and child care is an essential service. NBN is an essential service. I won't even go into the people who've been waiting for that in my electorate. Health is an essential service, yet we've seen a $12 million cut from Westmead. Essential services? You've got to be kidding. You've got to be kidding! If only this motion were legitimate, I might have something better to say. 11:09 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on this motion. I want to commend the member for Chisholm for bringing this motion forward to the parliament. She is a wonderful local member. I take note of the member for Parramatta's comment that the member for Chisholm hasn't been spending much time in her office. That says everything about Labor you need to know—they are members that sit behind their desks. I tell you where the member for Chisholm has been—not only has she been working hard in her office but, more importantly, she's been out in the community. She's been out in the electorate. She's been talking to her constituents in shopping centres, schools, aged-care homes and every other corner of the electorate, and the message is loud and strong, as it is in the electorate of Corangamite, which I proudly represent: people do not trust Labor. Australians know that they cannot trust Labor. We've seen that this party opposite is a party which does not have a plan, a party which intends to hike up taxes by more than $200 billion over 10 years and a party which has now said that it's going to take $70 billion out of the pockets of ordinary Australians because it's going to oppose stages 2 and 3 of our income tax cuts. These are tax cuts that will mean that 94 per cent of Australians will never face a top marginal tax rate of more than 32½ per cent. Labor wants to rip that away. Labor has no plan. What we know from Labor's opposition to our company tax cuts that we are proposing to bring company tax down to 25 per cent is that Labor wants to send jobs offshore and wants to prop up multinational companies working overseas. It does not want to make us internationally competitive. The regressive, economically destroying policies of Labor will send this nation backwards. We are incredibly proud that we are delivering tax relief to every working Australian, starting with low- and middle-income earners, where from 1 July we will be providing immediate tax relief of $530 a year. For low- or middle-income parents where both the father and mother are working in a family, that will be over $1,000 of instantaneous tax relief. We've also seen the opposition leader has declared war on business, which employs 90 per cent of Australians. We've now seen the member for Grayndler call out the opposition leader. He's embarrassed. We're now seeing cracks starting to appear in that little leadership tussle, where the member for Grayndler is implicitly condemning the opposition leader's war on business and his strategy to divide Australia and isolate hardworking Australians. In not supporting our company tax cuts for all companies and focusing on those with a turnover of more than $50 million, this is not just a war on business that Labor is declaring. It is declaring a war on all Australians who work in all of these businesses. Who are we talking about? We're talking about shop assistants. We're talking about those who work in supermarkets. We're talking about coalmine workers, construction workers, truck drivers, aged-care workers, researchers, scientists, people who work for food processors and the many thousands of people who work in manufacturing. All of these Australians work for companies with more than $50 million in turnover. They are a very important part of the Australian economy and, in attacking those companies, Labor is attacking those workers. It is an absolute disgrace. We've seen the member for Grayndler call out the opposition leader on his terrible strategy which not only intends to destroy the economy but, frankly, is soul destroying for all those workers who know how important their jobs are in providing security to their families and children. So, again, I congratulate the member for Chisholm on this very important motion. Our plan is very strong. We're bringing the budget back to balance by 2019-20, our net debt will fall by $30 billion over the next four years and our stronger economy and record jobs growth are ensuring that we will be able to deliver the important services that we need, like the NDIS and, of course, our guarantee for Medicare. (Time expired) 11:14 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I'm pleased to speak today on how the Turnbull government is starving essential services and abrogating fundamental responsibilities in order to fund their deeply flawed, neo-conservative, trickle-down economic agenda. In fact, I'll take any opportunity to highlight the brazen heist on our national budget that is being undertaken in broad daylight by this government. It was not so long ago that Liberal ministers and backbenchers couldn't make it through five minutes without screeching about the debt and deficit disaster. They are very quiet on that front now, and I'll tell you why. It is because their shameful mismanagement of the economy has resulted in our national debt crashing through half a trillion dollars. That's an unimaginable figure for most Australians. A more sensible group of leaders would see reason for caution and for constraint, but not this government. No, this hasn't stopped them at all. In fact, if anything, they have renewed their zeal to hand over as much wealth as possible to the top end of town as quickly as they possibly can. The 2018 budget gives billions of dollars in tax cuts to big business, multinationals, the banks and high-income earners. It makes Australians pay for that with savage cuts into health, education and vital public services. Meanwhile, it launches a radical overhaul of Australia's income tax system, which would see a carer on $40,000 pay the same rate of tax as a lawyer on $200,000. On every single measure, everyday Australians miss out. On every single metric, the government utterly fails the test of fairness. It fails the test of fairness on pensioners. Mr Turnbull is cutting the energy supplement, which is costing pensioners— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The member for Parramatta will refer to members by their correct titles. Ms CLAYDON 248181 The Prime Minister and his government is cutting the energy supplement, which is costing pensioners $14 a fortnight. At the same time, they are forcing people to stay in the workforce until they're 70 years of age. The budget fails the fairness test on education. The government is still cutting $17 billion from our schools. In my electorate of Newcastle, public schools are losing an average of $350,000 both this year and next year alone. The budget locks in $2.2 billion worth of cuts to universities and levies $270 million in new cuts to TAFE. We haven't forgotten the previous cuts to TAFE, but these are additional cuts. The budget also fails the fairness test on hospitals, cutting $2.8 billion out. This means surgeries get delayed, nurse and doctor numbers will decline and emergency wait times will increase. In Newcastle, we're losing close to $10 million from our public hospitals in 2017-20. The budget fails the fairness test on child care, with 279,000 families set to be worse off under the government's new childcare policy. The budget fails the fairness test on Medicare. The Prime Minister's freeze on the rebate for specialists means Australians will pay even more when they visit a doctor. The budget fails the fairness test on vital public services, with 1,200 jobs set to go from Centrelink. Yes, that is the same organisation that has outlandish wait times and unanswered calls because of previous cuts to staff and resources. The budget also tragically fails our national broadcaster, with the ABC set to lose a further $127 million as a result of the Liberal government's war on public broadcasting. This is on top of the $254 million in cuts that were imposed since 2014. That was a cut acutely felt in my region with our ABC radio, 1233 AM, losing 12 members of staff and lots of local content in the last round of cuts. Even the Turnbull government's budget centrepiece is nothing but a cruel hoax designed to hide the fact that they are doing absolutely nothing for older Australians. The 14,000 in-home care packages for four years are funded by cuts into residential aged care, and they won't go anywhere near fixing the atrocious wait list of 105,000 older Australians who currently cannot access the care they need and deserve. There is an alternative, and Labor has made that vision very clear for Australians. You can have a Labor government that puts people and the services they need first or you can have more of the same from the Turnbull Liberal government. That government is about cuts, cuts and cuts and favours to the big end of town. (Time expired) 11:19 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Today it's a privilege to be able to talk about the important impact that this government is having on the Goldstein electorate and, by extension, the great nation of Australia. When you think about the challenges that confront our great nation, no matter what the challenge, none is overcome without an economy that is healthy and strong. A strong economy is at the heart of everything that we need, as a country, to be able to deliver—the human dividend, the social dividend, the economic dividend and the environmental dividend—so that the next generation of Australians can grow up with the opportunities that their forebears have had before them. This allows them to get good childcare support in their early years and a good education throughout their youth and into their adulthood, particularly as part of tertiary education, but, more critically, to then be able to go on and get a job to support themselves and, hopefully, in time, a family, and then support their community as part of our great nation. As people live through different stages of life, yes, they need support and opportunity to be able to realise their maximum ambition as citizens, but, as they move towards their later years, what they need is security—security in being able to be sure and confident that what modest investments they may have will deliver them a return to provide for them for as long as they live so that they can fund the health care and support services they need at a vulnerable stage of life and, more critically, at a stage of life where they are not able to change their circumstances. But none of that can be provided without a strong economy. None of that can be provided unless we have an economy that creates jobs and opportunities so that people can pay taxes to support those people who are less able than themselves or who need those critical supports in that time of life when they're vulnerable and need assistance and can't change their circumstances. This is at the heart of what this government is about. This is a government that is focused on how we deliver that sense of opportunity and security for every Australian at every stage of life. I see that day after day in the Goldstein electorate. Last Friday night I was down at The Village Early Learning Centre opening in Sandringham in the Goldstein electorate, where people have seen an opportunity for investment and taken a risk to set up a second childcare centre, in addition to the one they established in Tulip Street, Sandringham. That community facility, that business, provides the opportunity for young Australians to be given the childcare support under this government's childcare support package and reform so that they can have the best chance at life. But only down the road, if you go to local aged-care facilities—and I was privileged to be able to go to Abberfield in Sandringham as well recently with the Minister for Aged Care—people at a different stage of life are seeking to retire with dignity and security and with the healthcare services that they need to live a life that they see as acceptable and comfortable. The only way to achieve that is through a strong economy, and that is what this government is delivering day after day. You may be tired of it, as other people may be as well, but the simple reality, and an often repeated statistic, is that a million jobs have been created during the life of this government. That means that we have not only, off the back of significant welfare reforms, taken people from consuming the benefits of the tax system to being able to sustain themselves; we have enabled an opportunity, an environment and an economy where people have gone from consuming the benefits of the tax system to being contributors themselves. Mr Hill 86256 Oh, facts! Mr TIM WILSON IMW I know someone on the other side of the House just shouted, 'Oh, facts!' Yes, they're very uncomfortable and difficult if you disagree with the approach of this government, but the reality is it is hitting the ground and improving people's lives all across this great continent and land. Australians are very proud of the potential they have to stand on their own two feet. When we think about the type of future that this country should enjoy, the one where children born today seek to realise the opportunity they want for their future, it is through a strong economy delivered by the Turnbull coalition government that we will realise that. 11:25 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert How out of touch can the member for Chisholm possibly be? Does the member for Chisholm honestly think that cutting funding to schools, hospitals, universities, aged-care facilities, early learning and pensioners, and not funding vital infrastructure is good for the economy? How does one guarantee essential services in schools when the Turnbull government is cutting $14.8 million from schools in Townsville? How does one guarantee essential services in higher education in Townsville when the Turnbull government is cutting $36 million from James Cook University and $38 million from Central Queensland University? How does one guarantee essential services in early childhood education when the Turnbull government is making such savage cuts to this sector, where one early learning centre in my electorate has already closed and another is on the verge of closing? How does one guarantee essential services in Townsville, where more than 2,484 families will be worse off under the Turnbull government's changes to childcare packages? How does one guarantee essential services in Townsville when the Turnbull government is cutting $9 million from the Townsville Health and Hospital Service? How does one guarantee essential services and measures to support more choices for Australians to live longer in their homes when every single LNP budget has made cuts to aged care, and in North Queensland right now 323 people are waiting to access a home care package? How does one guarantee essential service and measures to support healthier lives for veterans when the Turnbull government is cutting $40.7 million from allied health and dental care? I'm wondering if the member for Chisholm can explain any of that for me. Sadly, she can't. The simple fact is: you can't access essential services if the Turnbull government is hell-bent on making such savage cuts to vital services. The Australian Council of Social Services has been incredibly scathing of the Turnbull government's priorities to give millionaires a big tax handout and an $80 billion tax handout to big business and the banks but not properly consider funding for essential services. Last week the CEO of the Australian Council of Social Services said: The tax cut package is gambling the future of our medical services, aged care services, disability services, and social security payments most of us rely upon at some stage in our lives. The member for Chisholm says Labor doesn't have a plan. The member for Chisholm doesn't have a clue. Labor has a plan for a fairer Australia. Labor has a plan to ensure that hardworking Australians, middle-income earners and their families get a bigger, fairer tax cut. We will fund hospitals, schools, universities, TAFE and early learning. Our plan is clear and simple: we will fund vital services by not giving a tax cut to millionaires, big businesses and the banks. Labor doesn't believe that we should lump a nurse in the same tax bracket as a doctor, a cleaner in the same tax bracket as a CEO. Labor believes in supporting Australian workers, and that is why people in my electorate of Herbert will be far better off under Labor's tax plan. Simply put: under Labor, Herbert gets more. The median weekly income for an individual in Herbert is $672. Under Labor that person will be $350 better off—that is, $150 more than under the Turnbull government's plan. Families will be better off as well. The median weekly income for a family in Herbert is $1,640. Under Labor, families in Herbert will be $928 better off. That's more than $398 better off than under the Turnbull government's plan. Not only does Townsville get a bigger, better and fairer tax plan under Labor but it will also get its hospitals, schools, universities and TAFE funded, as well as funding for water, energy and port expansion infrastructure. Herbert benefits from a Labor budget, but we will suffer and are suffering under the LNP. The Turnbull government haven't delivered a stronger economy; they have in fact quadrupled the deficit. Under the LNP the unemployment rate in Townsville has doubled, and Townsville has the highest insolvency rate in the nation. That's what a Turnbull economy looks like in the electorate of Herbert. It is not the fairer economy that Labor is committed to delivering. Townsville has never been worse off than it is now under this Turnbull government. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Cyprus 17 11:30 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I move: That this House: (1) acknowledges peace, re-unification and reconciliation in Cyprus through the progress achieved during 2015-2017 United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks, including the framework set out by the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres; (2) congratulates all those involved in the Cyprus peace talks, especially the personal commitment by Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades and Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci; (3) expresses full support for the United Nations Secretary-General's Good Offices in Cyprus, and supports the resumption of negotiations at the parties' earliest convenience; (4) recognises that even though the 2015-17 Cyprus talks took place between two compatible and affable leaders and a rather diligent United Nations, Mont Pelerin, Geneva and Crans-Montana reminded us that the difficulty in constructing a new peace paradigm in Cyprus is not only exacerbated by inter-communal division, but is also vulnerable to external, regional and international tensions; (5) reaffirms its support for an enduring, peaceful, comprehensive and just settlement based on the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, and encourages all parties to sustain their commitment to the reunification of Cyprus; (6) realises that many Cypriots have fled to Australia over the last six decades and the Cypriot diaspora in Australia can make a positive contribution to peacebuilding efforts in their former homeland; (7) welcomes the bicommunal contacts, engagement and exchanges, resulting from the continued crossings at the Green Line, as evidenced by the work of the Cyprus Academic Dialogue, the Bicommunal Kyrenia Initiative, the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus, the Home for Cooperation and others; (8) congratulates the grasswork action by two Australian friends of Cypriot background, Yalcin Adal and Stavros Protz (Tzortzis), for their 16 day, 350 km Cyprus East2West walk from 21 March to 6 April 2018, as a symbolic gesture of reunification, peace, hope, reconciliation and friendship, and all those who supported such an endeavour, especially our High Commission in Nicosia; and (9) calls on the Government to continue its support of the peacemaking efforts in Cyprus including considering re-appointing a special envoy on Cyprus to promote dialogue, peace and reconciliation. It's a pleasure to be moving this very important motion today on peace, reunification and reconciliation in Cyprus, especially given that just a few days ago we marked the UN international day for refugees and thousands of Cypriot refugees remain dispossessed and still unable to return to their ancestral homes. The capital, Nicosia, remains divided by the green line, separating both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, in his last report on his mission of good offices in Cyprus reminds us that, as far as the Cyprus peace efforts are concerned, we find ourselves in a 'period for reflection'. This came after two years of intense and strenuous negotiations by two affable, committed and sincere Cypriot leaders, Nicos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci, aided by the good offices of the UN to reach a comprehensive settlement. Despite much progress on a series of core issues, the negotiations stalled in Crans-Montana last June, ostensibly over security and guarantees, which also involves Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom. For all of us who over the years and decades have been associated with the plight of Cyprus and who advocate for a free, reunified, sovereign, democratic and independent Cyprus, we stand firm in our continued commitment to support and aid with whatever resources we have at our disposal those who are genuinely committed to reaching a peaceful, humane, fair, just and viable solution for the Cyprus problem. But formal negotiations in officialdom by themselves are not sufficient to bring about change and counter the politics of fear, hate and uncertainty. They often require backing and encouragement from civil society and even from the most unlikely of quarters. One such symbolic gesture of hope, reconciliation and reunification came from two Australian friends, one of Turkish Cypriot background—Yalcin Adal, who is here in the gallery with his father, Halil Adal, and his younger brother Yener Adal—and the other of Greek Cypriot background: Stavros Protz, who unfortunately could not join us here today in Canberra because, sadly, his mother, Maria Georges, passed away in Melbourne just a few days ago. Our sincere condolences to Stavros and his family. I'm sure he is here with us in spirit today. I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of the High Commissioner of Cyprus, Ms Martha Mavrommati, and the Cyprus consul, Mr Vakis Zissimos. I want to welcome them both to the Australian parliament. Inspired by British travel author Colin Thubron and his book Journey into Cyprus of the early 1970s, Yalcin and Stavros sought to emulate Thubron's pre-1974 walk by sending a message that irrespective of the history of division, for these two mates who have become brothers Cyprus has no boundaries, no barriers, no minefields, no checkpoints, no green lines, no ghost towns and no lost homelands. They walked across the width of Cyprus from east to west for 16 days over 350 kilometres between 21 March and 13 April this year. Theirs was a mission of peace and the experience life-changing. There were many highlights and memorable moments along the way as the local Cypriots followed and embraced with enthusiasm the journey of the two Australians. Midway through the journey, they stopped for a tree-planting ceremony at the Home for Cooperation in the buffer zone on 31 March. Yalcin and Stavros planted an indigenous myrtle tree known for its spiritual healing properties in the hope it will help to heal the beloved island of Cyprus. On their behalf I would like to thank all those who assisted and were involved in the tree-planting process in both its selection and day of planting. Of special significance was the involvement of my parliamentary colleagues who Yalcin and Stavros met here in Canberra prior to their departure: Senator Pat Dodson, the federal member for Barton, the member for Hindmarsh, the member for Grayndler and, of course, our Australian High Commissioner for Cyprus, Mr Alan Sweetman, for all of his on-the-ground support, including digging the hole for the tree to be planted in. Australia has been proactive in the involvement in Cyprus. Australian Federal Police have had the longest continuous presence in Cyprus, from 1964 until their departure in 2017 after 53 years. Australia supports the establishment of the bi-communal NGO Cyprus Academic Dialogue and the citizens' diplomacy program, instituted in 2010 during the Rudd-Gillard Labor government and a project that our Australian High Commission in Cyprus continues to support today under the present government. This is what we Australians do and we do best. Our distinctive, down-to-earth political acumen is to try to find practical solutions to what appear to be insurmountable problems. Inspired by Yalcin and Stavros' Journey into Cyprus: East2West, this motion proposes a simple, practical measure to the Australian government: to action its continued bipartisan support for the peacemaking efforts in Cyprus by reappointing a special envoy on Cyprus to actively promote dialogue, peace and reconciliation. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the motion seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:35 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh It is a great pleasure that I rise in support of this motion put forward by the member for Calwell. Back in February, I too, together with the member for Calwell and the member for Grayndler, met with Yalcin Adal and Stavros Tzortzis with the Australian Parliamentary Friends of Cyprus. The chair of the friends group, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese, joined with other members—including, as I said, the member for Calwell—to meet with these two young men. Yalcin and Stavros were determined to walk from east to west across Cyprus as a symbolic gesture to demonstrate that Cyprus was one country. The walk took 16 days, with over 350 kilometre walked. We know divisions within Cyprus traditionally run across the island. Yalcin and Stavros wanted to challenge those divisions in the name of peace, in the name of co-existence and the name of unification on the island. They crossed the United Nations buffer zone, the green line, several times during their walk. Those that us who have been to the green line can see the division of the island. We're not talking about a war-torn Middle Eastern country where tragic events are taking place; this is in the EU. This is in the centre of Europe, and it is very sad to see the buffer zone and the green line. As we know, in 1974, the island was occupied and nearly 40 per cent of the island still remains occupied. Since then, a so-called state has been declared, but it has only been recognised by one nation—the nation that invaded—in the entire world. Only they recognise that part of the island. It just happens that—ironically, as I said—only the northern part is recognised, and that is by the nation that invaded. There are still 1,600 people missing. These people still haven't been found. In that 40 per cent of the island, we have homes which owners have not been allowed to return to, and they are still not allowed to return. This walk was a symbol of peace, a symbol that people can work together and a symbol that there can be a just solution. Many UN resolutions have been called for. They basically have the same principle: respect for human rights and all of the people of the island. Here in Australia we can play a role, as we are doing today. Many members in this House have raised this issue and many of my colleagues in the South Australian parliament have also raised this issue. When you travel to Cyprus, as I have on a number of occasions, both as an individual and as part of delegations representing this parliament, it's an absolute tragedy to see such a wonderful island with such a rich history—the island of Aphrodite, as it was called in the Classical Greek times—divided in two. That is a real pity. I have gone along the green line, I have seen the demilitarised zone that divides the island and I have spoken with Australian UN peacekeeping forces there, from our Australian Federal Police, who have made such a wonderful contribution. They have been there for many, many years. It's a pity that, in 2017, the government saw fit to withdraw them. We can play a bigger and better role. Of course, not only can we raise this issue here in parliament but, most importantly, Australia can play a role in providing for the implementation of UN resolutions. I know that talks have been taking place recently between the two communities and different nations that have an involvement. We all hope for a just solution very soon. I support the motion put forward by the member for Calwell. It basically talks about congratulating all those involved in the Cyprus peace talks, especially the personal commitment of the Greek Cypriot leader, Nicos Anastasiades, and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mustafa Akinci. Today we have with us in the gallery the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus, Martha Mavrommati, as well. I'd like to acknowledge her presence here and the work that she does here in Australia raising these issues and doing all that she can to ensure that we keep this issue on the burner. The motion also recognises that, even though the 2015-17 Cyprus talks took place between the two compatible and affable leaders that I just spoke about—the rather diligent United Nations discussions that took place—we hope that these discussions continue and that people go back to the table so that we can see that just solution which has been so desperately needed since 1974, since the island was divided. We all hope and pray that one day the communities will live in peace and harmony together. 11:40 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler In the coming month, we will mark 44 years since the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, 44 years without a resolution—a nation divided, with 37 per cent of the island still occupied in contravention of a number of United Nations resolutions and with over 200,000 people displaced. This is the 11th time I have raised this issue in the parliament as a federal MP. I've had the privilege of visiting the island nation twice, once as an opposition member and once as a government minister. The hope of justice and reunification of the island, however, very much lives on, both in Cyprus and also here in Australia, another island nation, which more than 80,000 Cypriots of both Greek and Turkish background call home. I had the honour of convening a meeting on behalf of the Australia-Cyprus parliamentary friendship group with two Australian friends, Stavros Protz and Yalcin Adal, from Greek- and Turkish-Cypriot backgrounds respectively. These two great friends in Australia are examples of the fact that, in our multicultural nation, people live not just in harmony but with its diversity being a great strength. Stavros and Yalcin began the Journey into Cyprus: East2West initiative. Together, over 16 days beginning on 21 March and ending on 5 April, the two friends walked 400 kilometres through the middle of Cyprus to inspire reconciliation and support for a united island nation. Stavros and Yalcin, having successfully completed their journey, walking up to 30 kilometres a day over very rugged terrain, are here in Canberra today continuing to promote the common interest and harmony between all Cypriots. After reaching the St Hilarion Castle on top of the Kyrenia mountain range in Cyprus, the two friends found a window and announced their wish for the future of the island: We wish that one day the people of this island regardless of age, colour, ethnicity, gender and religion will be able to live freely. This echoes the message of a peaceful resolution that I put forward in my first speech to this parliament about Cyprus, way back in 1998. I said this 20 years ago: What is clear is that the Cypriot people, regardless of their origin, do want a peaceful resolution to this crisis. The sentiment has been demonstrated in an extraordinary way by these two friends through their East2West initiative. Their journey has quite literally brought the two sides of the conflict together to advocate for a peaceful resolution that has eluded the island nation for far too long. However, a solution, when it comes, must of course support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus, a single legitimate authority on the island: one nation, one citizenship, one international personality, one people. While the nation continues to be divided, its people—both those of Greek-Cypriot background and those of Turkish-Cypriot background—will suffer. Each year I attend a commemoration of the invasion of Cyprus at the Cyprus Community Club in my own electorate of Grayndler. Each year the crowd gathers and hopes for a peaceful resolution to the conflict that should come sooner rather than later. The journey of Stavros and Yalcin, taken together, has encouraged this peace to be brought forth. They exemplify two courageous people who are saying: 'Enough is enough.' It is in the interests of all of the people of Cyprus for the conflict to be resolved, for us to live in harmony side by side, just as people of Greek-Cypriot background and Turkish-Cypriot background live side by side in harmony right here in Australia, particularly in my electorate in the inner west of Sydney. I commend the motion to the House and I pay tribute to these two fine young Australians. Debate adjourned. BILLS 20 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018 20

Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Personal Income Tax Plan) Bill 2018

Assent 20 COMMITTEES 20 COMMITTEES Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security 20 Report 20 11:46 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report on the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HASTIE 260805 by leave—I am pleased to present the committee's report for its review of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017. The Prime Minister introduced the bill into the House on 7 December 2017 and referred it to the committee for inquiry and report. This bill works on the premise that transparent, lawful foreign influence is a good thing and an important part of Australian democracy. However, we cannot tolerate foreign influence activities that are in any way covert, coercive or corrupt. When foreign influence is advanced through an intermediary, the source of the influence is disguised. In such circumstances, decision-makers and the public alike may be unaware of the influences being brought to bear on Australian government decision-making. That is the line that separates legitimate influence from unacceptable interference. The bill seeks to address that problem by establishing the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme. The scheme will involve a public register. That register is intended to provide visibility of the level and extent of covert or obscured foreign influence in the course of political and governmental decision-making in this country. Under the bill, a person will be liable to register if they undertake certain activities that seek to influence Australian political or government decisions, on behalf of individuals and entities that are closely linked to a foreign government. During the committee's review of the bill, a large number of stakeholders supported its objective: to provide transparency of the level and extent of covert foreign influence in Australia. However, as the committee's report notes, stakeholders did express concern over the implementation of that objective in the text of the bill. A central concern was the breadth of key definitions that establish a person's liability to register under the scheme. To address many of those concerns, the Attorney-General wrote to the committee proposing a number of significant amendments. The committee welcomed those proposed amendments as a substantial contribution to narrowing the bill. The committee's report addresses both the bill as introduced and the Attorney-General's proposed amendments. Like many in this place, members of the committee have been concerned about the possibility of foreign parties influencing elections and government decisions in other liberal democracies. This committee supports the establishment of the scheme as part of a suite of responses to address that challenge. In its report, the committee has made 52 recommendations. Broadly, these recommendations address the following matters: (1) they further refine the scheme's scope, and the actors and activities that would be captured; (2) the activities that should be exempt from the scheme; (3) registrants' obligations for reporting and registering; (4) recalibrating the offences that will underpin the enforcement of the scheme; and (5) establishing appropriate oversight, review and implementation measures to ensure the scheme's effective operation. On the recommendations that address the scope of the scheme, the committee has recommended further tightening of the definition of foreign entities that will enliven a person's liability to register. These recommendations will provide greater clarity to the scheme's purpose, and to members of the Australian public when assessing their liability to register. The committee has also recommended that former cabinet ministers, ministers, members of parliament, and former senior public servants should carry additional obligations and for a longer period of time. This is appropriate as these former office holders continue to occupy positions of influence, after leaving office, in the Australian polity. The committee has also recommended that these obligations extend to senior staff working for ministers. To ensure that the scheme is only capturing the activities of identified concern, the committee has recommended that a range of appropriately targeted exemptions be established in the bill. This includes an exemption for charities, arts organisations and for certain professions such as tax agents engaged in their ordinary representations to government. The committee has also recommended a suite of measures to ensure that the obligations on registrants are appropriately framed. This includes amending the bill to provide clarity about ongoing disclosure requirements and reducing the time period for which records must be kept. Noting the broad powers of the secretary, the committee recommends some refinement to the processes and matters to be considered by the secretary before exercising those powers. This includes the power to issue provision transparency notices to provide the subject of those notices adequate procedural fairness. The committee further recommends that the government give some consideration to the development of an independent administrator after an initial period of operation. The committee has also considered the oversight and reporting architecture that will underpin the effective operation of the scheme. To that end, the committee recommends that various reviews and reports be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Lastly, the committee has recommended that a new scheme be developed for members of parliament to register their representations on behalf of foreign governments and related entities. The committee is of the view that it would be inappropriate for members of parliament to register and report to a departmental secretary. However, it is essential that visibility and transparency is also brought to bear on decision-makers in the parliament. Accordingly a parallel, transparency influence scheme for the parliament should be developed and apply to sitting members of this House and members of the other place. Following implementation of the recommendations in the report, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed. Before I close, I'd like to thank the deputy chair, the member for Holt, a true patriot in the fullest sense of the word; and also the member for Isaacs, who has brought his considerable legal experience to bear in the improvement of this bill. I thank the House and I commend the report to the House. 11:53 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs by leave—I thank the secretariat of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for their outstanding work in support of the committee members in this inquiry into what was and is a very complex piece of legislation. I'd like in particular to thank Anna, Lauren and James for consistently producing such a high quality of work under exceedingly tight deadlines. I want to say a little about the process for this inquiry too, because it was clearly unsatisfactory for a piece of legislation that—in the form in which it was introduced at least—had potentially far-reaching and negative consequences for civil society groups and, more broadly, for democratic freedoms in Australia. We in Labor certainly agree that there is a need for this parliament to address the potential threat posed by malign foreign government interference in our democracy. However, complex legislation that sets up new structures and defences, with criminal sanctions to enforce compliance, should not be rushed, nor should such bills be developed in secret and then introduced without any form of consultation—as was the bill that is the subject of this inquiry—because, as the extensive amendments to the bill recommended in this bipartisan report of the intelligence committee make clear, the bill that the Prime Minister introduced on 7 December last year was riddled with problems. The release of exposure drafts of complex legislation of this kind is one way to ensure that problems are identified and addressed before the bill is formally introduced. This process, which Labor often adopted in government, enables the parliament to call on the considerable expertise in the Australian community to strengthen draft legislation, and those with concerns to have the opportunity to air those concerns and have them addressed at an early stage. I think this process is particularly important when a bill introduces criminal sanctions with a potentially significant impact on longstanding rights and freedoms, as this bill clearly does. In any event the process of releasing an exposure draft has not been followed by the Abbott and Turnbull governments, and instead we have national security bills introduced in flawed form, which are then substantially amended following analysis and recommendations for change by the intelligence committee. However, even the intelligence committee process for this bill has been far less than ideal, in large part because the time allowed for public comment was too short. The bill was referred to the committee upon its introduction on 7 December last year for report in February. Public comment was called for over the subsequent holiday period, with public hearings to occur on 30 and 31 January. The time for the committee to report was then extended to 23 March, with another public hearing held during that month. A long delay then occurred, with the government considering a range of amendments. Those amendments were finally produced six months to the day after the introduction of the bill, but, despite the significance of the changes in the amendments proposed by the Attorney-General, only a matter of days were allowed for public comment. I conclude by saying that the bill as introduced to the parliament was clearly not fit for purpose. It contained an array of serious problems that, if left unaddressed, would have severely impacted upon the rights of individuals and would have imposed a massive administrative burden on civil society groups such as charities, who are working only to improve our nation. It was a bill that clearly showed all the hallmarks of the previous Attorney-General, who in his valedictory speech said that he had worked on the foreign interference legislation: … with intense focus for most of the year— and which he described as one of the: … great pieces of law reform by which I had hoped to define my attorney-generalship … I also extend my thanks to the current Attorney-General for listening to public concerns about the many flaws in the bill and for working constructively with Labor to produce amendments that deal with many of those concerns. I look forward to seeing the final form of this bill, and thank the other members of the intelligence committee for their work during the debates we had about this bill. 11:58 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt by leave—I second the comments that have been made by the chair and the shadow Attorney-General. I too want to stress, particularly for those sitting in the gallery and elsewhere, the strongly bipartisan nature of this committee and, in reflecting on the bipartisanship of this committee, extend my deep thanks to the committee secretariat, many of whom laboured literally day and night to produce this report. This is a bill of amazing complexity. It has taken some period of time, as the shadow Attorney-General has said, to bring it to a form where it can be properly submitted to the House. There are some that will have disputations about how that happened, but the work of the committee and of those members that comprised that committee has effectively produced recommendations that will make this legislation palatable to this parliament and to the Australian people. Make no mistake: the legislation that will, hopefully, be submitted with the appropriate amendments, I suspect, will be required by this parliament to safeguard the Australian people against foreign influence threats. We know that we live in a rapidly changing world, and it is a world in which, as we have seen overseas, great foreign powers have sought to influence democracies. I see the intent of the government's legislation, in the two bills that it brought before the parliament on 7 December, as to protect the Australian democracy from subversion by foreign influence. However, as the shadow Attorney-General said, they could have been brought to this parliament in far better form. I too thank the current Attorney-General for the work he's done and the very cooperative spirit in which he has worked with the shadow Attorney-General, with myself and with the chair of the joint intelligence committee. In this matter we need bipartisanship, and in this matter bipartisanship was shown by every member of that committee. Bipartisanship is not an easy thing when you're dealing with a matter as complex as this, with differences of opinion about how best to implement this legislation to safeguard our nation's integrity. The mechanism that has been chosen by this government now for some 11 to 12 tranches of security and other legislation is a unique vehicle in many ways, particularly compared to other committees in Western democracies like the ISC, HPSCI and the Senate intelligence committee, with far more staff than those that are sitting over there from the secretariat. I would say one thing with respect to this legislation in particular: it is critical that there be independent oversight. I would urge the government, as we as a bipartisan committee have in these recommendations, that there must be an independent statutory authority that exercises this power, so that we can guarantee that this scheme remains transparent, open and free from claims of political interference, and not put the secretary of the department in what I believe to be an onerous position. The Attorney-General's Department is an oversight department. As you can see the government is aiming to ensure that the Attorney-General's Department is the protector and guarantor of civil liberties and protections in laws framed in this parliament. I think the independent statutory officer would give perfect effect to the desire was spoken about by the Prime Minister on 7 December last year. I also commend the report to the House, and I would say to those who are listening and to the Australian people: bipartisanship is not an easy thing. We are talking about tax cuts and a whole range of other things, but I reassure those in the gallery, those listening and fellow parliamentarians that this committee, under substantial strain and duress, has produced a report which I think will stand the test of time and, in doing so, give us the laws our country needs to protect us from foreign interference into the future. BILLS 23 BILLS Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018 23

Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 23 12:03 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan We welcome the application of current indexation rates to existing amounts and the increase in funding caps commencing in 2020 and 2021 for the Australian Research Council. The Australian Research Council, ARC, performs a vital role in funding quality research at universities. The role of universities is not just to teach but also to inquire, analyse, probe and inform policy. This is done through research, and the Australian Research Council supports that. I've often referred to the Australian Research Council grants as winning the nerd lottery for academics, and I've been fortunate, in my academic career prior to entering parliament, to have won three nerd lotteries. It was an ARC grant that allowed me to undertake my PhD, in which I developed a metric of fear of terrorism and a survey of behavioural responses to terrorism in Australia. I also won and worked on three other Australian Research Council grants. In 2013, I was awarded a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award grant, which allowed me to work with victims of terrorism to develop a policy response that incorporated their voices in the development of counterterrorism programs and policies. I also worked on a linkage grant that tracked the Twitter activities of violent jihadist and violent white supremacist groups, and just before entering parliament I was awarded, in 2016, a discovery grant that would have enabled the first international study, with the United Kingdom and Israel, looking at the actual contexts in which online propaganda by violent jihadists influenced young minds here in Australia and around the world. But we can't have a discussion about the importance of our universities and research programs without also talking about this government's university funding freeze, which has a devastating impact on the ability of our world-class universities to deliver this kind of research that not only informs policy but also informs the way in which we as a society respond to global issues, like terrorism. Universities have been struck by the federal government's funding freeze and that means they'll be forced to go without up to 15 per cent of their base funding—15 per cent is quite a big chunk out of universities' base funding. It impacts on their capability to undertake research around current and important global issues that is informative, not just for Australia but for Australia's place in the world, and indeed for the world. An estimated 10,000 university places will go unfunded this year because of these budget cuts—this is according to Universities Australia. Data obtained by the ABC reveals that regional universities will be the hardest hit. The impact is greater for Australia's top-ranked institutions, which is raising fears of skills shortages in rural areas. The Regional Universities Network has pointed to several programs that are now under threat because of the funding shortfall. The cuts the network has identified include cuts to Central Queensland University, meaning that it may no longer be able to cover the full cost of hospital placements for its nursing students; no new places in health courses at the Port Macquarie campus of Charles Sturt University; and Southern Cross University will not enrol any students in their new health courses at Coffs Harbour, despite having funding for new facilities at the campus. Not everyone wants to go to university, not everyone needs to go to university and not everyone should go to university, but all Australians should have the opportunity for a university education if that is what they want for their lives. Personally, it has been my access to and my opportunity to attend university that have enabled me to raise myself and my family out of a cycle of poverty. It was by being able to return to university as a mature aged student, as a single parent raising two children, that enabled me to gain the qualifications I needed to pursue the career I had as an academic, prior to entering parliament. Universities aren't just for those who are leaving school. They also offer a pathway for women returning to work, particularly in the regions and particularly for mature aged learners. I call on this government to look at the impact that these university cuts will have not just on the ability of universities to teach and offer courses to students, particularly young students and particularly women returning to work, or even mature aged students, but also on the world-class research that Australian universities are conducting in a range of areas: in health and the medical fields, in social issues, and in literature and the arts. We may not immediately recognise the value of some of the research projects that the ARC is funding. In fact, every time a new round of ARC grants is announced, I note that some media outlets like to have a bit of a go at what the ARC is funding. Yes, sometimes it is difficult to fully realise on first sight the impact or the contribution of those research programs. As an academic and someone who had a career in academia for several years before entering parliament, I would urge everyone to have a look at exactly what it is that research does and how it contributes not just to health, medicine, science and technology but also to shaping the kind of Australia that we want—the future of Australia and Australia's place in this global world. Once again, we welcome the application of the indexation rates to the funding and the increase in funding caps with the passing of this bill and would hope to encourage further funding for research, particularly at our universities in Australia. 12:10 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2018 and welcome the support of those opposite for this bill. The bill allows the ARC to continue to support Australia's best researchers to undertake the highest quality fundamental and applied research and research training. The bill increases the funding caps in the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to continue the Turnbull government's strong support for research projects that are expanding Australia's research and scientific capabilities and providing many thousands of direct and indirect jobs. I commend the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 24 12:12 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018 25

National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018

Second Reading 25 12:12 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018 would give effect to the mandating of a comprehensive credit reporting regime. Under this regime, large authorised deposit-taking institutions, or ADIs—basically the big banks in Australia—must then provide comprehensive credit information on credit accounts to certain credit-reporting bodies. This is a principle that Labor supports. In government, we made changes to the Privacy Act to facilitate voluntary comprehensive credit reporting. This gave credit providers the permission but not the requirement to share comprehensive credit information on customers' accounts. That took effect in 2014. In the lead-up to the last election, Labor promised a policy of introducing mandatory comprehensive credit reporting, which was dependent on the outcome of a review. As such, Labor supports the principles that are covered by this bill. However, it doesn't mean that we're giving the government a 100 per cent tick for what they've done. I'm flagging that Labor intends to move in the Senate amendments relating to the elements of consumer repayment history information and when that would take effect because, at the moment, there's a review going on that is being conducted by the Attorney-General's Department. It is a review of financial hardship arrangements. We feel that it would be better if that review was completed and the government received the findings of that review and was able to respond accordingly to that review before some of the measures in this bill take effect. We'll move those technical amendments in the Senate only, and we'll not be moving any of those amendments in the House. As part of this bill, the scheme is meant to commence from 1 July 2018, with large ADIs required to collect information on accounts from 1 April 2018. The intention is to allow credit providers to obtain a comprehensive view of consumers' financial situation, enabling a provider to better meet its responsible lending obligations. The government claims that this scheme will benefit consumers by providing better access to credit and more competitive rates depending on an individual's credit history. It's argued that consumers would be able to better show their creditworthiness when seeking to enter the housing market, for example, or undertake other personal loans. The regime applies to eligible licensees, which are large authorised deposit-taking institutions with total resident assets in excess of $100 billion. So, basically, we're talking about the bigger banking institutions in Australia that hold a credit licence also in this country. Other credit providers may be included as prescribed by regulation. The supply of information under this scheme includes an initial bulk supply of information and an ongoing requirement to keep that information up to date and accurate. The initial bulk supply is split into two years, with information on 50 per cent of consumer credit accounts within the banking group to be supplied by 28 September 2018 to all credit-reporting bodies that the large ADIs had contracted with over the last few years, as at November 2017. Information on the remaining 50 per cent of accounts, including those accounts opened after 1 July 2018 and those held by subsidiaries to large ADIs, is to be supplied by 28 September 2019. The information that is provided to credit-reporting agencies is defined as personal information other than sensitive information, and I think that's a pretty important issue to distinguish. We're not talking about some of the sensitive personal information here in relation to consumer credit accounts. We're talking about other information associated with a person's identity; default information in respect of previous attempts at credit and successes at credit; payment information; new arrangements information; consumer credit liability information; and repayment history information. The regime in this bill will significantly increase the sharing of consumer credit liability information and repayment history information. The security and privacy of that information is no doubt a concern for people, and that is to be preserved and protected, relying on the existing protections that are currently enshrined in the Privacy Act and the privacy code, as well as the oversight of the Australian Information Commissioner. So Australians can have every confidence that their privacy and their information will be preserved under existing legislation. While the regime will not alter the existing provisions, there is a new obligation on credit-reporting bodies as to where and how data is stored. This data must be stored in Australia or with a service that is listed by the Australian Signals Directorate as being a certified cloud service or that meets the conditions of the privacy code. ASIC is to be given responsibility for monitoring the compliance of the banks and the mandatory comprehensive credit-reporting regime. There are civil and criminal penalties in this bill which can be sought by ASIC for noncompliance with the regime. However, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner will remain responsible for the compliance of credit-reporting bodies with the Privacy Act, including the rights of consumers to free credit reports and to have incorrect information corrected. So, if consumers have any concerns about false or incorrect information being circulated by some of these bodies in respect of their credit history, there will be a mechanism for some form of correction of that information. The Treasurer will receive statements from large ADIs and credit-reporting bodies to show that the initial bulk supply requirements have been met. There's also a review mechanism under which the Treasurer must cause an independent review of the mandatory regime to be completed and a written report provided to Treasury by 1 January 2022. The Treasurer must table the report at each house of parliament within 15 days of receiving the report. I'd like to make a couple of comments about the financial hardship arrangements review. It's noted that in March 2018 the Attorney-General separately announced that there would be a review of financial hardship arrangements. This was to include how the current financial hardship arrangements intersect with consumer credit reporting frameworks. The review is expected to be completed in late 2018. I'm not sure if one side of the government is talking to the other side, but the timing of this review has been poor given that this comprehensive credit reporting regime, which involves the issue of financial hardship arrangements via the repayment history information, is meant to start on 1 July this year. Views from the Senate inquiry into this bill are testament to the issue that this has caused for many working in the industry and the lack of understanding of what the government is actually up to here with this deadline and the starting date for this legislation. A variety of stakeholders, including consumer groups, banks and credit associations, have all expressed concerns that consumers would be disadvantaged if repayment history information was provided prior to the Attorney-General's review being completed. The joint submission from the Financial Rights Legal Centre, the Consumer Action Law Centre, Financial Counselling Australia, the Australian Privacy Foundation and the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network stated that the government to date has not addressed problems with the way financial hardship is treated within the repayment history information. The Australian Banking Association in their submission stated: Without an agreed resolution and legislative change, the credit standing of those customers who are unable to meet their repayment obligations due to financial hardship are likely to be detrimentally affected. They are likely to be lumped together with those customers who simply don't comply with their repayment obligations. Ideally, if the completion of the Attorney-General's Department's review can be brought forward, this increases the probability of a fairer and more favourable outcome for consumers, banks and other credit providers in the credit reporting system, and with the transition of RHI within the mandatory CCR legislation to be preceded by a settlement. The Australian Retail Credit Association also acknowledged that there would be problems with the timing of the commencement of the CCR and the Attorney-General's review, and the Financial Rights Legal Centre stated that consumers will be negatively impacted if the regime started prior to the Attorney-General's review being completed. They supported a one-year delay to allow that review to be completed. So there is strong evidence here in terms of the review and the feedback from the industry, and we think it's perfectly reasonable that the supply of repayment history information be delayed until after the Attorney-General's review is complete and the government has responded to its recommendations. There are also, understandably, issues around privacy. A significant amount of Australian consumer credit data will be stored in one place, which does raise issues about breaches of privacy. We saw in the United States in 2017 the now-infamous data breach involving Equifax, where up to 140 million Americans had personal and financial data exposed, and it's important we have a proper framework in place to deal with potential risks such as this in the future. During the Senate inquiry we did hear evidence from the ABA that provisions in the bill were sufficient assuming that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner could fulfil its role in relation to privacy laws. We trust that the government has actually done its homework on this issue and will continue to review whether the provisions put in place offer sufficient protection to consumers' personal and financial data. The issue of the benefits of the regime was also raised in the Senate inquiry. Whilst there was a suggestion the regime would be used to boost profits rather than maximise consumer benefits, we will monitor this element closely to see if consumer benefits are actually increased and whether or not detriment does occur. In summary, Labor support the principles that are covered by this bill, but we won't be giving the government a green light on this. We intend to flag, as I mentioned earlier, moving amendments that will delay elements of consumer repayment history information by one year in the Senate. This will allow for the Attorney-General's review of financial hardship arrangements to be completed and for the government to respond appropriately. 12:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I appreciate the House's time in moving this matter fairly quickly through this chamber to enable this important reform to be dealt with in the Senate at the earliest possible opportunity. The bill will increase competition in the lending market by reducing the credit data advantage held by the major banks. This bill is about empowering customers and making banks more competitive, which is what our banking system needs. We're all very aware of the many challenges that exist in the banking and financial system. We also know that our banking and financial system is fundamentally strong. We do not have any financial stability risks associated with our banking system. It is one of the most resilient banking systems in the world; but, that said, we do want a banking system that is more accountable, more sustainable and more competitive. This measure is designed to achieve, in particular, a greater competitiveness, a higher level of competition, in our banking and financial system. It will provide more Australians with better credit opportunities and enable credit providers to make more responsible lending decisions. It's a game changer for customers and it will lead to better deals on mortgages, personal loans and small business loans. Customers with good credit histories will be able to obtain lower rates and be better placed to shop around, because their credit history will now become available to all credit providers. Others, whose previous credit histories only included default rates, will also get a better chance to demonstrate their credit worthiness, because there will be more credit information available on their reliability. So, when they're trying to get back on the horse, they'll get recognition for doing just that. Many small-business owners will gain better and faster access to credit, allowing them to invest more in their growing businesses. The US, the UK and New Zealand already have strong comprehensive credit reporting regimes, and we need to catch up to the rest of the world when it comes to this area. We shouldn't be delaying it; we should be getting on with it. While credit providers have had the ability to voluntarily share comprehensive credit information since 2014, the take-up has been poor. Industry has not been able to resolve a critical first-mover problem and the system has not created sufficient critical mass to incentivise small credit providers to participate in the credit reporting system. This bill resolves this problem by requiring the four major banks, who currently make up more than 80 per cent of all household lending, to participate fully in the CCR system. Under these reforms, the four major banks must supply 50 per cent of their comprehensive credit information to credit reporting bodies within 90 days from 1 July this year. The information on the remaining accounts, including those that open after 1 July 2018, must be supplied within 90 days from 1 July 2019. This information must be supplied to every eligible credit reporting body—that is, every credit reporting body that meets the standards under the Privacy Act and had a contract with the bank on 2 November 2017. Whilst the bill limits the initial mandatory bulk supply to these three bodies, nothing in the bill prevents additional credit reporting bodies from entering into supply agreements with credit providers and competing with the established bodies. The government strongly supports competition in the credit reporting market. Following the initial supply of information, the four major banks must keep the information supplied accurate, complete and up to date, including by supplying information on subsequently opened accounts. At this point in time, the government does not propose to extend this mandate to the next tier of credit providers. We believe that the critical mass delivered by the major four banks will be sufficient. However, if participation is inadequate, the government could mandate certain credit providers through a regulation-making power in this bill. The security of customer information is also our highest priority. Under these reforms, the Australian Information Commissioner will continue to have oversight over the management of Australian personal data, including credit information. Banks will continue to use their bilateral arrangements to perform audits and ensure that the credit-reporting bodies continue to upgrade their security systems to meet the changing threat environment. In addition, this bill will strengthen the privacy and security provisions established under the Privacy Act. We are extending the security provisions under the Privacy Act to ensure that all credit-reporting bodies store their data in Australia or in a secure cloud service certified by the Australian Signals Directorate. We are requiring credit providers to satisfy themselves that a credit-reporting body is meeting reasonable security standards before they supply the mandatory credit information. The inclusion of these provisions follows extensive consultation with industry, consumer advocacy groups and security agencies and will allow Australians to rest easy, knowing that credit-reporting information is stored safely and securely. Where credit providers and credit-reporting bodies are subject to requirements under the bill, they will be subject to penalties if they fail to comply. Enforcement of these requirements will be the responsibility of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, who will be granted the appropriate powers to collect information and require audits to confirm that these requirements are being met. Credit providers and credit-reporting bodies will also be required to provide statements to the Treasurer in January of 2019 and 2020, certifying their compliance with the initial supply provisions of the bill. The mandatory-reporting regime recognises that industry stakeholders have already taken steps to support sharing comprehensive credit information. To the greatest extent possible, this bill allows industry participants to continue to benefit from the protections and principles embedded in the existing industry-established framework. This bill also requires government to conduct a statutory review of its operation prior to 1 January 2022, with a written report to be tabled in parliament within 15 days of receipt. This will provide an opportunity to review whether the bill has met its objectives and whether legislation needs to be updated to adjust the scope or operation of the comprehensive credit-reporting system. This bill is in response to the recommendations made both by the Financial System Inquiry and in the Productivity Commission's inquiry into data availability and use. It is time to move forward with this. There have been the reviews. There have been the consultations. The model has been worked up. There has been the opportunity for industry to adopt this independently. We have done all this; it's now time to get on with it and to ensure that customers get the best possible deal in this country from the banking and financial system. This is a further tool that they will have. This is a further armoury for them, to ensure that customers in our banking and financial system are empowered with their own information, their own data, and that we take advantage of the significant revolutions that are taking place with respect to data as a source of value for customers to be used to ensure that they can get the best services and the best financial products that are available to them. The bill will improve the operation of our lending markets. It will improve competition, and it will reduce the credit data asymmetry between the four major banks and the smaller lenders. There have been enough excuses for not moving ahead with this in the past, and the time for excuses on moving ahead with this has now also ended. It's imperative for us to move forward with these important reforms, as we are in so many areas in the banking and financial system. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 28 12:34 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 28

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018

Second Reading 28 12:34 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I foreshadow at the outset that Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018, but we will be moving an amendment to the start date of schedule 3 in the consideration in detail stage. I will return later in my remarks to the precise reason for that. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill contains a series of tax integrity measures. Schedules 1 and 2 of the bill implement parts of the OECD's hybrid mismatch rules, which are designed to prevent entities that are liable to income tax in Australia from avoiding income tax or getting a double non-taxation benefit by exploiting differences in the tax treatment of entities and instruments across different countries. As the explanatory memorandum notes, the new amendments: limit the scope of the exemption for foreign branch income; and prevent a deduction from arising for payments made by an Australian branch of a foreign bank to its head office in some circumstances. They also: deny imputation benefits on franked distributions made by an Australian corporate tax entity if all or part of the distribution gives rise to a foreign income tax deduction; and prevent certain foreign equity distributions received, directly or indirectly, by an Australian corporate tax entity from being non-assessable non-exempt income if all or part of the distribution gives rise to a foreign income tax deduction. Unfortunately, between announcing this measure and bringing it to the House, the government has missed its originally proposed implementation date of 1 July 2018. The implementation date is now a year later, 1 July 2019. As a consequence, revenue has potentially been lost, although, according to Treasury, the gain to revenue of this measure is unquantifiable. Labor supports this measure, as we have other multinational tax measures that the government has brought to the House. The government often likes to claim Labor voted against the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. That is a lie. Labor did not vote against the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law. What the government is misrepresenting is our attempt during that debate to improve tax transparency. It was an amendment, not a vote against the bill. We always supported the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law despite the fact that we have been sceptical that it is the panacea that the government has proposed. When it comes to voting against measures to close multinational tax loopholes, let's talk about a party that did vote against closing multinational tax loopholes. In 2012 and 2013, Labor changed transfer pricing laws in a way that the coalition voted against. Those laws were subsequently used to secure a tax judgement against Chevron that was worth some $300 million to the budget. But rather than walking back into this House and saying, 'We got it wrong when, in opposition, we voted against Labor's tightening of multinational tax avoidance laws,' the government instead attempted to claim credit for the Chevron High Court victory. That was despite the fact that, if they had their way, the loophole would have stayed open and the budget would be hundreds of millions of dollars worse off. Labor improved transparency, and we are committed to extending that to tackling tax havens. We have a comprehensive set of policies to tackle tax havens that would ensure better reporting to the Australian Taxation Office of the use of tax havens by government tenderers, working with superannuation funds on the way in which they deal with tax haven investments. Labor is committed as well to public country-by-country reporting, which ensures that civil society has appropriate oversight. It is interesting to note from recent reports that the European Union appears to be moving strongly in that direction as well. Yes, we welcome the government implementing the OECD hybrid mismatch rules, but that is a small part of what needs to be done to crack down on multinational profit shifting. The fact is that this is a government that just isn't serious about getting tough with the big end of town. This is a government which is, right now in the Senate, attempting to ram through tax cuts for big businesses—many of them multinationals—where the beneficiaries in the first round would be offshore shareholders. As a result of our dividend imputation scheme, the first-round beneficiaries of a corporate tax cut to big firms are offshore shareholders. Yet the government is committed to that and wants Australia to believe that they're doing something about multinational tax avoidance. We'll support these modest measures, as Labor supported the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law, but they need to go further. They need to crack down on tax havens and crack down on multinational profit shifting. Only Labor has led the way on that. Schedule 4 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide an income tax exemption for the International Cricket Council Business Corporation and to exempt from withholding tax payments of interest, dividends and royalties made to the IBC. That provides support to the International Cricket Council staging the ICC World Twenty20 in Australia in 2020. The measure applies to assessable income derived on and from 1 July and to interest, dividend and royalty withholding tax liabilities arising on and from 1 July 2018. It was announced by the Treasurer on 8 May 2018 as part of this year's budget. It's common for major events to receive this tax treatment, consistent with what the previous Labor government did in relation to the Cricket World Cup held in Australia in 2015. Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to list Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee Inc. as a deductible gift recipient under the income tax law, which means donations given to the memorial between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019 are tax deductible. That was announced as part of a measure contained in the 2017-18 MYEFO to list a number of deductible gift recipients. The cost to revenue has been estimated at $1.1 million over the forward estimates to 2020-21. I come now to the amendment that I will move in the consideration in detail stage. Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that the film producer offset is better targeted at supporting the Australian film industry when an offshore location is used for principal photography. The amendment as drafted applies to expenditure incurred in relation to films that commence principal photography on or after 1 July 2017. The government's argument has been that this measure will ensure the offset works as intended. The measure reduces expenditure by $6 million over the forward estimates, and we do appreciate the briefing from Treasury on the matter that followed our request. But the specifics of the legislation came as a surprise to many in the film industry. While the measure was announced in broad terms in the May 2017 budget, the draft legislation was not available until a year later, May 2018. So many film sector stakeholders contacted my offices and the office of the shadow minister for the arts saying that there hadn't been appropriate consultation and there wasn't a regulatory impact statement. So much for the government's avowed commitment to regulatory impact statements! There was none in this case. The stakeholders also said that the measure was retrospective—that they were being hit in May 2018 with a measure that was to take effect from July 2017. Labor supports tax integrity measures, as I've outlined earlier in my remarks. We have urged the government to go further in closing loopholes in the area of multinational tax avoidance, but we do have a strong belief that retrospectivity is not appropriate in this case. Noting the lack of sector consultation and the retrospective nature of this change, Labor will move a detailed amendment in the House to make the start date 1 July 2018. We understand the government is supporting the amendment, which would indeed be a good outcome for parliament and for the Australian film sector. 12:43 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin Firstly, I thank all those members who have contributed to the debate. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 incorporates several measures which are designed to improve the sustainability and integrity of both the Australian and international tax systems and to support local initiatives. Schedules 1 and 2 to the bill implement the OECD hybrid mismatch rules. These rules will prevent multinational companies from gaining an unfair tax advantage due to differences in the tax treatment of a particular instrument or entity between jurisdictions. The rules also include an integrity rule which will apply where a taxpayer attempts to circumvent the hybrid mismatch rules by routing funds through foreign interposed entities with the aim of gaining an Australian income tax deduction and deliberately avoiding those hybrid mismatch rules. The hybrid mismatch rules build upon previous government actions on tax avoidance, including the introduction of stronger transfer pricing rules, the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Law and the diverted profits tax. The government has also increased penalties for companies that fail to take reasonable care when making statements to the ATO and has expanded the ATO's capacity, through the tax avoidance task force. Schedule 3 to this bill clarifies the expenditure that can be claimed under the producer offset for films undertaking principal photography overseas. The government is a proud supporter of the Australian screen industry and the producer offset allows production companies to claim a tax rebate, on qualifying Australian production expenditure, for films with significant Australian content. In situations where the subject matter of the Australian film reasonably requires shooting in a foreign location, some overseas expenditure may be claimed. For example, a documentary about Gallipoli would require some filming to take place in Turkey. The amendment ensures that only expenditure relating to services performed by Australian residents, including cast and crew, can be claimed under the so-called 'Gallipoli clause'. The amendment ensures the producer offset continues to serve its policy objective to support the Australian screen industry and strengthens and encourages the employment and use of Australian-resident cast and crew on productions filming overseas. Schedule 4 to the bill will deliver on the government's 2018-19 budget promise to provide a five-year income tax exemption to a subsidiary of the International Cricket Council. The exemption will assist the International Cricket Council to stage the ICC World Twenty20 in Australia in the year 2020. The bill will provide to the IBC an exemption from withholding tax liability for interest, dividend and royalty payments over that same period. Schedule 5 to the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to include the Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee Inc as a specifically-listed deductible gift recipient, between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019. This allows members of the public to receive income tax deductions for donations they make between those dates to the Melbourne Korean War Memorial Committee. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 30 12:47 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move opposition amendment (1) circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 90 (line 13), omit "1 July 2017", substitute "1 July 2018". There is no need to add to my earlier remarks. I have articulated why Labor believes the bill should be amended so as to change the start date from 1 July 2017 to 1 July 2018. 12:47 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin The government will support Labor's amendment. We're essentially just doing so in the interests of obtaining bipartisan support for this bill. The bill contains the important tax integrity measures I've just outlined. It forms part of our comprehensive approach to multinational tax avoidance and, of course, the changes in relation to supporting our film industry. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 31 12:48 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018 31

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018

Second Reading 31 12:49 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner Unpaid superannuation is a significant challenge for Australia. Labor is pleased that the government is—belatedly—taking action on unpaid super. Industry Super Australia, not the government's favourite body these days, has previously estimated that 2.4 million workers are losing $5.6 billion in payments every year. That is the equivalent of those workers losing $2,000 a year. That is money that should be going into their retirement savings. Unpaid superannuation is wage theft—pure and simple—because superannuation is delayed compensation. If you're not paying superannuation, that is as bad as not putting money into the worker's pay packet. It is as bad as the scandals we have seen over recent years of employees being paid in cash and being asked to hand some of that cash back to the employer—that is, it is morally equivalent to that behaviour. Superannuation theft is wage theft. That's why in December 2016, Labor moved to establish a Senate inquiry into the nonpayment of superannuation. That inquiry heard many cases where employers weren't meeting their superannuation obligations. It made a series of recommendations about strengthening compliance to ensure that workers received the superannuation to which they were entitled. The government—spurred on by that important Senate inquiry—finally set up their own cross-agency working group, and the bill before the House today includes some of the recommendations from that cross-agency working group. The bill includes changes that would allow the tax commissioner, in cases where employers failed to comply with their superannuation guarantee obligations, to issue directions to pay unpaid superannuation and to undertake appropriate education courses. Failure to comply with those directions can lead to criminal charges. It allows the tax commissioner to disclose more information about superannuation guarantee noncompliance by affected employees. It extends Single Touch Payroll reporting to all employers, facilitates more regular reporting by superannuation funds, improves the operation of the commissioner's collection and compliance measures and streamlines employee commencement processes. Labor supports the measures in this bill. They will go part of the way towards addressing the significant problem of unpaid superannuation in this country. At the same time as the government are moving these measures, they are proposing a superannuation guarantee amnesty for employers who haven't paid the workers their superannuation guarantee. That would give employers who haven't paid superannuation to their employees a penalty holiday. It doesn't just cover the last year or two; it goes back 25 years. If you believe that superannuation theft is as bad as wage theft, why would you have an amnesty going back 25 years? Why would you just let those who had ripped off workers to get away with it, to be given a tax break, to not be subject to appropriate penalties? When welfare recipients do the wrong thing, the government comes down on them like a tonne of bricks but, when dodgy bosses do the wrong things, it's a few feathers floating down on their shoulders. The government just can't help giving more and more to businesses. As we see today, the government are not supporting penalty rates. They are taking away penalty rates from low-paid workers but, at the same time, are trying to push through a tax cut for big business. That amnesty was a complete surprise. There wasn't consultation that preceded it. It wasn't recommended by the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into superannuation guarantee nonpayment. Indeed, it wasn't even recommended by the government's own cross-agency working group. The Turnbull government's proposed changes would mean that an employer who hadn't paid superannuation entitlements for 25 years could pay it back during the amnesty, without a single penalty. The government want to give such employers a free pass. Labor believe they should be subject to significant penalties. Those penalties would normally include an SG charge—the SG shortfall nominal interest and the $20 employee per quarter administration component—and penalties of up to 200 per cent of the amount of the SG general interest charge where the superannuation guarantee charge or penalties aren't paid by the due date. But, under the government's proposed amnesty, the administration component of the superannuation guarantee charge and the penalties would be waived. Even worse, the superannuation guarantee charge and contributions offset against the superannuation guarantee charge would become tax deductible for employers. So dodgy employers who hadn't paid superannuation for their workers would get a tax break under this proposed amnesty. Indeed, this is obviously something that was dreamed up in a dodgy back room, because, when we asked the Prime Minister about it during question time, he clearly had no idea what was going on. There was no announcement of it in the budget. It was presumably a decision taken but not announced. It was only when the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services mentioned it that the public first got wind of what was going on. Labor believe in cracking down on unpaid superannuation. Labor believe that employers who do the wrong thing should be subject to appropriate penalties. That's why we've had a strong package for dealing with dodgy phoenix activity. That's why Labor believe that we need adherence to the law, not one set of laws for regular Australians and a different set of laws for employers that rip off their workers' superannuation. The bill also includes changes in schedule 8 that will tidy up changes made in previous government bills. This does, unfortunately, remind us of the debacle in 2016 when the government announced a rushed and flawed superannuation package in the 2016 budget and then, after concerns over retrospectivity, scrapped the flawed package and announced a revised package. It rushed to legislate, and this schedule 8 is engaging in some necessary cleaning up of that second package. The bill that's being cleaned up only just passed the parliament in February this year but already the government is needing to tidy up the transitional agreements. It is not clear why it couldn't get it right in February 2018. Labor will support these measures. Finally, the bill allows three entities to become deductible gift recipients. They are Australian Philanthropic Services Ltd, Foundation 1901 Ltd and Sydney Chevra Kadisha. As the shadow minister for charities and not-for-profits, I am pleased to say that Labor will be supporting these organisations receiving tax deductibility status. They are among many great charities and not-for-profits in Australia doing important work in our community. 12:57 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It gives me a great deal of pleasure to talk about this bill because, in my area, unfortunately, there are too many instances of people paying their workers but not paying their superannuation. As someone who's worked as an itinerant worker at times when I was somewhat younger, somewhat fitter and somewhat buffer and better looking, doing lots more physical work— Dr Aly interjecting— Mr BROAD 30379 Am I embellishing? Am I misleading the House? When I was somewhat younger and working in shearing sheds, I was always conscious that there were times when people would be doing that sort of work and their employers wouldn't be paying them their superannuation. This bill, I think, does have some merit. I know there's always been some angst about, 'Are we letting some people who have been doing the wrong thing off the hook by giving them a 12-month amnesty?' The first thing I want to say is that what I want is for people who haven't been paid to get paid. That is probably more important to me than seeking a prosecution early. But, of course, an amnesty is not letting them off the hook long term. It just means we want to make sure Australians who have worked hard get their full entitlement and benefit from their work and that their work and their wage does include their superannuation. There's a misconception, perhaps, by some in small business. It's a misconception there is really no excuse for anymore, considering that superannuation has been around for a very long time. That misconception is somehow that the money that is paid to superannuation is the employer's money, not the employee's money. I want to make sure that people in my electorate know that isn't the case and that, if you work, part of the money you earn is superannuation and you are due that superannuation. You should be paid that superannuation. That superannuation is for your benefit, particularly in your retirement. I will also say that, whilst there's always some controversy around superannuation—I know there was when it was first introduced—it has proved to be a very wise political and economical way of dealing with an ageing population. The fact that we can look into our forward liabilities with our senior Australians and know that we've got close to $2 trillion worth of money sitting in superannuation I think has been a very wise thing. I take a view that I also want to allow people, particularly some of the poorer people in my patch, to afford houses, and I think that there is value in some superannuation being allowed to be a deposit on a house, particularly where wages are low and housing prices are low but rents are high and there's capacity for people in my patch to service a loan on a house. For example, they might be able to service a loan on a house for $270 a week. The price of a house in my patch can be as low as $185,000, but the difficulty is getting that deposit to get started; therefore, they're precluded from eventually becoming homeowners and are stuck being renters for too long. I think that superannuation should be broadened to that, but that is, I guess, a sideline to this particular piece of legislation. The disclosure of information will be clearer under this bill so that the Australian tax office will be able to look in a lot more detail to ensure that a person who should be paying superannuation is actually doing so. I think that's always been a little bit difficult, and I'm pretty pleased that there are some additional provisions around ensuring that there's clearer disclosure of information. Can I also say that the government is making it easier for small businesses with the Single Touch Payroll for employers of 19 or fewer employees. I note that many of the breaches by not paying superannuation are by some of our smaller businesses with a turnover of less than $2 million. I think that's probably the example in my patch as well. We don't have many big multinational companies in the electorate of Mallee; we have smaller, family-owned businesses, and there are examples of some of them just not getting their bookkeeping right. Making it simpler is part of the answer, as well as making it known. I think that's something that we also need to be thinking through. There also needs to be a big-stick approach. Of course, employers must pay an employee's superannuation. But, for those smaller businesses, it also needs to be made easier, and that's what we're trying to do in this piece of legislation as well. For those small businesses that have a turnover of $2 million or less, we need to be very clear on this: that's turnover. Many farming businesses might only employ two or three people but might easily have a turnover of $2 million or more. People have a perception sometimes, if they haven't run a business, that $2 million is a lot of money. Well, $2 million might be what you spend, and what you get back in the actual take-home pay might only be $50,000. I think that making it easier for those businesses that have small turnovers is essential, and it's a complementary part of this legislation. One of the things that I have been very mindful of is the tax cuts that have just recently gone through this chamber and the Senate. Can I say that 73.8 per cent—if you look at our statistics—of people in the electorate of Mallee earn under $87,000 a year. We're not a high-wage-earning electorate. They have been very mindful that there has not been a lot of opportunity recently for significant pay rises in their pay packets. Cost-of-living pressures, I think, are very firmly felt by people who live in my patch, because public transport is not readily available in many of our country towns, so having to drive is an extra expense, with fuel at 160c a litre, so $1.60 a litre. People have to travel. Most of my electorate are going to get $530 a year as a tax refund. That will, I think, be very beneficial for them. It's just a small way of saying that, wherever possible, we want to make sure that you keep your money in your pocket rather than us taking it. I note that on my Facebook page some people have said to me, 'Keep your $10 a week and spend it on hospitals and schools.' Whenever I've then contacted them and said, 'There are some really good schools and health services in the electorate of Mallee that would happily receive a donation of $530'—the Wimmera Cancer Centre is being built because of donations—those people have gone all quiet on me. Ultimately that's not a bad argument. If they want to give away their additional savings, they can do that, because it's their money to spend. In my view that's how a government should run—that is, we should provide essential services, but ultimately wherever possible we should ensure that the Australians who make money have a say on how their money is spent. The principle that you make a country wealthier by making its citizens wealthier is a very sound one. You create a framework for those who get out of bed earlier than others and for those who take a risk as opposed to those who don't. If those people receive more in doing so, you can lift their—and, ultimately, the country's—standard of living. You do not create wealth by taking away from the rich and giving to the poor; you create wealth by creating incentives across a broader economy so that those who get out of bed get more. Ultimately that gives us a strong economy, but the economy itself should not be the end point for anyone in this place; the economy is simply the engine to deliver the type of society that you want. In my patch I want a very fair society where people have opportunity. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas—I have been very pleased to see prosperity in the township of Mildura as a result of free trade agreements. That has been a good thing. There are jobs and money. You know what else I've seen? I've seen small-business people say, 'We do not want a town where our young people and our Indigenous are going to miss out.' Some small businesses in my town have been very proactive about Indigenous employment. If you walk around Mildura, you don't see people in our Indigenous community sitting on the river, drunk with nothing to do; you see young Indigenous fellas saying, 'I'm going to do an apprenticeship,' or, 'I'm going to go to university.' Businesses—one of them formerly Fishers Supermarkets—have worked out how to be culturally relevant workplaces, and people are engaged in ensuring that the economy is the engine for us to deliver the type of society we have in our region. Some exciting things are going on. When you introduce economic growth into a regional town the outworkings of that initially become an incentive for financial gain, but after that they very quickly become opportunities for ensuring that regional Australia addresses some of our societal concerns. I also point out that we have seen this with a group called Sunassist, volunteers assisting people in our region who have mobility issues. People who have a strong economy can also develop a good society. This bill is about ensuring that a person who works hard, puts in and thinks they're getting paid superannuation actually gets paid superannuation. This bill is about ensuring that those who have not been paid superannuation, be it because of neglect or because of oversight, get their entitlement over the next 12 months. It is a fair warning to any employer that, whilst there's patience for a short period of time to ensure that we can collect the money, that patience from the federal government's perspective will run out. If you're not paying your superannuation guarantee to your employee, you will receive the full wrath of the law: up to 12 months imprisonment. I also say that we want superannuation funds to be transparent. One of the things that concerns me—as a young man with very small amount of superannuation, having been not a very good shearer and not a very good farm worker, I remember having $6,000 worth of superannuation—is the fees that went on that superannuation. It seemed that it was going backwards faster than it was going forwards. That meant that I wasn't going to be able to retire until I was about 485 at the current savings rate I had on my super. We also want transparency in our superannuation funds for those who have small balances. We want to make sure those balances are protected and that they're protected for the young. I think that, ultimately, even more needs to be done in the space of ensuring that people can compare like with like when it comes to superannuation funds. For many people, superannuation funds are too complex, and I want to ensure that, when they come to working out where they're placing their money for their future retirements, it's clear what the earnings are, clear what the fees are and clear how they can access it. I think we are getting to that space, but I don't think we're quite at that space now. This is a good bill. It's a step in the right direction. Superannuation is your money; you earn it. I say to those employers in my patch: not paying workers' superannuation will no longer be tolerated. Too much of it goes on in my region, and this is a step in the right direction to ensure that you will get caught if you do the wrong thing. You will get prosecuted, and those prosecutions are very, very firm: up to 12 months in jail. People are working hard for their money. They deserve to keep it. They deserve to be able to make provision for their retirement. This is a good bill. Thank you. 13:11 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'm delighted to have the opportunity to rise again today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018, the latest in a series that the Turnbull government has introduced over the past 18 months, which shows so clearly that working Australians and retirees have only one true friend in this 45th Parliament: the coalition government. Our side of politics in Australia today is fighting to secure a job for everyone, ensuring workers do not have their pay stolen by employers or by their unions, ensuring that they get to keep as much of that pay as possible with lower taxes and ensuring that they are defended from threats and intimidation in the workplace. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party members are fighting tooth and nail to protect the privileged sectional interests of the lawless unions against the workers they claim to represent, resisting every job-creating measure and trying to take hundreds of billions of dollars more out of peoples' pay packets. Our side of politics in Australia today is working hard to ensure that workers can save for their retirement, that retirees' pensions are protected and that they can earn some extra money on the side through meaningful employment. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party members, in contrast, simply want to slug our older Australians with a massive new retiree tax and make them pay for Labor's addiction to spending other peoples' money. This bill is all about young people like those up in the gallery today. This bill is all about the young people of Australia. We were all young once—even you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, all that time ago! We all know that young people in particular are at their most vulnerable in relation to the nonpayment of superannuation. Young people up in the gallery, listen to this because this is very important for your future. You might think superannuation is so far off into the future that you don't have to worry about it, but let me tell you those 30 or 40 years creep up on you very, very quickly. Trust me on this. The bill before the House today is part of a consistent and coherent strategy from the Turnbull government to protect workers' pay and conditions. The bill's place in that strategy is to protect workers' superannuation benefits especially and ensure that workers are paid the super that they are entitled to. It will do this by first introducing tough new penalties for employers who are breaking the law and ripping off their employees and by providing new enforcement tools to the ATO. Schedule 1 of the bill gives the ATO the power to direct employers to pay unpaid and overdue superannuation amounts where that has been identified. Employers who do not pay the superannuation guarantee are already breaking the law, but with this bill the ATO will be given the proper power to direct employers to comply. Where they don't, it will back up this power with new criminal penalties. If an employer fails to comply with the ATO's direction to pay, they will have committed an offence under this bill with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units, up to 12 months imprisonment or both. These are substantial penalties that are in line with how seriously this government takes the issue of underpayment of workers. In schedule 5, this bill introduces new debt collection powers for the ATO on behalf of employees. It will minimise directors' ability to take advantage of the gap in timing between estimates of the superannuation guarantee charge and withholding liabilities and of the underlying liability to which the estimates relate in order to avoid paying their obligations. It will also prevent directors using the penalty notices regime to buy time, and allow the ATO to apply for a court order to compel employers to provide security for outstanding amounts. These provisions are complementary to the government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act 2017 as part of the government's comprehensive strategy. Where this bill seeks to stamp out the underpayment of workers' superannuation benefits, the central object of that act was to stamp out the practice of underpaying workers. When it was confirmed to the government through the Fair Work Ombudsman's inquiry into 7-Eleven that there is systemic underpayment of migrants and other vulnerable workers in Australia, this government acted to protect them. We found that underpayment had been in some cases straightforward and direct; in others, it had been done through the creation of false pay slips and employment records and, most worryingly, it'd been done by coercing workers by way of threats or intimidation to wrongly give money back where they were rightly paid. Like today's bill, the Turnbull government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act helped to stop these practices by imposing stiff penalties on offenders and by giving the Fair Work Ombudsman the power it needed to find and punish unscrupulous employers. The bill before us today and its counterpart in the protecting vulnerable workers act make it clear in no uncertain terms that the coalition considers exploiting workers to be entirely and utterly unacceptable. It makes it clear that this government will ensure that unscrupulous employers who engage in this type of conduct are punished. This government is steadfast in supporting small businesses that are doing the right thing, and the vast majority of employers do the right thing. But we believe in fairness and the rule of law, so we are also very tough on any business that is failing to respect its employees' rights. The Leader of the Opposition's record on protecting workers' pay and conditions is in dramatic contrast. As national secretary of the AWU, he gleefully and repeatedly signed up to agreements that left the workers he supposedly looked after receiving less than their lawful entitlements. The workers at Cleanevent, for example, found themselves stripped of all penalty rates with no compensation. Under a 2006 agreement for which the Leader of the Opposition was responsible and which he approved in 2001 and 2003, the Melbourne and Olympic Parks Trust's agreement stripped workers of almost all penalty rates and overtime. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't given away workers' entitlements alone. For many years, the union movement all over Australia has been hard at work reducing workers' pay and conditions, often in return for benefits for the union itself. It's because of union negotiated enterprise agreements, for example, that workers at many five-star hotels are paid $10.24 an hour less than those on the Fair Work Commission's penalty rates. It's also why workers at David Jones, Dan Murphy's, McDonald's and KFC get $8 less than their counterparts on award rates. We are protecting workers' pay and conditions; those opposite are giving them away. Another of the central objects of this bill is ensuring that the relevant authorities have the information and the power they need to investigate and catch corporate wrongdoers. Schedule 3 of the bill extends Single Touch Payroll to all employers from 1 July 2019. That is where 70 per cent of noncompliance occurs. This will give the ATO almost real-time information about all employees' superannuation guarantee entitlements, what liabilities have been paid and what liabilities have been withheld. Where before the ATO was dependent on employee complaints in most cases to identify examples of shortfalls and was unable to accurately identify how much super was in fact owed, this extended scheme will give the ATO full visibility over all of the amounts paid and owing which are relevant to the calculation. The bill will also provide the ATO with timely information from the other end of the transaction by requiring that, from 1 July 2018, superannuation funds provide event based reporting. This will deliver the ATO nearly real-time data about the contributions received by funds on employees' behalf and reduce the burden on employers to report this figure. In combination, the measures will ensure the ATO has up-to-date and complete information, which will allow them to detect underpayment of employees' entitlements quickly without input from the employee. It will facilitate rapid and decisive action against employers who are not paying what they owe. Schedule 2 of the bill gives the ATO the ability to tell affected employees about the efforts it is making on their behalf to recover unpaid superannuation. As it stands, the ATO's inability to tell employees what action, if any, they are taking to recover their underpaid superannuation guarantee leaves employees completely in the dark as to what their next steps should be. Following the passage of this bill, tax officers will be able to disclose the action they are taking on an employee's behalf. That will not only increase confidence in the system but also ensure employees have the information they need to decide how to pursue their unpaid entitlements further. Real-time reporting and transparency are critically important, as unscrupulous employers will sometimes seek to tailor their records to avoid exposing their misdeeds, while others destroy them when an investigation begins—just as the CFMEU did when under investigation by the Heydon royal commission. The coalition government is ensuring, through this bill, that the ATO has the power it needs to find the truth and expose wrongdoing. What a contrast this is with the Labor Party's record when it comes to protecting the workers. Given the opportunity, they took key investigative powers away from one of the most important regulators protecting workers today. They abolished the ABCC in 2012 and with it the power for the regulator to compel witnesses to attend in cases of union exploitation of workers. They also took away the power for that regulator to enforce the law if a secret settlement had been reached. In an effort to protect their union mates as they ripped off the workers, Labor replaced the ABCC with a toothless tiger. Evidently, the Labor Party don't like real-time enforcement action. There is no doubt that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues read the same court decisions as the rest of us. When it came to the test for eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution, for instance, they knew as far back as October—like the rest of us, after the Re Canavan decision was handed down—that four of their members of parliament were dual citizens and ineligible to sit in this place, yet for six months the Leader of the Opposition sought to avoid proper scrutiny and swift action by maintaining a self-evidently fallacious interpretation of the law. That was while my colleagues on this side of the House did the right thing by resigning or referring themselves to the High Court immediately. Members opposite claim that Labor is the party that fights for workers' rights. As real working Australians know, that claim has been nothing less than ludicrous for many, many years. As the Labor Party is led by a man who has dedicated much of his life to trading away workers' pay and conditions for the benefit of his union mates, it is becoming a genuinely nauseating deception. In contrast, the bill before us today is another important plank in the Turnbull coalition government's coherent strategy to stand up for working Australians and ensure that they get the pay and conditions that they deserve. Along with our industrial relations reforms, our fantastic tax relief just announced successfully last week and legislation like the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act, it will make a big difference to thousands of working people and let them know that the government is ready to protect them. For that, I commend it to the House. 13:25 Mr HART 263070 Bass We've just had the most extraordinary contribution from my friend. He must live in an alternative reality if he honestly and truly believes that the coalition is the workers' friend. Clearly, if you judge them by their actions rather than their words, the coalition are no friends of workers in this place. If they were friends of workers, they would vote immediately for restoration of penalty rates. I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018. Whilst Labor is broadly supportive of the measures in this bill, we will reserve our position as to whether any amendments are required until after the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill has reported. There are some important issues addressed in this bill. Chief amongst these is this government's response with respect to the problem of unpaid superannuation. There are many within our communities who have been ripped off by their employers. Unpaid super is a massive problem which affects all of us in that, if employees are not receiving their full pay and entitlements, this means that families and communities miss out. This, of course, disproportionately affects the low paid and those in insecure work. There is an estimate that 2.4 million workers are losing a combined $5.6 billion in payments each year. That is equivalent to a worker losing $2,000 per year. This is money which should be applied to their retirement savings. The practice which has arisen of not paying super despite a legal obligation is to be absolutely condemned. This amounts to wage theft. Superannuation is part of a worker's pay and conditions, something that was fought for by a Labor government. In fact, those opposite argued against it. Employers are required by law to pay superannuation. This government could have taken action earlier. It is disappointing that the government has taken so long to take action. The bill contains nine schedules. Schedules 1 to 6 deal with superannuation guarantee integrity. Schedule 7 deals with information sharing. Schedule 8 deals with miscellaneous matters. Schedule 9 deals with deductible gift recipients. Schedules 1 to 6 and the measures in those schedules implement several recommendations contained in the Superannuation Guarantee Cross-Agency Working Group's report to strengthen compliance with taxation and superannuation guarantee obligations. The package implements changes to allow the tax commissioner, in circumstances where an employer fails to comply with the superannuation guarantee obligations, to issue directions to pay unpaid superannuation guarantee and undertake superannuation guarantee education courses. Failure to comply with a direction can result in criminal penalties. There is also an important amendment to facilitate the disclosure by the tax commissioner of information about superannuation guarantee noncompliance to the employers' employees—that is, the person or people who are affected. It also extends Single Touch Payroll reporting to all employers. It facilitates more regular reporting by superannuation funds. It improves the operation of the commissioner's collection and compliance measures and streamlines employee commencement processes. The power to issue a direction to an employer either to pay an outstanding superannuation guarantee liability or to undertake an approved course is new, with no existing equivalent. The power to disclose information about superannuation guarantee noncompliance to affected employees is likewise a new provision. There is an appropriate limitation upon sharing of information in that it cannot relate to the general financial affairs of the employer. The extension of Single Touch Payroll reporting is to extend— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Bass will have leave to continue. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 37 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS NT Thunder Team of the Decade 37 13:30 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon On Saturday night, my wife, Kate, and I attended the NT Thunder ball in Darwin. It was a fantastic night. After months of meetings and deliberation by an expert panel, the NT Thunder Team of the Decade was unveiled. Twenty-three of the best players were selected, including captain Cameron Ilett, vice-captain Aaron Motlop, Charlie Maher, Darren Ewing, Kenrick Tyrell, Ross Tungatalum, Liam Patrick, Chris Dunne, Shannon Rioli, Jarred Ilett, Shannon Rusca, Julian Lockwood, Andrew McLeod, Ben Rioli, Jason Roe, Justin Beugelaar, Ryan Smith and Jake Dignan. On the interchange: Abraham Ankers, Richard Tambling, Matthew Rosier, Daniel Weetra and Neil Vea Vea. The NT Thunder's longest-serving coach, Xavier Clarke, was selected as the coach of the team of the decade, with Murray Davis, or Mus, as assistant coach. But it's not all about blokes. For the first time this year, the NTAFL is also fielding a women's team in the Victorian Football League, headed by Angela Foley as captain of Thunder Women. I want to congratulate the team of the decade. Obviously, there are many more who were actively considered, but, all in all, go Thunder! Wide Bay Electorate: Survey 37 13:31 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I'm running a survey in Wide Bay and I'm asking people to tell me their views on a range of issues. One of the questions I've asked is: if you could raise one issue in parliament, what would it be? Here are just a few of the responses I've received so far: Tanya from Maryborough wants more jobs in the area; Chris from Granville wants unions to be more transparent; Peter from Bauple is concerned about foreign ownership; Jeanne from Glenwood wants to put the Bruce Highway and local roads first and have them all fixed; Andi from Gunalda wants tougher laws and consequences for those who offend; Esther from Curra says, 'Pay off the debt'; William from Chatsworth is concerned about foreign labour; Tony from Gympie is concerned about electricity prices; Jenny from Cooloola Cove wants the Cooloola Way started and finished—so do I, Jenny; Ralph from Tin Can Bay says, 'Stop changing super rules'; John from Murgon says, 'Stop all foreign aid'; Bill from Kandanga says, 'Stop political correctness'—I think I can help you with that, Bill; Amber from Cooran raises the cost of living for seniors as an issue; and Rena from Noosaville wants more to prevent domestic violence. If you're in Wide Bay and you haven't had your say, jump onto my website and do the survey today. Youth Voice in Parliament 37 13:33 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Continuing my Youth Voice in Parliament campaign, I'd like to introduce Alex, a 23-year-old who has been in care from age 12 to 18. These are his words: My care experience was a rollercoaster. One of the hardest things for me was that I had to move a lot. Every time I had to move, I was told without any warning or information on where I was going. I also wasn't asked where I would like to go and wasn't given any information about who I would be living with. I got moved to some areas which were very far away from my mum and this wasn't good for me. I also never got to meet any of my carers before I moved into the house. It made me feel really uncomfortable because it felt like living in a house with strangers … At one point, I was moving to a new placement every week. This made me feel like no one cared about me. No one ever explained to me why I was moving and this made me very confused. I would like to see workers stay in their jobs longer so that they can really build a relationship with the young people. I would like workers to be there and talk to them so they can open up more. Let the child know you are there for them and care about how they feel. Some of the simple things you can do to build a relationship with young people are: At the end of the week, send a text asking how they are or how their day has been. …   …   … If the case worker is honest, the young person can also be open. …   …   … I think each residential placement should have a life skills set up within the house and all residents should attend these workshops. This would have helped me when I left care, because I had to figure all that out by myself. Thank you so much, Alex. It was a pleasure to meet you. You are an extraordinary young man. Barker Electorate: South Australian Volunteer Fire Fighters Museum Inc. 38 13:34 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker I rise to speak about a hardworking organisation in Barker that is focused on the history of volunteer firefighting in South Australia. The SA Volunteer Fire Fighters Museum in Naracoorte specifically aims 'to research, record, conserve and promote the history and equipment of the South Australian volunteer fire service'. It's a reminder to all volunteer firefighters past and present that we appreciate their dedication and hard work in often dangerous, life-threatening conditions, leaving their own families, homes and sometimes communities to help others. This dedicated group based at Naracoorte in my electorate, who are seeking to establish a museum complex, have done a stellar job over many years. From humble beginnings, because of lots of hard work and fundraising in the typical Limestone Coast way—including donations from CFS brigades in the region—we now have a memorial to commemorate those lost and a large number of historical appliances. But work continues towards the development of the museum itself. In September last year, I was thrilled to deliver a grant of $18,750 to the SA firefighters museum from this government's Building Better Regions Fund for the development of a 10-year strategic business plan that will underpin the development and operation of the museum complex. Our firefighting volunteers make up such an important part of so many regional communities across the country. I want to acknowledge the work of all the volunteers associated with this project but, in particular, the irrepressible Rex Hall, who is the driving force behind the initiative. I look forward to doing what I can further to support this important organisation and bring the museum to fruition. Asylum Seekers 38 13:36 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills The government's changes to eligibility requirements for the Status Resolution Support Services program expose over 12,000 highly vulnerable people to unnecessary and cruel loss of support. The Minister for Home Affairs continues his attacks on some of the most vulnerable people in Australia and is incapable of even explaining why and when his cruel cuts to the SRSS program will occur and who they will affect. The minister first approved some of these changes in February and, despite persistent questioning by Labor on this side, he still hasn't explained just how many of the 12,000 people currently receiving this assistance are going to lose their access to their support because of his decision. Many vulnerable people, asylum seekers who have experienced horrific persecution, receive this vital assistance while they wait for the Department of Home Affairs to resolve their immigration status or make a decision on their visas. I've met with representatives from the NGO community including the Salvation Army, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, the Australian Churches Refugee Taskforce and the Refugee Council of Australia, to name a few. They're deeply concerned about the impact that these changes will have on so many people. The shadow minister has written to the home affairs minister on behalf of Labor asking him to explain his actions. We do not support the arbitrary, unjustified and haphazard way that Peter Dutton, the minister, has gone about cutting support to these people. He's done it with the stroke of a pen. He should stop politicising and playing politics with vulnerable people and reverse those cuts immediately. Diabetes 38 13:37 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I am currently the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Diabetes—I often say that I'm actually the chair of the enemies of diabetes. We are holding a number of events in the House this week, including announcements today—which I was pleased to attend—by the beverage industry that they are committing to reducing sugar content in beverages by 20 per cent by 2025. I often remind people that diabetes is the leading cause of blindness, amputation and coronary heart disease and a major cause of chronic kidney disease. It really is not a good thing to have. It really isn't. It is estimated that 1.7 million Australians have type 2 diabetes and, very concerningly, 500,000 of these are undiagnosed and unaware that they have the disease and may have had it for anything up to seven years. It's dangerous and they need to get it checked out. On Wednesday we'll be conducting a free HbA1c blood test in the Senate alcove from 8 am. To members I say: get tested and make your encounter public by putting it onto your social media platforms. Members may find their tests find them healthy, and I certainly hope that is the case, but, if they publicise their test and encourage others to engage, they may well save a life anyway. Banking and Financial Services 39 13:39 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley One thousand and fifty-three days—that's how long it's been since the start of the review into the out-of-control payday loans industry in this country. Despite repeated promises made by the government, including the now Deputy Prime Minister, that we would see action to clamp down on the payday loan sharks, we are yet to see any decisive action. Earlier today in media reports we heard of the heartbreak and pain that these shonky lenders are causing to everyday Australians like childcare workers like Jane, who took out payday loans to cover a few bills and ended up with a debt of over $10,000. Despite what the payday loan lobbyists might say, this industry is causing daily damage to over 350,000 Australians who have a loan. I say to those members opposite, the members of the Turnbull government who are the parliamentary friends of payday loans: start listening to your constituents, to welfare agencies and to community organisations. They are seeing the damage every single day. I congratulate Gerard Brody and the Consumer Law Action Centre for their strong leadership in wanting to see the full, proper and original legislation brought forward rather than the watered-down version we are expecting from those opposite. The community knows only the strong opposition led by Bill Shorten will continue to fight on behalf of consumers in this country. Gilmore Electorate 39 13:40 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore This weekend I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the Moruya Lions Club changeover luncheon at the Moruya bowling club. Congratulations to Kathy and Des on your hard work and efforts in our local community. It was an honour to do the toast, and I look forward to seeing the work that the Moruya Lions Club do in their fundraising effort, such as the 2017 Lions Charity Golf Day that was held at the Catalina golf club last year. On Saturday evening I attended the surf lifesaving presentation at Moruya Heads. It was a bit chilly until everybody got there. I congratulate Sue Hunt, Director of Administration. Award recipients included Andrew Holt, Ryley Spoedler-Hanlon, Cheryl McCarthy, Melissa Meaker, Paul White, Jackson Blake, Ruth Burgess, Joe Halsey, Luella Boulton, Alec Radford, Scott Senior, Craig Senior, Riley Miles, Oscar Reedy, Christian Filmer, Ryley Stafford, Scarlett Whitaker, Ellis Beecham, Callum Elliott, Ava Weymans, Ainslie Scully, Emma Prowse, Nick Huggins, Andrew Scullt, Ben Potter, Nimmitty Ford, Liam O'Neill, Jess Hoyland-Meaker, Liam Russell, Tony Vella, Neil Innes, Batemans Bay Phoenix Ladies—good on you, girls; 180 years of boat rowing—Pambula Surf Life Saving Club for their two-day branch final award, and Michael Weyman, Shaun Pike, Andrew Edmunds, Anthony Bellette, Ken Bellette, Mick Bellette and Ben Ralstone for the rescue of the year for that rescue at the Moruya River Mouth, where, unfortunately, one person lost their life. I congratulate the Moruya Surf Life Saving Club and, finally, to Tathra Surf Life Saving Club for your amazing work just after the Tathra bushfires. Early Childhood Education 39 13:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Early childhood education is one of the most important responsibilities for government. That's why I've been a constant supporter of better funding for the sector and that's why I oppose the federal government's childcare reforms set to kick in on 1 July this year, which will see many low-income families have access to fewer hours of early childhood education. If you want proof that the government doesn't value early childhood education, you need to look no further than the pay crisis that has been going on in the sector for years. For instance, early childhood educators with a certificate III are paid about $800 a week before tax, which is about half average weekly earnings and just a fraction above the minimum wage. Clearly, that's a disgracefully low salary for skilled workers with big responsibilities, and it quite simply beggars belief that we pay so little to those who care for our most precious people. The same can be said for workers in the aged-care and disability sectors. Fixing this is within our grasp because we have the wealth and the know-how to do so, but, regrettably, we don't have the political will, and that's shameful. It seems tax cuts for big business and high-paid workers are more important than our children and those who care for them. Fadden Electorate: Northern Gold Coast Seniors Expo 39 13:43 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden First of all, I welcome members of Livingstone Christian College to parliament today with Principal Mark Laraghy, Dean Amanda and the four leaders from year 10. Likewise, I'm delighted to inform the House that the Northern Gold Coast Seniors Expo is once again on at the Gold Coast. It will be held on Wednesday, 18 July at the Runaway Bay Indoor Sports Stadium from 9 am to 1 pm. We get almost 3,000 people aged over 65 years. It's going to be a cracker of an event. Over 100 exhibitors who offer seniors lifestyle, wellness and financial services take a stall every year, in addition to the many community groups. The event of course provides our senior Australians with free morning tea, musical concerts, dances and other entertainment, both inside and outside the sport centre, for the duration of the event. It will be a carnival-type atmosphere. Once again, the MC is Nine Gold Coast News' Bruce Paige. Every year, great prizes are on offer for those who attend. The prizes last year included two return economy tickets with Virgin Australia to anywhere on their domestic network, as an example. The 2018 expo is free for seniors. In addition to being a fun and free day out, it includes enormous amount of resources from various government agencies, community groups and businesses. I welcome all senior Australians on the Gold Coast to what will be an outstanding seniors event. Payday Lending 40 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor They say that politics is about priorities, and those opposite have definitely shown where their priorities lie. They do not lie with the vulnerable people in our communities. They do not lie with people who are forced to wait 161 days to have their pension processed. Today I wanted to talk about the way those priorities are manifesting. They're manifesting in that those opposite are clearly seen in the community as the friends of the big banks, with their $17 billion tax cuts they'd like to get through this place to support their friends in the banks. They were clearly showing that when they fought tooth and nail to avoid the banking royal commission, but it is no more evident than in their continued friendship with the payday lenders. We have waited 1,053 days to see legislation, which we know has been drafted, that will protect vulnerable people from being preyed upon by unscrupulous payday lenders. Where is this missing legislation? Where has it gone, and why are people in my community waiting for this government to protect them? The answers lie with the member for Deakin. He should be come in here and explain to the House why we're still waiting for that legislation to be presented in this chamber and why vulnerable people are waiting for this government to protect them. For those people opposite who are members of the parliamentary friends of payday lenders group, they ought to put their hands up and take some responsibility for their actions. Forde Electorate: Local Sporting Champions 40 13:46 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate eight young sporting men and women in my electorate of Forde, who each received a $500 grant as part of the government's Local Sporting Champions program. The program is an initiative designed to provide financial assistance to young sports men and women aged between 12 and 18, and the recipients can use the grants towards the cost of travel, accommodation, uniforms or equipment when competing. We have some fabulous talented young athletes in my electorate of Forde who are competing on the national and international stage and, as we all know, the costs of these competitions can be quite high. These grants are a great way to help cover some of the costs of competing and help our rising sporting stars take on the best athletes across the country and across the world. I would like to congratulate Mark Mcadam for his efforts in swimming, Jade Smith for hockey, Cameron Humphrey for skating, Oliver Maher for athletics, Imogen Noon for football, Kyle Wynne for skating, Kye Sutherland for surf life saving and Matilda Alexandersson for her efforts in table tennis. I'd like to congratulate all of these fabulous young and women. They are a credit not only to their families but to their communities for their wonderful achievements in their chosen sport. Centrelink 40 13:48 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I rise to again call out this government for the growing crisis in human services—or inhuman services! Centrelink has become a national joke. You would have hoped with the new minister getting that hospital pass of trying to clean up the mess of the previous minister that things might now, six months in, have become a little better. But, no, things are getting worse. The latest statistics on call wait times show everything is up, up and up. There were 50 million plus unanswered calls to Centrelink. That is still trending up, and there are blowouts in the age pension waiting time. The average, so we're told, went from 36 days to 49 days. But that's not true. It is a game of snakes and ladders, as my constituents find out. There is the case of Mr Johnson. He took 12 months to get his pension. It is an appalling experience. He is sick, so he needed the healthcare card. He tried to resolve this numerous times. It was unclear what information he needed. He gave them the same stuff over and over again. They said they'd lost it, and they rejected his claim. We had an appeal, but they said no. We had another appeal, then they said yes. They then gave the wrong date. I raised this in parliament, after writing to the minister to say this is not resolved. There was no response. I wrote again to the minister, and there was no response. Guess what? We've got a new round of privatisation. Not content with privatising 1,250 jobs in the budget, the government has now privatised the complaint service to News Corp. I told the Herald Sunand, within three hours of them calling the minister, we got a response. If you complain to a newspaper, you might get a response. Fisher Electorate: Community Events 41 13:49 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher This weekend I was particularly proud to represent groups in the community of Fisher who do so much to help those who are less fortunate. On Friday night, I attended a fundraising dinner organised by 17-year-old Samara Welbourne. Samara was the 2014 Sunshine Coast Young Citizen of the Year and a 2017 Young Leader at the Sunshine Coast Inspiring Women Awards. She runs her own business on the coast which supports international development projects, and she is a surf lifesaver. Samara's dinner, supported by Hot 91.1 FM, raised money for Variety, a children's charity. The money will go toward improving the lives of children facing sickness and disability. On Saturday night, I was part of a team of colleagues and friends at the Hear and Say trivia night at Siena Catholic College. Everyone had a lot of fun, and a packed hall paid testament to how much we raised for children living with hearing loss. The next morning, I dropped by the Sunshine Coast Solstice Swim to raise money for Sunshine Coast Young Veterans and the Alexandra Headland Rotary. Supported by great local sponsors including Channel Nine and by many wonderful volunteers, 150 brave souls braved the bracing winter water, raising thousands for important local groups. Thank you and congratulations to all of the organisations, attendees and volunteers who took part in these important community events. Braddon By-Election 41 13:51 Mr HART 263070 Bass On 28 July, those people who are residents and voters in Braddon will have a real choice to make as to whether they return my good friend Justine Keay, the former member for Braddon, as the member for Braddon or whether they continue this government's unfair attack on working- and middle-class Australians. We know that only Labor has the proper plan to address the lack of income growth that we're seeing over a significant period of time, wage theft, and wage growth at record lows. Only Labor has a plan to deal with that. Labor's plan for bigger, fairer tax cuts delivers double the money that this government is intending to deliver to working-class and middle-class Australians. This government only wants to benefit the big end of town and, in particular, roll out over $17 billion worth of tax cuts to the big banks. These are the people that have put Australia in the position it is in at present. This government does not care about ordinary people struggling on the north-west coast of Tasmania. I know from my constituents in Bass in northern Tasmania that they care about jobs, they care about education and they care about public health. Only Justine Keay is going to be able to deliver, with the Labor team, a future for working Tasmanians and other people in the electorate of Braddon. Menzies Electorate: Rotary Club of Manningham 41 13:52 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I was delighted last night to attend the changeover dinner for the Manningham Rotary club in my electorate. As honourable members will know, this time of this year is the changeover period for Rotary clubs when one president literally hands the chains of office to the incoming president. I was delighted to be there last night when Soula Ganiatsas was handed the chains of office to be the president of the Manningham Rotary club for the next 12 months, taking over from Roger Chong, who was in the role for the previous year, and indeed his wife, Christina, who was the president the year before. I was also delighted that district governor-elect Russell Gurney and his wife, Shelley, were in attendance, as was one of the great contributors in my electorate, Jeffrey Tan, who was awarded an Order of Australia Medal in the recent Queen's Birthday awards that were notified on that day. It was great that the Rotary Club of Manningham was able to make a presentation of a cheque to Doreen Stoves, the CEO of Doncare, the major welfare organisation in my electorate. Doreen Stoves said something which really struck, I think, everybody in the room, and that is that it's hard to understand that there are people in Manningham who have no food. This, as honourable members will know, is a relatively middle-class area of Melbourne, yet here we have a major welfare organisation saying that there are people going hungry from a lack of food in my electorate. There's much more that we can all do in that regard. Workplace Relations 41 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo About 700,000 workers will be hit with another pay cut on 1 July. That's right: retail workers and hospitality workers, people who are earning some of the smallest amounts of money income in our country, will be whacked again with another cut to penalty rates. Now, I note that the Prime Minister this morning was out at a cafe having coffee. Did he bother to ask the workers whether they would be affected by this penalty rate cut? Did he bother to ask these workers whether they would like his $10 a week in their pocket or their penalty rates back? I'm sure pretty sure that most of these workers would have said that they'd have their penalty rates back any day of the week. These aren't the only workers who are facing a penalty rate cut. We've now got hairdressers being lined up. We've now got other areas: clubs and services. The Fair Work Commission are looking at whether they are going to cut those industries when it comes to penalty rates. There is something that this parliament can do about these penalty rate cuts today. The members of the government and this mean Prime Minister can join with Labor and support the private member's bill that the Leader of the Opposition spoke to today. Do something right to support the people on the lowest of incomes. Support people who rely on penalty rates, support Labor's bill and restore the cuts that have been made. If you really want to help working people, listen to the opposition and join with us on reversing this cut to penalty rates. Maughan, Ms Jocelyn, OAM, Norling, Mr Robin, OAM 42 13:55 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to pay further tribute to awardees of Queen's Birthday honours from my electorate of Robertson and congratulate all recipients across the coast, including Jocelyn Maughan OAM and her late husband, Robin Norling, who also received an OAM, posthumously. Jocelyn and Robin met 26 years ago and quickly became an incredible team who dedicated much of their lives to the arts not only on the Central Coast but also in New South Wales. After travelling the globe, Jocelyn and Robin returned to Australia in late 1966, where they both continued with their work in art education. Throughout her career as an art educator, Jocelyn worked as a senior head teacher of art and design across a number of institutions, including Meadowbank TAFE. Robin worked as a lecturer, writer and presenter, as well as spending nearly 10 years as the senior education officer at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Jocelyn and Robin then moved up to Patonga, on the Central Coast, and in 1993 bought the local Bakehouse Gallery. In 2000, they reopened the gallery, and it has been operating since then as a community-focused space. Nearly two decades later, Jocelyn still has the studio at the back, and she told me just this morning that she was there working on a new piece. For Jocelyn and Robert, their passion for what they called old-fashioned art values of composition and drawing fuelled their commitment to art education. They've both been enormous supporters of the Central Coast art community, giving back and supporting local artists wherever possible, something that Jocelyn continues to do in Robin's memory. Turnbull Government 42 13:57 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I saw the Prime Minister on TV this morning at a cafe. He was probably telling the staff to get a better job. You can just imagine the conversation—let me get this right—'I was a barrister, and you're just a barista.' But he's not happy, because we dared to ask how much this Prime Minister's massive share portfolio will benefit from his $80 billion tax giveaway to big business and banks. What a glass jaw! After three years of this Prime Minister obsessing over the Leader of the Opposition at every single press conference—every time he stands up, he's having a go at the Leader of the Opposition, talking about him day in, day out, and last week he was using question time to have a go at the member for Sydney's husband—now anyone who dares to criticise his out-of-touch, trickle-down economic agenda is somehow being mean spirited. It's the story of his life: one law for him; another law for the rest of us. Well, I'll tell you what mean spirited is. Mean spirited is when you cut $14 a fortnight from pensioners. Cutting dental care for veterans is mean spirited. Cutting Sunday penalty rates is mean spirited. Taking money away from schools and hospitals and giving it to big banks is mean spirited. We're going to fight this mean-spirited, trickle-down economic agenda here and everywhere else. O'Connor Electorate: Mobile Black Spot Program 42 13:58 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor The mobile phone black spot program, which was instituted by the Prime Minister in his former capacity as the Minister for Communications, has been a great success in my electorate of O'Connor. Eighty-six towers have been approved, 60 of which have been constructed. Once the remaining towers are functional, it will increase mobile coverage in O'Connor by 33,000 square kilometres. There have been a number of site difficulties though, most prominently at a coastal location called Salmon Holes, in the Torndirrup National Park, near my home town of Albany. Over the past few years, 13 people have been swept to their deaths from the rocks at Salmon Holes, the latest in May this year. This notorious area currently has no mobile phone coverage. Chris Johns and Murray Martin, of the volunteer Albany Sea Rescue Squad, have alerted me to this matter, and a recent coronial inquiry reiterated the extreme danger created by this lack of communications infrastructure. Last week I had a positive meeting with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions' district manager Peter Hartley and regional manager Greg Mair, whose agency manages the national park. Mr Hartley informed me that they would love to see mobile phone coverage as soon as possible and were working with Telstra towards a solution that would not impact on the natural beauty of the area. I've also been working closely with the Minister for Regional Communications, Senator Bridget McKenzie, who has asked Telstra to consider providing coverage, using a small cell tower. We're all eagerly awaiting an outcome that will preserve lives and keep our volunteers safe. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 43 CONDOLENCES Berinson, Hon. Joseph Max 43 14:00 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I refer to the death of the Hon. Joseph Max Berinson and I move: That the House record its deep regret at the death, on 2 June 2018, of the Honourable Joseph Max Berinson, a former Member and Minister of this House for the Division of Perth from 1969 to 1975, place on record its appreciation of his public service, and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. Two of Joe's grandsons Shua and Eli Solomon are in the gallery today, and we welcome them. Rabbi Shua is a rabbi from the Mizrachi Synagogue in my electorate of Wentworth. He tells of a man devoted to his family, a man of integrity and of vision. Rabbi Shua remembered once asking Joe why he had decided to go into politics. Joe joked that everyone is entitled to one mistake in their life. But he also said that his best accomplishments were not made on the public stage but in the quieter moments, in the small pieces of legislation that made a big difference to people's lives. That's how we remember Joe today. He was one of Gough Whitlam's 1969ers. Before making his way across the Nullarbor to Canberra, Joe had worked as a pharmacist and later studied law. He became highly rated for his hard work and intellect by his colleagues and, more significantly, by his exacting leader. Gough Whitlam's clashes with his caucus and colleagues were legendary. Few could take on the great man and not end up bruised. Joe Berinson was an exception. On at least one occasion, Joe gave Whitlam an almighty blast. He got away with it, according to one of his colleagues who said: 'Gough is something of an intellectual snob. He respects other intellectuals, and Joe has that respect.' In the final months of the Whitlam government, Joe became the Minister for the Environment. It was enough time to ensure that Kakadu was declared a national park, preserving that magnificent part of Australia for future generations. Although he lost his seat at the election, the experience had given him a taste for political life. In 1980, Joe was elected to the Western Australian Legislative Council and over 10 years served three premiers as Attorney-General. It was in that capacity I first met Joe. In the turbulent aftermath of WA Inc., Joe's careful and considered calm certainly stood out. Throughout his public life, Joe Berinson was proud of his faith. When he died, his family included a verse from the Book of Micah in the note of condolence: 'What is good and what does the Lord require of you except to be just and to love and to diligently practice kindness and to walk humbly with your God.' It so happens that this verse will be read in synagogues all over the world, this Sabbath. For the Berinson family it sums up Joe. Their hearts will be filled with love and sorrow but also great pride when they hear it on Saturday. To Joe's beloved wife, Jeanette, his four children, 15 grandchildren and his extended family, I offer the heartfelt sympathy of the parliament and the nation. Yehi Zichro Baruch; may his memory be a blessing. 14:03 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I want to thank the Prime Minister for his words and join him in offering heartfelt condolences to Joe's family. It was in 1969 when Labor and Liberal contested the seat of Perth, and it was Joe who won the federal seat of Perth against Fred Chaney. He was very proud that his campaign featured what he claimed was the first television ad in Western Australian politics. Years later, he was still delighted and walking people through the storyboard: 'There was a lady who asked: "Who are you going to vote for?" She'd said she'd vote for Joe Berinson. They said, "Why?" And she gave some fine reason about this fellow. Then we had Kim Beazley Sr, and they asked him why he thought people should vote for me, and he said because I would be a very good addition amongst our people in Canberra.' Then they switched onto Jill and Linda—they were only six and 4½, respectively. They were asked: 'Do you think people should vote for Joe Berinson?' They had learnt it so well, they were able to say, 'Yes,' and 'Yes.' They were asked why, to which they replied, 'Because he's our dad.' He really loved that. Following Jim Cairns's resignation, Joe joined the Whitlam cabinet as the Minister for the Environment. There hadn't even been a proper Department of the Environment until 1972, and Joe said he was no committed greenie. But, ever the voracious reader, he quickly gained a reputation for being across his brief and for his well-informed questioning of his colleagues' cabinet submissions, or, as Gough put it, he made a nuisance of himself. Then came the Dismissal. Joe's story captures the bewilderment and chaos of 11 November 1975. He said, 'After lunch the bells rang for parliament to assemble. I went and sat in my seat on the front bench, next to Joe Riordan. Joe turned to me and said: "I suppose you've heard. The big fella's been sacked." It was an indication of how naive I was that I said, "You mean Gough sacked the Governor-General?" He said, "No, the Governor-General has sacked Gough." It must have taken me 15 or 20 seconds to absorb. I just sat dumbfounded until I said, "If Gough's been sacked that means we've been sacked, too." Joe said, "That's right," and that was the end of my ministerial career.' In that same year, after many years of part-time study and flights across the Nullarbor, balancing his parliamentary paperwork with legal books and lecture notes, Joe obtained his law degree. In 1980, when he returned to public life in the Western Australian Legislative Council he went on to serve as Attorney-General for 10 years and under three premiers, as we've heard. After politics, Joe became president of the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia, carrying on a lifetime of service to his faith and to Carmel School in particular. His legacy as a cabinet nuisance lived on in the school's AGM. The principal wrote in his tribute to Joe: 'The only audience questions that the board were apprehensive about were those posed by Mr Berinson.' I think, though, that the final words belong to his family. They said, 'In life he did that which is asked of man: act justly, love mercy, walk humbly with God'. May he rest in peace. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Workplace Relations 44 14:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms that company profits have increased by 5.8 per cent over the year, nearly three times as much as wages growth of 2.1 per cent. Why does this Prime Minister support arbitrarily cutting the penalty rates of working Australians this Sunday while he's giving an $80 billion handout to big business? Or is this just another case of the Prime Minister telling nearly 700,000 hardworking Australians, who are again having their penalty rates arbitrarily cut, to just get a better job? 14:08 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I can well understand the desperation of the Leader of the Opposition, faced as he is with a challenge from the member for Grayndler, who has laid out his wares and reminded everybody that there was a time when the Labor Party stood for aspiration, stood to encourage people to get ahead. It was a party that talked about opportunity. The member for Grayndler was out there with the most pre-briefed political speech any of us can remember. You couldn't move in the press gallery. There were so many people working for the member for Grayndler, pushing through the crowds to get copies of that speech out there. You know what? It's a speech that would have been completely unremarkable in normal times, because it talked about great Labor leaders. It even talked about a great Liberal leader: John Carrick. It talked about the importance of hard work. It decried class war and the politics of envy. And who was it aimed at? The Leader of the Opposition. That's what it was all about. And so now, having been chastised by his rival, the member for Grayndler, what does he do? He goes further to the left with one personal attack after another. He talks about penalty rates. Let's talk about Cleanevent. What about that? They had a penalty rate of $50 an hour under the award. The Leader of the Opposition, that champion of the poor and oppressed, that battling advocate for the workers, traded it down to $18 an hour. You know what? My old friend Neville Wran used to say, 'Anyone can go to jail if they get the right lawyer,' but I say anyone can get their penalty rates halved if they have the Leader of the Opposition representing them. Economy 44 14:10 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House why it is important to encourage employment through lower taxes and not attack those in the economy who create jobs? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:11 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. Our plan for a stronger economy is delivering record jobs growth. Last year, 2017, had the highest jobs growth in Australia's history—the best jobs growth we've ever seen—and we have 3.1 per cent GDP growth, so we're delivering more jobs and stronger economic growth. That means you get stronger government revenues, which means we can bring the budget back into balance a year earlier. It means we can provide tax relief to hardworking Australian families so they can keep more of the money they earn. It's their money. Of course, the Labor Party think it's the government's money. The Labor Party has a completely different perspective on hardworking Australians' earnings. They see any tax relief as a giveaway. The government is giving money away. Well, it's not. Australians work hard. They are facing rising costs of living. They want to get ahead and they want to be able to keep more of the money they earn. And, thanks, to the stronger economy, to the stronger jobs growth, to the keen economic management of the government that is ensuring the government funds all of those essential services we need with increasing amounts every year and at the same time lives within its means, we are able to provide vital tax relief to hardworking Australian families, supporting enterprise, encouraging aspiration, encouraging Australians to get ahead, ensuring that not only do middle-income families have more money in their pocket from their money but they'll keep more of the money they earn next year and through the whole reform plan. We'll get to a point where we'll have 94 per cent of Australians paying no more than 32½c in every extra dollar they earn. This is a massive reform. Of course, the alternative from the Labor Party is one that is designed to demonise anyone that wants to get ahead. Today the Leader of the Opposition talked about wanting to encourage people who earn $40,000, $60,000, $80,000, $100,000 to get ahead. Anyone on $100,000 today is going to be massively worse off under the Labor Party should they be allowed to implement their tax scheme. There's no doubt about that. Labor has turned its back on aspiration. It has embraced the politics of envy and a class war, and the member for Grayndler has called it out. We may be getting to the end of winter but the member for Grayndler is coming. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 45 14:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister visited a cafe this morning, did he apologise to the workers who served him his coffee for supporting cuts to their penalty rates at the same time as he's giving an $80 billion handout to big business, or is it one rule for the businesses the Prime Minister invests in and another for the workers who serve him? 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question and remind her that, just as supporting enterprise and supporting hardworking Australian families getting ahead was always part of the Labor Party's ethos for over a century but now abandoned by her and her leader— Opposition members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Oh, the Labor Party has abandoned it. Any deputy Labor leader that can say aspiration is a mystery to her has lost touch with what the Labor Party used to be all about. Another thing the Labor Party was founded on was the need to have an independent umpire. That was the belief of William Guthrie Spence, founder of the AWU, going right back into the 19th century. That was always the goal—an independent umpire—and, in one form or another, it's been part of our landscape for over a century. What do we have here? Take the Leader of the Opposition. A couple of years ago, he said, 'I know that, for the last 110 years, conciliation, arbitration and the ability to have an honest broker at the end of the day to hear complaints, concerns and appeals is what gave the workers a voice.' Fair Work considered the matter of penalty rates. It heard everybody—all the parties—and it made a decision. It wasn't an arbitrary decision; it was the decision of the independent umpire. But, if you want to talk about arbitrary decisions, what about the way in which unions—and, in particular, the union formerly led by the Leader of the Opposition—traded away one set of penalty rates after another and all too often did so in return for payments by the employer to the union which were not disclosed. When this shocking state of affairs was revealed in the Heydon royal commission and we introduced legislation to do no more than require unions to reveal payments they had from employers to their members, who opposed it? It was the Labor Party. The Labor Party has abandoned the workers. It's abandoned its values. The mystery of aspiration to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not left the Labor Party anywhere but utterly out of touch with the people it was once founded to represent. No wonder the member for Grayndler has had a gutful of his leader. Income Tax 45 14:17 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the importance of encouraging and rewarding aspiration through the government's personal income tax cuts? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative views that would undermine aspiration? 14:18 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Moore for his question. This year's budget was a plan for a stronger economy, and that plan is working. More than a million jobs have been created since we were first elected. We had record jobs growth last year. Economic growth through the year has been 3.1 per cent and we are back up on top of all advanced economies in the world today. A key part of that plan for a stronger economy, which is working and which we need to stick to, is lower taxes—lower taxes to ensure businesses are more competitive and lower taxes to ensure that Australians who go to work today and every day and pay their taxes have the incentive to keep going and doing that. Our plan for personal taxes is that they be lower, that they be fairer and that they be simpler. Now that is legislated. It has been legislated by this parliament so all Australians who are working and paying taxes today and in the future can go into this next decade with a plan for a stronger economy and also where they'll know that they'll be paying less tax than they otherwise would have been. What that says to families and people who are going out there and working hard is that they can plan for their future with confidence. We have laid out a long-term plan so they know where we as a government are going. We have the backing of this parliament to ensure that that plan is in place so they have the incentive, they have the reward and they have the opportunity to go and realise those plans of theirs. People who have plans have aspirations. That's what they have. They have aspirations for themselves and for their families, and they have those plans. What we have done by legislating our personal tax plan is ensure they now can give effect to their aspiration, can set themselves on that course and can have that encouragement. That plan deals firstly with lower- and middle-income earners. That plan then deals with bracket creep. That plan deals with a simpler tax system which means that 94 per cent of Australians will not pay a marginal tax rate greater than 32½c in the dollar. If we had not legislated that, that figure would have been 63 per cent. That means a paramedic today working and earning around $80,000 not only will get $530 back on their tax refund but will get $3,740 more over the next seven years. Importantly, that paramedic will never face a marginal tax rate of 32½c or more. A 32½c rate will be as much as they will pay under the plan we've legislated, but not under the plan of those opposite. Under the Labor Party that paramedic will face a 37c tax rate. They will pay higher taxes. The Leader of the Opposition is telling Australians that he wants $70 billion of higher taxes. His message is: 'Vote Labor; pay more tax.' That's not the message of this government. Taxation 46 14:21 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra My question is to the Prime Minister. Company profits increased by 5.8 per cent over the year, nearly three times as much as wages, so why does this Prime Minister support cutting the penalty rates of nearly 700,000 working Australians by up to $77 a week while he's giving an $80 billion handout to big business? Is the Prime Minister telling hardworking Australians, including those who made his coffee this morning, to just get a better job too? 14:21 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The honourable member overlooks the fact that the champion in trading away penalty rates is none other than her leader. Nobody has been more consistent in trading away penalty rates than her leader. He did so in return for secret negotiations with the employer. That's it. The independent umpire, which the Labor Party was found to support and maintain, was lauded, praised and defended by the Labor Party again and again. At one point at the last election the Leader of the Opposition said he was going to throw himself bodily—he was going to do everything he could to stop the government from abolishing the independent umpire. We had no more planned to do that than we did to sell Medicare. It was another Labor scare. Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 The reality is this: he said that only Labor could be trusted to stand up for the independent umpire. Now they want to junk the independent umpire. You can't have it both ways. You can't support an independent umpire and then abandon it, disown it, when it makes decisions you don't agree with. The Leader of the Opposition sold out workers in one agreement after another. The most notorious case was Cleanevent, where the overtime award rate was $50 an hour and he negotiated it down to $18 an hour. After the Leader of the Opposition left the union to come into parliament, Cleanevent, in order to maintain the arrangements with the AWU in Victoria, paid the union $75,000, undisclosed to the members of the union. When we wanted to ensure that members knew what was going on and introduced legislation to apply a bit of sunlight, who opposed it? The Labor Party. They have abandoned the very people whom the Labor Party was founded to protect. No wonder the member for Grayndler is disgusted with this turn of events. No wonder the member for Grayndler has set out a return to the values of Tom Uren and the Labor Party in challenging the pathetic class war and hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition. Energy 46 14:24 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Huge advances in renewable energy and storage technology mean that the electricity sector can more easily cut its pollution than agriculture or transport can. Yet, despite demanding that states and territories compromise and agree to your National Energy Guarantee, you yourself have refused to compromise on the paltry emissions reduction target set for electricity. In fact, you even want to lock it in and tie the hands of future governments for 10 years. Given your refusal to negotiate in good faith on the pollution target for electricity, thus making other sectors do the heavy lifting, can you tell the House: what are the government's emissions reduction targets now for agriculture and transport? 14:25 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong We won't take a lecture from the Greens, who call Senator Jim Molan a war criminal. We won't take a lecture from the Greens, who celebrate when people's houses are burnt down, blaming it on climate change. The reality is that emissions on a per capita and GDP basis are now at their lowest in 28 years. That's the record of the Turnbull government, and we've done it without a carbon tax, we've done it without a citizens assembly and we've done it without a cash-for-clunkers program. We have delivered lower emissions in electricity and in other areas. When it comes to renewables, we have seen record investment under the Turnbull government. Australia is now the third most attractive destination in the world on a per capita basis, and the seventh most attractive destination overall, for investment in renewables. At the same time, we will not compromise the affordability and the reliability of our power system. The Greens and the Labor Party want to shut down our coal-fired power stations across the country and sell out blue-collar workers. The member for Hunter wants to sell out the workers across his electorate. The member for Shortland— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne, on a point of order. Mr Bandt M3C The question was about targets for agriculture and transport, if the minister could address those. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Melbourne will resume his seat. The minister will just wait—I'm going to rule on the point of order, if that's okay with him! I'm going to make two points to the member for Melbourne. Certainly, the last part of the member for Melbourne's question was about those two specific policy areas, agriculture and transport. The problem for the chair, of course, is the preambles to questions, which ministers are entitled to address. And, in the case of Independents' questions, they tend to be longer, given the longer time limit they have for their questions—45 seconds. That's beyond my control; I've made that point on numerous occasions. But I do say to the Minister for the Environment and Energy: none of the preamble or the specific questions from the member for Melbourne—I was about to intervene—relate to the opposition, so he needs to confine himself to the question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL In relation to the land sector, the Emissions Reduction Fund has reduced emissions and contracted for emissions for 190 million tonnes at an average cost of around $13 a tonne—a very effective policy. When it comes to the transport sector, we've invested, through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, in electric vehicles and the rollout of emissions there. At the end of the day, when it comes to reducing emissions, we will also ensure the affordability and the stability of our energy system. We've committed to 26 to 28 per cent, and, just as we are overachieving on our 2020 target, we'll meet our 2030 target too. Economy 47 14:29 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please update the House on how the government is backing hardworking families, and small and family businesses, through infrastructure investment, including in my electorate of Petrie; and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any roadblocks to jobs and economic growth for regional and outer metropolitan Australia? Mr Albanese interjecting — 14:29 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Grayndler is very noisy today. He was very noisy late last week too, probably with good reason. Australians work hard. Mr Albanese interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 There he goes again. Australians work hard and the Liberals and the Nationals back them. Jobs, tax relief and aspiration are what the government is all about. It's what the member for Petrie is all about, and we are delivering. It doesn't matter where you live or whether you're paying income tax or company tax as a small business—we have your back. We want to make it easier for you. The member for Petrie is a passionate advocate for the people in his electorate in the outer suburbs of Brisbane. He understands the unique and important role that regional Australia plays in our economy. He's part of a government which put those people first with income tax last week. People in Petrie, people in Proserpine, people in Peak Hill in my electorate, people in Parramatta, people in Port Adelaide—they're the people we want to put first in our once-in-a-generation income tax relief. From 1 July, low- and middle-income earners will start to see the benefits of tax relief as the new financial year starts. We know that these Australians in our suburbs and in our regions are needing tax relief the most, and we are the government who are delivering it. We've delivered it. People such as Danielle from Bald Hills in the member for Petrie's electorate—as a young worker, she will be one of the first to see and reap the benefits from the tax relief. She can help pay her bills that much easier and maybe will even have a little bit left over to spend in her local economy. The member for Petrie ran a small family business before his election and he backs the millions of Australians who work in these types of businesses each and every day. He knows how hard it is to run a small family business. He understands it. I know you people opposite don't, but he does and he wants to make it easier for them. Families and small businesses need infrastructure investment to help them grow too. In outer metropolitan and rural and regional areas, there are investments such as the Bruce Highway upgrade, the Deception Bay Road interchange upgrade, the $13 million in Roads to Recovery funding and the budget commitment to the Beerburrum to Nambour rail line. Team Queensland is very much behind those projects. They'll be a benefit for the people of Petrie. This is delivered thanks to the good economic management of the Liberals and Nationals, the Turnbull government. Yet if we compare this track record with that of those opposite, it's not a pretty sight. When we cut income tax for every working Australian, Labor said no. When we helped deliver historic small business tax cuts, Labor said no. When we helped create a million jobs in five years, what did Labor do? It sat on its hands and said no. The people of Petrie, the people of Proserpine, the people of Peak Hill—they know that Labor is opposed to them getting ahead. They know the Leader of the Opposition is the biggest roadblock to their success and they know that the member for Grayndler knows it too. Taxation 48 14:32 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that the Prime Minister will personally benefit from his $80 billion handout to big business through his investments in dozens of big businesses. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, through at least 15 of his 39 managed funds, he invests in 18 businesses that have a turnover of more than $50 million and an additional 14 businesses that have a turnover of more than $1 billion per year? Can the Prime Minister confirm how much these dozens of big businesses will benefit from his big business tax handout? 14:33 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. As I've described to honourable members before, Australians know my life story. It's hardly a secret. Over the course of my life, Lucy and I have worked hard; we've had good fortune. We have paid tax—paid a lot of tax—we've given back to the community and we have been able to achieve a great deal. There was a time when the Labor Party would have certainly welcomed that. Most Australians, the vast majority of Australians, seek to work hard and get ahead. When they do, they pay their tax and they contribute to society. Historically, both sides of politics have welcomed that but apparently not any longer. The honourable member has asked about my investments, which are set out in the members' interests disclosure. As honourable members would be aware—and I've explained why I've done this in the past—the funds are managed by an external financial adviser. The liquid investments in securities are overwhelmingly held in managed funds and they are almost entirely offshore-managed funds. The reason for that is so as to avoid conflicts of interest in Australian shareholdings. That is the situation. If honourable members opposite want to start a politics-of-envy campaign about it, I don't think they'll be telling people anything they don't know. But I would just remind honourable members opposite that virtually every member of this House who has interests in Australian superannuation funds—and I particularly note AustralianSuper as being one that is very well-supported or patronised by members opposite—has investments in all of the big multinationals, all of the big companies and banks, and so forth. So the idea that the honourable member wants to create—that somehow or other my wife and I are in a special, unique position in terms of our shareholdings—is absolutely wrong. By all means, the honourable members opposite should go ahead with it if they wish, but I have to say that the politics of envy is one that has failed in the past. Labor leaders, with success, have united Australians and have called on Australians to be optimistic, to be ambitious, to look forward, and to aspire. Australian Labor leaders who have been successful have talked about the value that the member for Grayndler— (Time expired) Taxation 48 14:36 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on why it is important to have tax policies that reward hard work? Is the minister aware of any threats to the hip pockets of working Australians? 14:37 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Corangamite for her question. She, like those on this side of the chamber, understands that Australians work hard for their money and they should keep as much of that hard-earned income as possible. She understands, as we do on this side of the chamber as a government, that it is not the government's money; it is the individuals' money. That is why I'm happy to note here in this chamber the government's historical Personal Income Tax Plan that allows individuals to keep more of their hard-earned income that they work for, whilst also guaranteeing the essential services that Australians rely on. Our plan delivers lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all Australians—principles that we on this side agree with. The contrast with those opposite could not be clearer. They are for higher, bigger, and more taxes. That is something that unites every single one of them—perhaps with the exception of one. Maybe I am being a little unkind in tarring all of those opposite with the same brush. Maybe there is one amongst them who dares to speak out and dares to be different. And I just want to highlight the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler is so aspirational that last Friday he broke ranks with those opposite and said that Labor should celebrate the importance of individual enterprise and the efforts and the importance of the business community. I kept reading through his speech and I'm a little sad to say that there wasn't terribly much more that I could agree with, because, of course, he talked about the fact that the Labor Party is not a single-issue party. But the Labor Party is a single-issue party. It is the party of higher taxes. This is, in fact, something that motivates them. This is something that they truly believe in. Let's consider the evidence. Labor will raise taxes for small business and family enterprises. They are going to raise those taxes. Those people who want to earn, or who aspire to earn, more than $90,000 will pay higher taxes under the Labor Party. They will increase taxes for those people who have superannuation accounts and investments. And, if you happen to survive the tax tsunami that those opposite would like to wreak upon the Australian people, when you retire they will come after you, as well, and they will deny you your tax refunds. It all adds up to more than $200 billion worth of new or increased taxes. They are going to hit Australians, young and old, because they believe in higher taxes. The government knows that those Australians who work hard for their income deserve to keep as much of it as possible. Those opposite would deny it to them. (Time expired) Income Tax 49 14:40 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley My question is to the Prime Minister. Last week the government told 8,000 workers losing their jobs at Telstra that 'these things do happen'. But, this week, the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to give big business—including Telstra and the banks—an $80 billion tax handout. A week after Telstra sacked 8,000 workers and in the middle of a banking royal commission, why is the Prime Minister awarding Telstra and the big banks and punishing workers? 14:40 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth 'Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages'—that was the member for Maribyrnong on Tuesday, 23 August 2011. As Australia is buffeted by economic events overseas, we understand that lowering corporate tax assists the creation of jobs. What can be more important in this country than the creation of jobs? That was the member for Maribyrnong— Ms Butler interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is now warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 on Wednesday, 14 March 2012. We recognise that, in a world of mobile capital, if we have high company tax rates our companies will not get the investment that they need to grow employment and boost wages. That was the member for Fenner on 23 October 2011. If you are helping economic growth you are then helping the wages of working people … Good for businesses, good for growth, good for jobs and good for wages: that is what a cut in company tax is. That was Julia Gillard on 15 March 2012. Really, Mr Speaker? The Labor Party has now decided that there is no connection between lower company taxes and jobs. Every single Labor Party leader, including the gentleman opposite, has said precisely that—lower company tax means more investment, more jobs, higher wages and stronger economic growth. Paul Keating set that out in his policy speech in 1993. And it was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Maribyrnong, who, 20 years later, described Paul Keating as 'an economic genius' for the way he took on the realities of the economy and was prepared, in the manner outlined by the member for Grayndler, to embrace business and recognise that business is the engine room of jobs. The Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party of today, much to the dismay of the member for Grayndler and so many others, have abandoned the very people the party was founded to protect. Defence Industry 50 14:43 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how government is working with industry to support job creation and investment in the defence industry, and what are the alternatives to supporting jobs and growth in this way? 14:43 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. The government is focused on supporting aspirational Australians. We're focused on securing our nation's defences and, in the process, creating as many jobs as possible—jobs and investment, jobs and growth—across the defence industry. It's working. It's working in the member for Leichhardt's electorate in particular. To do that we know that we have to cooperate with businesses large and small. We know that we have to recognise that not every worker is a member of a union. It's not 1950 anymore. And we recognise, of course, that Australians are inherently aspirational— Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton is warned. Mr PYNE 9V5 as understood by the Hawke and Keating governments. Does that sound familiar? Does that sound a bit familiar? Well, it's all contained in this speech. This is the bloodied dagger masquerading as a speech from the member for Grayndler, plunged into the chest of the Leader of the Opposition. This is the speech in which the member for Grayndler has staked his credentials as the next leader of the Labor Party. Make no mistake. He is still holding out. He's still pretending that the Labor Party has a place for aspiration in it. He's the Lieutenant Onoda of the Labor Party caucus. He's refusing to accept that the Hawke-Keating legacy has been abandoned by the Labor Party. He's darting from one ALP event to the other, between rubber chicken and party pies and pasties, giving a speech here, dropping a column there and trailing his coat-tails so that the Labor Party know that they have an option in the member for Grayndler. He is using the traditional tactics of the guerrilla jungle warrior: appearing and then disappearing again. It's okay. We're not going to let him disappear from view. We're going to make sure the member for Grayndler stays front and centre, like a ninja warrior. We're going to make sure that he gets every opportunity to promote his aspirational agenda for the Labor Party. Unfortunately, though, I have bad news for the member for Grayndler. The bad news is that the Leader of the Opposition is not interested in this alternative agenda. He's decided he wants to have a war on business. He wants the CFMMEU to be at the cabinet table in a future Labor government. He wants to reject the aspirations of Australians and also reject the Hawke-Keating legacy. He scoffs at aspiration, so I think it's going to be a long, cold winter for the member for Grayndler. I table this speech—this bloodied dagger masquerading as the Gough Whitlam Oration. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Leader of the House for that. I'm not sure he would have given leave to have it tabled if it were on the other side. Taxation 50 14:46 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. In the last month, the Commonwealth Bank was fined $700 million for repeated breaches of anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing laws. So why is the Prime Minister this week trying to cut a deal with the One Nation political party to reward the same big banks with a $17 billion handout? 14:47 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The major bank levy, of course, in last year's budget demonstrated the government's commitment to ensuring that the banks paid a fair contribution for the protection they have in the implicit guarantee they get from government, and that's a very substantial charge on them. The case for reducing company tax is a case for Australian workers. Every other Labor leader—including the honourable member opposite—has understood this. The member for McMahon has written a whole book about it. The fundamental question is one of competitiveness: do you want Australian businesses to be competitive? If they're not competitive, they won't be successful. In order to be competitive, they have to have a competitive tax rate. The United States has moved down to 21 per cent. France has gone to 25 per cent. The UK's below 20 per cent. Are we seriously going to maintain the proposition that Australian businesses will be competitive in a global environment with the highest company tax in the OECD? Plainly, every other Labor leader has recognised that. Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister, said it himself, and I'll just conclude with this quote from this 1993 policy speech: We lowered the company tax rate from 39 per cent to 33, providing Australian industry with a business tax system competitive with any in the world— as it was at the time. He went on to say: This is where the energy will come from. And we will do everything we can to stimulate it and, where necessary, provide strategic support. That was the Labor Party of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. The Labor Party of the member for Maribyrnong is one denying economic reality, built on the politics of envy and trying to divide Australians rather than unite them. Successful Labor leaders have united Australians, and they've done so on the basis of optimism and aspiration. They haven't sought to divide them on the basis of envy. National Security 51 14:49 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the importance of strong and consistent measures to secure our maritime boundaries? Is the minister aware of any ideas that could destabilise our strong border protection system? 14:50 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. It has now been 1,429 days since we have seen a successful boat arrival to this country. That's a significant achievement. We've turned back over 30 boats. The reality is that the people smugglers have not gone away. Many of them are lying dormant, I suspect, waiting for the outcome of the next election to see whether or not Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, is elected Prime Minister, then they will be back into it like there is no tomorrow. I suppose they're asking themselves whether or not the member for Grayndler will be the leader of the Labor Party by the time of the next election. This gratuitous advice being offered in relation to border protection policy and other matters at the moment by the member for Grayndler to the member for Maribyrnong—I think I've seen this movie before. I seem to recall Mr Rudd, as Leader of the Opposition and leader in government, putting forward a policy which ended up seeing tens of thousands of people arrive. Remember he tweaked the policy settings from John Howard when he was in government and a flood of boats came through. Tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. You'll remember that Julia Gillard came riding in on the white horse, saying: 'My way is better. I have an alternative plan. I'll put in place a policy which the Labor Party will be able to put its stock behind.' The problem is that the member for Grayndler is softer on border protection than even this Leader of the Opposition. It is hard to believe, but he would be a bigger disaster than even Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd— Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr DUTTON 00AKI The Leader of the Opposition chimes in that that's the kindest thing I've ever said about him. It won't be for the last if the member for Grayndler keeps it up. All I can say is that Graham Richardson had a lot to say about both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. I notice he's back in the press again today. In his article in The Australian he says in part, 'With Albo, what you see is what you get.' To decode that, that means, 'What you see with the Leader of the Opposition is not actually what you get.' Mr Richardson went on to say about Albo, 'He is not devious and his word is his bond.' Could that be a coded message about this Leader of the Opposition? I think it is. We've all sat through the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Watching it from this side, it's all about to be replayed. It's game on again within Labor. The tragedy is that, under either this leader or the prospective leader, the boats will restart again. (Time expired) Child Care 51 14:53 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston My question is to the Prime Minister. The government's unfair childcare changes start on Monday. Why is this Prime Minister cutting childcare payments for 279,000 families on Monday, including over 2,200 families in Longman, while giving $17 billion to the big banks? 14:54 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I can inform the House that, when the Labor Party was last in office, childcare fees went up by 53 per cent. Ms Rishworth interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston is warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL We all remember the 260 childcare centres they promised. How many did they deliver? Just 38—the double drop-off. What about compliance checks? They also went down significantly when Labor was last in office. The Turnbull government's childcare reforms will see nearly one million families better off. Those opposite have tried to obstruct these reforms all along. That's even though, in the member for Maribyrnong's electorate, 4,800 families will be better off. What about in the member for Kingston's electorate? Over 6,000 families will be better off there. We will increase the subsidy for 370,000 families whose income is just over $67,000 a year. We will increase the subsidy from 72 per cent to 85 per cent. We will encourage more than 200,000 families to re-enter the workforce or to take up greater workforce participation. The hourly rate caps, which were a recommendation out of the Productivity Commission, are designed to put downward pressure on fee growth. At the end of the day, whether you're one of the 3,000 families in Braddon who will be better off under the Turnbull government's childcare package or one of the more than 7,000 families in Longman who will be better off under the Turnbull childcare package, when it comes to the Labor Party, don't look at what the Labor Party says, look at what they did. They put up childcare fees, whereas we are creating more opportunities for families right across the country. Energy 52 14:56 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government's strong economic management ensures an affordable and reliable energy system that benefits families, workers and small business? Is the minister aware of any different concepts? 14:56 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He knows that the Turnbull government is focused on delivering lower taxes and lower energy prices, more jobs and more growth and investment. This is good news for the workers at the Boyne aluminium smelter and good news for the workers at the Callide Power Station, the Gladstone Power Station and the Stanwell Power Station across the member for Flynn's electorate. It is good news for the boilermakers, the fitters and turners, the mechanics, the engineers, the forklift drivers and the truck drivers, all of whom will benefit from the Turnbull government's economic plan. If you're a fitter and turner in the electorate of Flynn, you're earning $68,000 a year. Under the Turnbull government's tax plan, you will now have an additional $530 a year in your pocket. Over seven years, that's more than $3,700. If you're in the electorate of Flynn and you're a workshop manager on an income of $88,000 a year, you will be better off by $570 a year and over seven years you will be more than $4,000 better off. That's not to mention the energy reforms that the Turnbull government has committed to, which are helping to deliver a drop of nearly 30 per cent in the wholesale prices. The ACCC is reporting that gas contracts have come down by up to 50 per cent. Retail users, households, businesses and small businesses across the electorates in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia will from 1 July start to see their prices fall. A growing retailer in Australia, Powershop, announced its new prices just today. Households in Queensland will see an 8.6 per cent drop. That's worth $140 a year to them. In New South Wales, they will see a three per cent drop. If you are a small business in South East Queensland, in Brisbane, on the Sunshine Coast or on the Gold Coast—with Powershop's announcement today of a 14.6 per cent drop in power prices—this is worth more than $1,400 to you. Today, as a result of Powershop's announcement, if you are in New South Wales and you are a small business—a pie shop, for example—your prices will drop by 8.8 per cent. That's $970 for the pie shop owner. We are committed to a more reliable and affordable system. Under the coalition, lower power prices are not just an aspiration but a reality. Under the coalition, you will always pay less for your power bill than you will under Labor. Economy 52 14:59 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. The Bank for International Settlements stated overnight that 'financial vulnerabilities have been rising' and 'household credit as a ratio to GDP remains at historical highs in Australia'. They said that now is the time to rebuild policy buffers. Won't the locking in of long-term tax cuts for big businesses and high-income earners mean that, if a downturn hits, instead of investing in jobs, this government will again cut schools, Medicare and pensions in Australia? 14:59 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook A stronger economy—that's what provides the resilience for Australia. A stronger economy is what guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on. A stronger economy keeps Australians safe. A stronger economy is what takes our budget back into balance and has ensured that in this year net debt turns around, over the next four years net debt will fall by $30 billion, and over the next 10 years it'll fall by more than $230 billion. A stronger economy is what gets these results. A stronger economy is what gives Australian jobs the resilience they need to ensure they don't lose them in the future. I'll tell you what a risk is to the Australian economy: more than $200 billion in higher taxes. That's what the shadow Treasurer's alternative is. His alternative approach to managing the Australian economy is to take an enormous chunk of tax and just throw it on top of the Australian economy and think it'll have no impact whatsoever. Higher taxes for small businesses, medium businesses, large businesses, family businesses. Higher taxes for retirees, higher taxes on superannuation contributions, higher taxes on housing, higher taxes on investment, higher taxes on personal income. He thinks that is the recipe to grow your economy. Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L He has no idea—the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services is absolutely right. His alternative is more than $200 billion in higher taxes and then lumping another $70 billion on in higher personal income taxes. That's what they're saying to people out in Longman, down in Braddon: 'Vote Labor and pay more tax.' That's the Labor way. When it comes to guaranteeing Australians' prosperity in the future, you don't get there by increasing their taxes. Just think through the logic. The Labor Party think that businesses, large and small, are going to be more likely to invest if they pay the government more in higher taxes. I mean, just think about that for a second. I would encourage them to think about that for a second. How does an Australian business, large or small, compete with a business overseas, in France, in the United States, in Tokyo, London or Singapore, all of whom are paying lower rates of tax? We will have the second-highest corporate tax rate in the OECD if we do not pass these tax changes to make our businesses more competitive. You want to talk about the big end of town. The Leader of the Opposition is supporting the big end of town in the United States, in Paris, in London, in New York, in San Francisco, in Singapore, all over the Western world and further. He is protecting jobs in all of those countries and he is acting against the interests of jobs in this country. Health Care 53 15:02 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is for the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how a stronger economy enables the government to provide record funding support for health services in South-East Queensland? Is the minister aware of another approach to the funding of health services? 15:03 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I thank the member for Bonner, who, before coming to this place, was very successful in small business and has brought that same hardworking approach to his own electorate of Bonner. One of the things he knew, though, is that you can't be successful in business or in the economy unless you have a plan. That's why the plan that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and others have built has helped deliver a million jobs, and those million jobs have helped deliver a budget position which allows us to guarantee essential services such as record funding for Medicare with an extra $4.8 million; record funding for hospitals with an extra $30 billion over the new long-term hospital agreement, including over an extra $7 billion in Queensland; record funding for mental health and for the PBS. What we also see is that it allows us at the local level to work on supporting drug and alcohol programs to deal with addiction and to provide hope and opportunity. In his own electorate, he has fought for and been able to secure two important local drug action teams, with the Blue Light Association and the SCHEMA Action Team. More important even than that, though, is that, when you look right across Queensland, what you see is a major increase in hospital funding. This increase has gone from what it was under Labor—$2.7 billion in 2012-13 for Commonwealth funding—to over $4 billion now and is heading to $6½ billion over the coming years. What that means is more services, more operations and more ability to provide the people of South-East Queensland with what they need. But I'm asked whether there are any alternatives. I saw an online petition on the weekend from Queensland Labor, and what that Queensland Labor petition said was, 'Stop the cuts to Caboolture Hospital.' So I checked the figures, and what I found was this: federal funding to the Metro North area, which includes Caboolture Hospital, went up by $120 million in the last full year alone—$120 million. Yet what did the very people who put out this petition about Caboolture Hospital, Queensland Labor, do? They cut their own funding to their own hospital by $21 million. Two things come out of this: firstly, Labor cannot be trusted and, secondly, Labor cannot manage the economy. If you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health. Economy 53 15:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, gross debt has crashed through a record half a trillion dollars. Does the Prime Minister agree that Australia has very high levels of debt and very high asset prices? Does the Prime Minister agree that this is the No. 1 domestic risk to our economy? Isn't this the worst possible time to lock in a 10-year $80 billion business tax giveaway, fuelling national debt? 15:06 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The government, under the member for Warringah, inherited a shocking debt situation from Labor in 2013. We inherited a structural deficit which has taken years to turn around. Net debt is peaking this financial year. It has a few days left. It will peak as a share of GDP in this current financial year and then decline year on year over the following decade to under four per cent of GDP. We have turned the corner on debt. The honourable member referred to asset prices. Let me remind the honourable member that one of the many economic threats he poses to the Australian public and to Australian families is in his attack on the savings of retirees, a shocking, shameful assault, which is going to force so many of them to sell out of their investments to avoid having the franking credits snatched away from them—and, of course, that's not to speak of his campaign against property investment. He's going to increase capital gains tax and abolish negative gearing. The largest single asset class in Australia is residential property. It is already softening. Many people would say that that is a correction that was due. Well, everything is good in moderation, I suppose. But what do we think the impact of a ban on negative gearing is going to be on a softening residential property market? The Labor Party will smash the savings of Australians. It will smash into the value of the largest single asset class. And do you know what, Mr Speaker? That is its avowed intention. The Labor Party is a massive threat to the savings, to the futures and to the prosperity of all Australians. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document? Mr Shorten 00ATG Yes, I seek to table the comments of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Philip Lowe, where he says that very high levels of debt and very high asset prices are the No. 1 domestic risk. I just thought the Prime Minister would like to learn. Leave not granted. Small Business 54 15:09 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan for jobs and growth will continue to benefit small businesses around Australia? What are the risks to business posed by alternative schemes? 15:09 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for La Trobe for his passion for small and family businesses in his electorate, and I note the Treasurer today and the Prime Minister. We revert to headline numbers a lot, but there are the mechanics sitting behind the million jobs—400,000 of those in the last 12 months and 80 per cent of those full-time—GDP growth at 3.1 per cent and the best business confidence conditions since the GFC. That comes about at the end of the plan that the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Finance have been implementing over the past 4½ years. What sits behind it at a microeconomic level? A net increase in the number of small and family businesses opening, amounting to 158,000 in the last 4½ years. In the member for La Trobe's home state of Victoria, there has been a net increase of 52,060 small and family businesses opening in the past 4½ years. Twenty thousand of those have been in the past 12 months. Of the just north of a million jobs, 366,000 have come from the member for La Trobe's home state—over a third. What is happening? At the end of tax cuts and as a result of confidence come businesses opening, employing people and reinvesting in themselves. Small and family business operators are taking on bank debt, backing themselves and employing people. What is the threat to that? Last Friday we saw the latest addition to the CFMEU's record—now passed—of $15.2 million in fines. The plan of the Leader of the Opposition and his secret deal with the CFMEU put at risk everything that has been put in place. In the construction sector alone, in the past 12 months there have been 50,000 jobs created by small and family businesses in Victoria. Yet what does the Leader of the Opposition do? As payment to his union mates, to whom he is beholden for their support for his leadership as well as their financial support for his election campaigns, he wants to take the ABCC, the Building and Construction Commission—the cop—off the beat. As Stephen McBurney, the commissioner, said to the Federal Court in the latest case, announced on Friday: The unlawful conduct … directly threatened the livelihoods of the contractors and their workers. This is what you see. This is what you will see more of. It is endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. He is beholden to them. We must make sure for the sake of the member for La Trobe and small and family businesses in his seat, let alone Victoria and Australia more broadly, that the sensible economic plan of the Turnbull coalition government continues to be delivered upon. Otherwise workers' jobs will be put at risk. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 54 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 49 of 2017-18 54 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's performance report No. 49 of 2017-18, entitled Senate order for departmental and entity contracts (financial year 2016–17 compliance): across entities. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DOCUMENTS 55 DOCUMENTS Presentation 55 15:13 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. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 55 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:13 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Most certainly. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG In question time today, the Prime Minister made allegations about my time as National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union. I'm proud to be a workers rep, proud to have improved the pay and conditions of thousands of middle- and working-class Australians, proud to have protected workers from corporate collapses like the kind that the Prime Minister was dragged to a royal commission on, and proud to have fought for the rights of asbestos victims while government ministers fought for the perpetrators. I will always stand up for the workers, while my opponent will always stand up for the top end of town. Mr Laming interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bowman will withdraw. Mr Laming E0H I withdraw. BILLS 55 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018 55

Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018

Second Reading 55 15:14 Mr HART 263070 Bass The extension of Single Touch Payroll reporting is to extend what currently applies to entities with 20 or more employees—the so-called substantial employers—to all entities with employees. Likewise, the facilitation of more regular reporting generally extends that which applies to substantial employers to all entities. The commissioner's collection and compliance measures have been enhanced. Previously, for the purposes of the director penalty provisions in division 269, a director was under an obligation to ensure that the company complies with its obligations with respect to an estimate under division 268 commencing on the initial day. An 'initial day' was defined as 'the day the company is given a notice of the estimate'. The new law redefines the initial day. For PAYG liability estimates, the initial day will be, for companies who are small and medium withholders, the last day of the period identified in the notice of the estimate, and, for companies which are large withholders, the day on which the company would have been obliged to pay the underlying liability. In cases of nonpayment of superannuation guarantee liability estimates, the initial day will be the day from the end of the quarter to which the estimate relates. This is important to ensure that directors are liable for defaults determined by reference to the particular failure, the subject of a notice. Given the resources available to large withholders, it is entirely appropriate that director penalties are determined by reference to the date upon which the company would have been obliged to pay the underlying liability. There is a pleasing extension of the power of the tax commissioner to require an entity to provide a security deposit upon the obtaining of a court order for that purpose. The security deposit will be with respect to an existing or future related tax-related liability. Whilst it might not prevent the scourge of phoenixing, where businesses are reincorporated and re-established after insolvency with seeming impunity, it is an important measure to ensure that taxation obligations can be the subject of a security. There are limitations upon the remission of director penalties where a company is placed into voluntary administration where there is an unreported superannuation guarantee charge liability and/or where the company has an obligation to pay an estimate of the superannuation guarantee charge by a particular date and the date at which they pay the underlying liability has passed. It's important for these issues to be the subject of an inquiry so that we, this House, can be positively satisfied that these measures are sufficient to stop the present widespread underpayment of superannuation. Superannuation industry stakeholders broadly support the bill. However, Industry Super Australia is concerned that the bill carves out labour-hire and contract workers from the information that the employers are to report to the Australian Taxation Office as part of the Single Touch Payroll system. There is a reasonably broad consensus amongst the ISA, the Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees and the ASFA that the bill does not go far enough to address the problem of unpaid super, and those organisations have called for changes, including, firstly, the removal of the $450 monthly income threshold for eligibility for superannuation guarantee, making pay cycle reporting for superannuation guarantee payments by employers compulsory, making it compulsory for employers to report ordinary-time earnings, including super in the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program and facilitating third-party assistance for employers with unpaid super. As to those issues, it is not rare for us to see in our constituency offices many complaints by employees that have been ripped off by employers going into liquidation where they are relying upon their Fair Entitlements Guarantee program, but of course this doesn't presently apply to superannuation. The first two of these measures are also included in the former member for Mayo's private member's bill to address unpaid super, which is in the House. Other measures that bill had proposed which were not included in the government bill are: including the superannuation guarantee in the National Employment Standards; creating a duty for a trustee to take reasonable steps to notify their members where it could be reasonably expected that a member should have received a contribution from an employer but did not and also requiring the tax commissioner to conduct a review of the employer's compliance with the superannuation guarantee payment obligations; and including recommendations to improve compliance. It is important, as I've said previously, that the bill be referred to a Senate inquiry to give stakeholders the opportunity to raise their concerns that the bill does not go far enough and to allow some technical issues to be explored further. Schedule 7 also contains new provisions with respect to information sharing. This enables the sharing and verification of tax file numbers which have been obtained in accordance with Commonwealth law—that is, between the commissioner and Commonwealth agencies. The changes ensure the Commonwealth agency that can legally request the tax file number of an individual is able to verify that the tax file number actually belongs to that individual by having the number verified by the Commissioner of Taxation. Schedule 8 makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the taxation, superannuation and other laws, for example minor technical changes to correct spelling errors and repeal inoperative provisions and to update references to the tax law to reflect changes to the names of state and territory legislation and specifically listed deductible gift recipients. There are some amendments to the Fuel Tax Regulation 2016, which did not explicitly state some charges which were to be calculated on weight rather than volumes where appropriate and also did not explicitly state that charges would be determined at a maximum of once a year. This is the existing practice. There's an amendment to the Migration Amendment (Temporary Activity Visas) Regulation 2016. Through an oversight, certain consequential amendments were not included in legislation resulting from a change in classification of subclass 416 visa to subclass 403. The changes are beneficial to those affected, despite some retrospectivity. For those who must check these things, there's also an amendment to the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to change the words 'tax fuel credit' to 'fuel tax credit'. As a commercial lawyer who often trawled through documents looking for inconsistencies, this latter issue strangely pleased me. There are two amendments which rectify unintended consequences of previous government bills. It might be fairly said that these errors should've been foreseen, such as a problem which was created with the introduction of the government's 2016 superannuation changes. Schedule 9 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to specify some further entities as deductible gift recipients. Again, having been a commercial lawyer advising organisations on the establishment of trusts, including some deductible gift recipient organisations, it's always interesting to see some of the new organisations that are specifically listed in the taxation legislation. These organisations are: Australian Philanthropic Services Limited, which is proposed to be listed from 1 July 2016; an organisation called Foundation 1901 Limited, which is to be registered from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2021 inclusive; and an organisation called Sydney Chevra Kadisha, which is to be registered from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019. For those who must be aware of these things, Australian Philanthropic Services Limited is a registered charity that sets up and administers private ancillary funds for individuals and families as well educating individuals, foundations and advisers concerning ancillary funds and the making of philanthropic grants. Having had the pleasure of acting as trustee of a substantial private charitable trust created within a will, I know that good works can be done either within a private charitable trust or, in this case, through the establishment of private ancillary funds. I was very interested to note that Foundation 1901 Ltd is a registered charity established to engage with and educate Australians about Federation. It engages with Australians through education campaigns to maximise understanding of the lessons of the history of Federation and its continued importance to Australia. Finally, Sydney Chevra Kadisha is a registered charity that provides funeral services to the Jewish community of New South Wales irrespective of an individual's ability to pay, by providing subsidised or free burial services. 15:25 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018. The superannuation guarantee is our only compulsory mechanism that ensures every Australian saves some of their income for use in their retirement. Along with the family home, superannuation continues to be a tax-effective means by which Australians can accumulate wealth from each and every pay packet. The government has consulted widely on this bill, and the result of that is the action that it is taking, as it well should. From shop assistants to shearers and drivers to builders and managers, these days everyone has an expectation that their wage or salary packet will also include the compulsory superannuation component. None of these people expect that they will be short-changed on their superannuation. It matters little whether the short-changing is deliberate or not. The point is that people in Australia expect to receive their superannuation out of their earnings and, when they don't, it is a bitter, painful financial blow. We need to act on this issue because, while the vast, overwhelming majority of employers pay the superannuation guarantee, it can be simply devastating when they don't. For an employee, it can mean the difference between taking the big trip that you worked your whole life for or missing out, or between finally paying off the home mortgage or not. It's an awful experience for those people who are short-changed and then have to go through a very rigorous process to try to get their funding back, if they can get it back. There's a very pertinent example of this from my electorate, which is the case of Graeme and Victoria Smith-Webb. Mr Smith-Webb was employed by a company in my electorate between 2011 and 2016. During the time that he was working for that employer, he noticed that his superannuation was not being paid, despite being shown pay slips which indicated that it had been so paid. Mrs Smith-Webb very diligently checked with the relevant super fund, which showed that nothing had been contributed for four years. Over a period of six years, despite numerous requests in writing to his employer and requests in person and over the phone to the relevant superannuation manager, Mr Smith-Webb's superannuation remained unpaid. They did everything they could. They alerted the relevant authorities in the Australian government. They did the right thing. Then, fairly recently, the employing company went into liquidation. Mr Smith-Webb was advised by the liquidators that he had Buckley's chance of seeing any of his superannuation and that this kind of problem was quite common. Mr and Mrs Smith-Webb feel badly let down by the system. They feel cheated and they feel aggrieved. So this is an important bill to ensure that this type of behaviour does not continue from employers and that they are not short-changing their workers. In recent debate, the members opposite were talking a lot about phoenixing, and this bill will help end this exploitation of Australian workers with a reporting regime that regularly reconciles the superannuation contributions that employers say they are paying with what workers are actually receiving in their superannuation funds. The bill introduces amendments to improve compliance with the superannuation guarantee and puts several measures in place to either help employers who are getting it wrong or crack down on those who are doing the wrong thing. I'm not going to wade through each and every point of this legislation. Suffice to say there are some key initiatives that take advantage of the data that employers and superannuation funds already submit and initiatives that empower the ATO to fully reconcile wages, salary and superannuation data. Nobody likes their government to be officious. In most cases, the ATO will contact employers to help guide these matters back on track and, where necessary, the ATO will be able to compel employers to undertake further education on the subject of the superannuation guarantee. I think that's very important. You've got to let employers know just what this means, just how important it is and that they can't be dudding their workers. Employers who do not pay their employees their superannuation entitlements are breaking the law. When they don't get their employees' superannuation into order, the ATO will have the power to compel a payment of any outstanding superannuation guarantee amounts. There may well be jail time—up to 12 months is on the cards—for those who continue to fail to meet their obligations. Importantly, this bill will also allow the ATO to tell employees what it's doing to recover their unpaid superannuation. This is only reasonable since those employees have actually earned that money; it's their money. I understand that 70 per cent of employers reported by staff for not paying their superannuation are small firms turning over $2 million or less. These businesses have more manual systems and processes than larger firms, and it therefore makes sense to be introducing a single-touch payroll system to these firms on 1 July 2018. the single-touch payroll means that pay-as-you-go withholding of payments, employee salaries or wages and ordinary time earnings and superannuation contributions will all be reported with each pay run. In the same vain, for each payroll cycle, superannuation funds will now report to the ATO on the contributions received and overall account balances. These respective reporting requirements will then be reconciled against each other so that the ATO can identify and help clear up discrepancies much more quickly. In short, these reforms will enable the ATO to keep an eye on any superannuation guarantee shortfalls at the employer and employee level and to take much more timely action where required. Intervening early, potentially before the employee is aware, can prevent superannuation guarantee liabilities from spiralling out of control and helps to ensure employees receive what they are owed. This bill is very important for the day-to-day operation of our superannuation and taxation system. It introduces some simple measures to improve the integrity of the data reported by small businesses to match it against reporting by superannuation funds and allows different government agencies to compare taxpayer data that they already hold. Quite simply, this bill makes our superannuation, taxation and welfare systems operate more effectively. I will conclude by adding the observation that what Mr and Mrs Smith-Webb from the Calare electorate have been through has been an awful experience. As I said during my earlier remarks in the House, they feel deeply aggrieved that they haven't been able to recover Mr Smith-Webb's lost superannuation. It is a case that has highlighted the flaws in the system. We, as a country, can be doing much better for people like the Smith-Webbs. If this bill serves to ensure that others don't have to go through what the Smith-Webbs have been through, then that is a very good thing for this country and a very good thing for the people of my electorate. This is an important bill, and a lot of work has gone into it. I commend it to the House. 15:34 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield At the outset, I thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 4) Bill 2018. You would be as firm in your conviction as I am that, if Australians are to continue to have confidence in the integrity of the superannuation system, we must ensure employers are paying workers their full entitlements. The Turnbull government is introducing strong new rules that will protect workers' superannuation entitlements by improving compliance with the superannuation guarantee. We are targeting the key barrier to better enforcement of the super guarantee: the ATO's visibility over how much superannuation employees are owed and the contributions their funds receive. This legislation will provide the ATO with near real-time information on employers' compliance with their superannuation guarantee obligations, allowing the ATO to identify and act on noncompliance earlier. We are enhancing the ATO's toolkit to police noncompliance, introducing tough penalties for employers who are repeatedly short-changing their workers, and strengthening the ATO's powers to recover unpaid superannuation on behalf of employees. Employees will benefit from better and more frequent information about their superannuation. The ATO will be able to provide information about actions they are taking to collect unpaid superannuation guarantee contributions to employees and former employees irrespective of whether they have made complaints to the ATO. The bill will add three significant charities—Australian Philanthropic Services, Foundation 1901 and Sydney Chevra Kadisha—to the list of specified deductible gift recipients. The bill makes minor amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation to ensure our laws continue to operate as intended. The bill is an important step in safeguarding workers' entitlements, ensuring the superannuation system works for all Australians, and promoting charitable activity in Australia. I commend this bill to the House. Mr Tim Wilson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 I'm afraid the debate has been summed up—I've been corrected: if the member wishes to speak, he can, because the minister at the table wasn't the minister who moved the bill. 15:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My intention was to speak only briefly on the piece of legislation and to rise in support of it on the basis that it provides a fundamental good in dealing with the challenges faced by many workers around superannuation, particularly in ensuring the compliance necessary by employers for every Australian worker to be paid what they are due consistent with the tax office and many other requirements. Every single member across this parliament would be aware of the challenges that many employees face in ensuring they have the benefits owed them by law and the arrangements necessary to secure their superannuation. In particular, people working in part-time, flexible or intermittent work need assistance in seeking the opportunity to secure their entitlements. This bill provides a framework for directly making sure that people are paid the benefits that they have accrued and earned. The bill introduces amendments to improve compliance and crack down on employers who do the wrong thing. Whether you're on this side of the chamber or on the other side of the chamber, making sure that occurs is critical. Some employers, sadly, do not pay their employees' superannuation because they do not understand their obligations under the superannuation guarantee. This amendment ensures those employers that do the wrong thing and do not pay their employees' superannuation benefits will face stiff penalties including up to 12 months of imprisonment. This sanction sends a very clear signal that failure to comply with the superannuation guarantee is a serious offence taken very seriously by everybody in this parliament and most particularly by the Turnbull government. We must ensure appropriate safeguards have been built into this system so that, where there is nonpayment of benefits, there is not just proper recourse for those who are missing out but punishment for those employers who are doing the wrong thing by their workers. Across this great nation millions of Australians are doing the right thing in their small businesses and have nothing to fear from this piece of legislation—people who take a stick and make a wicket out of it by taking a risk and providing an opportunity for Australians of all different ages and skill levels to secure employment, whether for the first time or throughout different stages of their career, and have the chance to better their lot. The simple expectation in response to a fair day's work is, of course, a fair day's pay. On top of that, a fair day's pay means making sure they're paid the full benefits associated with such an arrangement. This bill also seeks to modernise the existing arrangements particularly related to the superannuation guarantee and the potential to provide reporting, particularly as a consequence of changes in technology but also to make sure that we minimise and reduce the regulation and red tape that are imposed on employers who are doing the right thing. This piece of legislation seeks to achieve all of those benefits in a relatively straightforward way, to the benefit of Australian workers. The critical part of this bill is that it sits at the heart of an industrial relations system that makes sure it treats workers with decency and respect and also makes sure that people who make a contribution and who stand on their own two feet do not face deleterious or negative consequences at the hands of employers who do the wrong thing. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 59 15:41 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018, Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018 59

Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018

Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 59 15:42 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Labor supports these bills, the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018 and the Corporations (Review Fees) Bill 2018. Labor believes that our financial services sector should be innovative, profitable, responsive and well regulated, and financial services should support Australians and businesses in critical areas such as banking, borrowing, insurance and superannuation. It's a sector that provides important job opportunities for Australians. In fact, it's Australia's largest employer in terms of raw numbers of people working in this industry. The Asia Region Funds Passport will allow for eligible funds to be offered across Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Thailand and future signatory economies. It does this with limited additional regulatory requirements and a common set of rules. The Asia Region Funds Passport had its origins in the Johnson report, which was actually commissioned by the previous Labor government in 2008. The Johnson report recognised the opportunities for growing financial services exports to our region with benefits in jobs and growth. The report noted the comparative advantages of Australia's financial services sector, including our sophisticated funds management industry, and it recognised that, noting the significance and size of the financial services sector domestically, more could be done to promote financial services exports. Australia has one of the largest pools of investment funds of any nation in the world. That is thanks to the innovation and the foresight of the Hawke and Keating governments, which of course established our compulsory superannuation system. It's led to the development of the third-largest investment fund in the world, which provides great opportunities for investment in the domestic economy but also internationally. In 2010, the Labor government announced its support for the concept of an Asia Region Funds Passport. We introduced it as an exploratory policy initiative within the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Finance Ministers' Process. This started a process that culminated in the signing of a memorandum of cooperation for the passport in 2016. Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Thailand are currently signatories. Under the MOC, further economies may join the passport at a later stage. We should not miss opportunities to harness our expertise in financial services and wealth management to grow our economy and to provide more job opportunities in the sector. It's something that Labor is very proud to have initiated as a means of policy development that we are debating here today to ensure greater connectivity between Australia and our Asian partners, who are growing at rapid rates and who have large numbers of their population moving out of poverty and into the middle classes. When people and nations do that, they tend to grow in terms of their need for, particularly, quality agricultural products but also services, particularly health, education and financial services. Given Australia's maturity as an economy in opening up in the 1980s and allowing competition into our domestic market around the provision of such services, particularly in financial services, we have quite a mature, well-organised, well-regulated, efficient and highly effective financial services sector. That's something that we should not be afraid to promote within our region, and we should use it to seek greater opportunities of engagement with other nations. Something that this Labor opposition is acutely aware of at the moment is the opportunities that may come to our nation through the development of a greater middle class in the Asian area. That's why, in 2017, we announced our FutureAsia policy framework, one of the most comprehensive policies for engagement with Asia on the economic front in recent years. It's unfortunate that really the Turnbull government is simply relying on good luck when it comes to our engagement with Asia. There's no plan. There's no actual road map for greater engagement with Asia, particularly in those economies that are growing at rapid rates, the emerging economies. We all know the strength of China, but there are also the emerging economies of Indonesia, India, Malaysia Singapore and some of those other nations in South-East Asia that are growing at rapid rates and are seeing quite a large number of people move from poverty into the middle classes. Australia doesn't have an actual economic plan to engage with these nations and to improve investment opportunities and export markets in many of these countries. A Shorten Labor government will fix this. We've outlined two stages to our FutureAsia policy framework that was initially announced by the shadow Treasurer back in September 2017, when he said: A Shorten Labor Government will embrace a new, comprehensive and holistic policy approach to a deeper Asian engagement called 'FutureAsia', a policy framework for Australia which will build Asia relevant capabilities and foster greater regional collaboration. Of course, Australia's economic relationship with Asia has been a key part of our growth trajectory, particularly in the years following the global financial crisis. We all know that Australia benefited from that closeness with Asia in terms of our ability to withstand some of the external shocks that buffeted our economy in the wake of the global financial crisis. But, while Asian economies are changing, Australia simply isn't keeping up. We're not keeping up with other nations—particularly some of the European nations, led by Germany, I might add—in our approach to and our engagement with Asia and seeing it as an opportunity for greater economic benefits and for deeper engagement that will grow our economy and create jobs. If we're serious about maintaining our nation's track record of economic growth, and if we still want a place for Australia in the G20 in decades to come, then it's crucial that we significantly improve our trade, investment, education and cultural links with Asia. The FutureAsia framework will support a significant change in our nation's engagement within our region. It's not about tinkering at the edges or a gradual approach to change; it's an approach that looks to bring about a fundamental whole-of-government—indeed a whole-of-nation—change in our efforts of deepening and broadening our overall engagement with Asia. One example of our policies under the framework that is relevant to the export of financial services is a program to help empower an Australian diaspora in Asia by working with the Australian Institute of Company Directors to facilitate more Australians with Asian business experience onto our boards. There's a woefully low number of Australians who are in decision-making positions, in top companies in Australia, who actually have any on-the-ground experience in doing business in Asia—let alone any of the communication skills such as a background in an Asian language. One of our major potential advantages in Australia is the significant Asian diaspora that we have and that have made Australia home. China and India are now Australia's largest source of permanent migrants. This provides our nation with an invaluable pool of people with an understanding, with links and with language skills that can help deepen our ties in the Asian economic framework. As part of our FutureAsia framework, such an approach will help to address the significant shortfall in the current levels of Asian business literacy in the senior ranks of Australian businesses. We need more board members and executives of Australia's leading companies to have a knowledge of, and experience in, Asian markets. Of course, while this is primarily for the private sector to fix, the government can still play an important role. Indeed, the government can set the tone, set the framework and influence our education system when it comes to developing a greater understanding at a cultural and linguistic level and a business level of doing business within Asia, and some of the advantages that can come from that. Just as government and the private sector have worked together to try and address the gender imbalance on company boards, we should also look to work together to get more people with Asian literacy and experience onto our boards. The Australian financial services sector has undergone a rigorous and wholehearted process of review in recent times. It's clear that the financial services industry touches the lives of nearly every Australian and every business. We're currently seeing this in the evidence that's coming out of the royal commission into financial services in Australia. Labor's vision for a strong financial services sector includes recognising the importance of trust and confidence in the sector. The sector supports the economic and financial transactions of millions of Australians on a daily basis, both in their personal lives and in their business dealings. This includes ensuring that, where misconduct has occurred, we get to the bottom of it. That's why Labor led the way in calling for a royal commission into the banking and financial services in this country. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction. It was something Labor thought thoroughly and carefully about before we decided that we would publicly advocate for a royal commission. It should never be forgotten by the Australian public that for 600 days the Turnbull government opposed a royal commission into banking and finance in Australia. Led by the Prime Minister, who comes from a banking background, they withstood the calls of industry and the calls of the victims—most predominantly Australian small businesses, farmers, industry groups and financial service providers and their advocacy groups, in particular those who advocate on behalf of victims of financial fraud—for a royal commission into banking and financial services. It was only because the banks finally rolled over and agreed that they would have a royal commission that they wrote to the Prime Minister and said: 'You know what? It's okay. You can now agree.' That's exactly what the Prime Minister did. After the big four banks wrote to the Prime Minister, he finally relented and agreed to a royal commission. And hasn't the Labor Party been vindicated in the evidence that has come forward from the royal commission? There are shocking cases of manipulation by financial advisers, of predatory lending by the big four banks and of practices that really represent frauds on a lot of small businesses and Australian families that have been practised by many in this industry for too long. And they have been able to get away with it. A lot of the evidence that's come forward in the royal commission, unfortunately, would not have been illegal if this government had its way, because we all know that they opposed the Future of Financial Advice reforms when Labor proposed them—the insertion of section 961B into the Corporations Act, which, of course, outlines a best-interest duty, the interest that a financial adviser has to act in the best interests of their customer. The Liberal Party, then in opposition, opposed that. When they got to government, they actually tried to water that legislation down and remove the catch-all provision that exists as the final step in the best-interest duty that a financial adviser is obliged to undertake when they're dealing with a client. In fact, a lot of the behaviour would not have been illegal if it weren't for the Labor Party; that behaviour would simply be a bad look if the Liberal Party had their way. They've even shut down calls for action amongst their own backbench. That's how out of touch they've been on this issue of financial services regulation. Millions of Australians have been let down by this government, none more so than the victims of those financial scandals. The royal commission is an important part of helping restore trust and confidence in Australia's financial sector, where things have been going wrong for some years now. The Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018 would make consequential amendments to the Corporations (Review Fees) Act which are required due to the eventual operation of the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Act. Labor will support this bill. The amendments allow regulation to prescribe fees in relation to the review dates for notified foreign passport funds. Finally, in terms of the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill and the government's amendments, Labor will support these amendments. We understand they make minor and consequential technical amendments to various acts to ensure that the provisions of the regional funds passport operate effectively. They also make consequential amendments relating to the review fees for notified foreign passport funds to provide that the review fees imposed are due two months after the review date. In light of those amendments and my comments in particular, Labor is very proud to see this initiative brought to fruition after it was started by a Labor government when in office some years ago. 15:57 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I rise today to offer my support to the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018, centred upon improving the Australian economy and our ties with Asia. We live in a global world, which requires us to have a global outlook. Gone are the days of insular economic policy and protectionism. Gone are the days of narrow-minded policy and the focus on purely domestic matters. We as Australians must look to sustain our future by encouraging economic growth through sensible policy. The bill will allow for eligible managed funds to be marketed across the economies of nations participating in the Asia region funds passport with limited additional regulatory requirements. Australian fund managers will be able to offer interest in qualifying funds to investors, while Asian fund managers will be able to market their qualifying funds to Australian investors without cumbersome red tape and regulatory requirements. Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Thailand have all signed up alongside Australia to implement the passport, and more are due to follow. The bill also implements the Turnbull government's commitment to the Asia region passport memorandum of cooperation and will improve economic cooperation and relations between our nations. History has shown us that better connections between financial markets in the Asian region and global trading economies will benefit us all. Let us turn our minds to the Asian growth miracles of the 20th century. Following the Korean War, South Korea was one of the world's poorest nations, with a per capita income of only $64. The country had been ravaged by war, and its people were in dire straits. It was following this that the miracle on the Han River took place—a remarkable period of growth and economic prosperity on the back of economic reform, with a hardworking population and ever-increasingly open markets and investments opportunities. Economists will rightly point to the impact of foreign loans and investment from America and Japan as helping to prop up this miracle. However, it was the freeing up of markets and engagement in the global economy that proved to be the engine room behind Korea's remarkable economic turnaround. It is simply a fact that more people have been lifted out of back-breaking poverty in the history of humanity by free trade—not by UN sanctioned government programs, not by foreign aid, but by free trade and the open market. One just needs to look at the difference in living standards and wages between North Korea and South Korea to see the difference that free markets and encouraging investment can make to the fortunes of a nation. Similarly, China had seen decades of poverty, starvation and low living standards under a closed market economic system. It was Deng Xiaoping in 1978 who initiated a period of reform and opening up with the famous phrase: 'White cat or black cat—it doesn't matter, as long as it hunts for mice.' That has underpinned China's remarkable rise to the second-largest economy in the world. Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that throughout history China had been one of the most prosperous, powerful and richest nations in the world but that economic growth had subsequently stalled and gone backwards due to the emergence of a closed economy in the 16th century. It was the decision to open up the country to foreign investment and to engage with global markets that brought about an era of growth and success. The removal of restrictions and the establishment of a more simplified investment scheme heralded an era where investors and businesses flocked to China. Finally, the world's largest nation by population was not only opening up for business and trade but empowering its own people and dragging them out of poverty. Since then, it has been something of a fairytale, economically speaking. Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been pulled out of poverty, with the creation of the world's largest manufacturing base. The benefits of free markets and the prosperity that they bring are there for all to see. It is incontestable. As the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services stated: The Funds Passport is an important step to further Australia’s economic integration with the Asia region. It will provide Australian fund managers with access to Asia's expanding middle class and high net worth individuals, by allowing them to offer their products into the region without having to go through duplicative approval processes in each economy. We in government must seek to make the lives of individuals and businesses easier by facilitating the conditions in which they can operate. Government must enable and support investment, not restrict it. It is the unwavering belief of the Liberal Party that working towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives will, in turn, maximise individual and private sector initiative and benefit all Australians. Australia, too, has grown to be a prosperous and stable nation through increased global engagement and liberal investment schemes. Our record of continuous years of economic growth has been built on a commitment to free market principles and a willingness to open our markets to competition and investment. It is often said that our nation is built on trade and foreign investment, and I am sure that this will continue to be the case. The Turnbull government has a tremendous record of supporting and encouraging investment, with our commitment to reducing red tape, completing free trade agreements and supporting business part of the national plan to create a prosperous and wealthy Australia. This is a noble goal that we should all get behind, regardless of political persuasion. The bill will play an important role in minimising regulatory requirements and making processes more straightforward for investors. Allowing eligible funds to be offered across multiple participating economies under a common set of rules will drive investor security and confidence while encouraging investment through ease of access. Historically, Australia has not been a strong exporter of funds management services, given that there are a plethora of ways in which foreign funds are taxed as well as regulatory barriers restricting trade and financial services. Thus reductions in compliance costs for investors and fund managers will result in regulatory savings and a stronger funds management industry. We will see an increase in jobs, the government revenue base and aggregate gross domestic product, not to mention improvements for customers and consumers alike. Increased competition through regional engagement will also result in improved services and access to foreign funds, meaning a better deal for the many Australians who use funds management services. However, our counterparts in the Labor Party will stop at nothing in their quest to impose their big government agenda on all Australians and to disrupt our growth and prosperity. At the behest of their union bosses, they seek to close off our economy and increase red tape. Labor's track record of being antibusiness and anti-investment threatens to undermine the pillars that have made Australia prosperous and allowed its people to enjoy living standards that are amongst the highest in the world. The decline from the more economically rational times of Labor under Hawke and Keating to the high-taxing and protectionist agenda of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, makes a stark contrast. For all our sakes, we simply cannot allow this to happen. This is why it is so important that the Turnbull government continues to support free trade and economic engagement through the likes of this bill. We in the Liberal Party are committed to growing our economy and to providing opportunities for all. This can only be done through fully supporting free market economics and serious engagement with our region. The history of our Asian neighbours in particular showcases the benefits that free trade can bring to all. Asia comprises more than 4½ billion people, making up 60 per cent of the world's population. The regional economic outlook for Asia and the Pacific estimates growth to remain strong at 5.4 per cent in 2018 as the region continues to be the leader of global growth. Australia is extraordinarily well placed, both geographically and economically, to continue to engage in the region and to benefit. The majority of our top export markets are in the Asian region. Engagement represents an incredible opportunity to grow our economy and industries, including funds management. Looking at the countries that have signed up to implement the passport that this bill facilitates, the likes of Japan, Korea and Thailand have performed well economically in recent years and are well placed to continue growing. Australia must ensure that it is well placed and prepared to move forward in what some call the Asian century. History has shown us many times that those who stop and pause ultimately get left behind. We have always been a forward-looking nation and we must continue to be so. Some may question the merits of free market investment and seek to exploit any discontent for political gain. For those of you who choose to pursue such a path, I warn you to remember your history and the fate of those who have spouted similar protectionist arguments in the past. Ludwig von Mises, the esteemed Austrian-American economist, once wrote that: The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war. This serves as an important reminder of the dangers of abandoning free trade and pursuing the dark path of protectionism. Since the end of World War II in 1945 and the widespread emergence of free trade and the global economy, the level of trade interdependence between nations has seen a significant decrease in the number of armed conflicts and war related debts, making the current day one of the most peaceful eras in history. The so-called capitalist peace theory has contributed not only to peace but also to lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and to improving living standards around the world. I'm proud to be a member of a government and a political party that understands such principles and history and is committed to facilitating such benefits in Australia. It is clear that this bill will go a long way towards improving trade relations and the economic wellbeing of all nations involved and, in particular, the people living in those nations. Australia's funds management sector has the potential to improve. We have a powerful mix of high-performing domestic and international funds management firms that will help to drive revenue and create jobs. I'm confident that this bill will help to encourage even more funds management firms to view Australia as both a viable destination for investment and a nation where they can set up operations and contribute to our economy. Australia's economic future and prosperity are essential to our continued wellbeing and quality of life. So I urge all here today to take a stand for our industries, our jobs and our future and to support this bill. 16:09 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I was just inspired to say a few words on this. I was going to speak on this—I read the bill's digest a few days—but I was distracted over the weekend and didn't have time to prepare considered comments with quotes from history, like a whole undergraduate political or economic lecture, such as someone wrote for the member for Mackellar, which was lovely. I would just remind the House of a few key points. Firstly, this was a Labor initiative. Despite the rhetoric we have just heard, this was actually initiated by the member for McMahon when he was a minister in the Labor government. I was listening, but I didn't hear the previous speaker thank the Labor Party for this sensible, modest reform. It's exactly the kind of reform you do if you want to grow investment in the country and see more funds flow into Australia for our fast-growing and well-managed funds management sector. I can't help but reflect on some of the nonsense we heard from the Prime Minister at question time. He is a little obsessed with Paul Keating. He's a little jealous, of course. We know what Paul Keating said about him. Keating said, 'He's a fizzer,' like a big red firecracker that goes off and then there's nothing. We heard in question time that little lecture from the Prime Minister, where somehow Labor had abandoned its history of company tax cuts when Paul Keating cut the company tax rate from 49 to 39 and then some years later again from 39 to 33—I haven't got the exact figures in front of me. What the Prime Minister and the government neglect to tell us is that those cuts, particularly the big one from 49 to 39, were not just put on the nation's debt. They didn't just back the truck up to the ATM and hand out cash to big business. The Labor Party made a sensible taxation and economic reform, because they slashed the headline rate by expanding the base. I'm not an economist, as I would be the first here to admit, but I do know enough about economic reform and the concepts of efficiency to say that any sensible economist would say, 'You're much better off to reduce the taxation rate through reforming an existing tax.' The Labor Party didn't lose revenue and didn't give away billions of dollars to the big end of town. They reformed the taxation system. This, as we've heard, is one of the factors— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY The minister, on a point of order? Mr Laundy 247130 It's not an omnibus bill. Where's the relevance to the bill in question? The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I'm listening carefully. I will determine when it strays. Mr HILL 86256 We've heard from the government and, indeed, the previous government speaker that this is an important thing to facilitate more investment. That's fair enough. I agree that it is a useful step. But, if we're talking about what else we could do—as this bill does contemplate—to improve Australia's funds management sector, then I'd encourage the government to pay some more attention to behind-the-border trade barriers instead of its obsession with just striking any trade deal it can find on the way through. Not every trade deal is a great trade deal. If you go out and have a chat to business, business keeps telling us that these kinds of things would do far more to see investment flow into the country. I used to work in the economic development department in Victoria. I worked in investment and trade. I spent some time, before I left the Victorian government, actually having a look at the financial services sector strategy. That is sensible government policy. What a grown-up government would do is have a look at a sector that has great potential to do more for Australia and then actually craft a decent industry policy. I have no disagreement with building submarines or ships in Australia, but it does not substitute for an industry policy, as this government pretends. I applaud the government on actually following through with a piece of legislation, five years later, to implement a good Labor government initiative. I applaud you. It's good and very sensible. But if you want to be taken seriously on all the other stuff you say about this bill, then you'd have a look and be real about the other factors that are far more important than the headline company tax rate, which just about no company actually pays in Australia, as you well know. There are things like the stability of our financial sector, things like our liveability, things like a positive investment climate and things like infrastructure. Those things are far more important—you know it and business knows it—for facilitating more investment. 16:14 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. The Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018 implements, as we've heard, the regulatory framework for the Asia Region Funds Passport. This passport is similar to a free trade agreement for managed funds in the Asia region. It will harmonise certain regulatory requirements and create a passporting regime that will remove duplicated regulatory barriers for qualifying funds. As we've heard, Australia has the sixth-largest pool of funds globally and the largest in Asia, with over A$3 trillion in funds under management. The 2009 Johnson report found that Australia has comparative advantages in funds management—a highly skilled and developed workforce, a reputation as a safe investment location, solid financial institutions and strong links with Asia. However, it noted that these advantages have not translated into strong export of funds management services. The regulatory red tape and difficulty in accessing overseas markets has meant that the level of funds Australia manages on behalf of foreign residents is very low when compared to other financial centres in the Asia region. In 2016, only four per cent of total funds managed in Australia were sourced from overseas. This compares to approximately 69 and 80 per cent in Hong Kong and Singapore respectively. The potential benefits for industry and consumers as well as the wider economic impact of introducing the passport are significant. Through this bill, Australian fund managers will be able to offer their products in other participating economies. The current participating economies are Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Thailand. This offers our fund managers the opportunity to tap into Asia's expanding middle class and increasing numbers of high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals. The passport will benefit investors through greater choice of funds. Increased market competition will also lead to better consumer outcomes by ensuring access to more reasonably priced investment products. The passport will be supported by cooperation between the passport regulators, ensuring strong enforcement across the passport region. The passport also delivers on the government's commitment to build a stronger economy as it transitions to a more service based economy. The wealth management sector has been identified as an area that could assist in this transition. Unlocking this potential is highly dependent on changes in regulatory settings. The passport has been extensively consulted upon and has strong support from the industry, which recognises the potential that the passport could ultimately bring. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Consideration in Detail 65 16:17 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. By leave—I move government amendments (1) to (4) together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit "2 and 3", substitute "2, 2A and 3". (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 39 (line 9), omit "declaration", substitute "regulations". (3) Schedule 2, page 116 (after line 27), after item 349, insert: 349A Subsection 1351(3) (after table item 2) Insert: 349B Paragraph 1351(4 ) ( b) After "a registered scheme", insert ", a notified foreign passport fund". 349C Paragraph 1351(4 ) ( b) Omit "the company, scheme or body", substitute "the company, scheme, fund or body". (4) Page 117 (after line 13), after Schedule 2, insert: Schedule 2A—Further amendments consequential on Chapter 8A Competition and Consumer Act 2010 1 Section 95 of Schedule 2 (note) Omit "managed investment products", substitute "interests in managed investment schemes (which for the purposes of that Act include interests in notified foreign passport funds)". 2 Section 187 of Schedule 2 (note) Omit "managed investment products", substitute "interests in managed investment schemes (which for the purposes of that Act include interests in notified foreign passport funds)". Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 3 Paragraph 13(4A ) ( c) After "managed investment scheme", insert "(within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001)". Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 4 Paragraph 6(3 ) ( f) Omit "managed investment scheme", substitute "registered scheme". 5 Paragraph 6(3 ) ( f) After "the responsible entity of the scheme", insert "(within the meaning of that Act)". 6 After paragraph 6(3 ) ( f) Insert: (fa) one holds a substantial interest in a notified foreign passport fund (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) and the other is the operator of the fund (within the meaning of that Act); or Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 7 Subparagraph 128AE(2 ) ( e ) ( iii) After "as defined by subsection 92(3) of the Corporations Act 2001", insert "for the purposes of Chapters 6 to 6CA, disregarding Chapter 6C, of that Act". Insurance Act 1973 8 Subsection 3(1) (definition of financial year ) After "Corporations Act 2001", insert "(disregarding Schedule 2 of that Act)". Payment Systems and Netting Act 1998 9 Section 5 (paragraph (a) of the definition of financial property ) Omit "subsections 92(3) and (4)", substitute "subsections 92(2A), (3) and (4)". Pooled Development Funds Act 1992 10 Paragraph 30(1 ) ( e) After "managed investment scheme", insert "(including a notified foreign passport fund)". The government is now introducing parliamentary amendments to the Corporations Amendment (Asia Region Funds Passport) Bill 2018 that will make minor consequential changes to other affected laws. The minor consequential amendments deal with references to managed investment schemes that now also extend to cover notified foreign passport funds. These amendments are being introduced now because they were not identified in time to be included in the original bill. These consequential changes are necessary for consistency with other legislation and for the completeness of the passport's implementation. Other consequential amendments are dealt with under a separate standalone bill, that being the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018, due to restrictions in the Constitution which preclude these amendments from being incorporated as parliamentary amendments to the passport bill. Specifically, the Corporations (Review Fees) Act 2003 states that it is imposing the review fees, in relation to the Corporations Act 2001, as taxes, and section 55 of the Constitution precludes introducing any tax provisions in an amending instrument. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Third Reading 66 16:19 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018 66

Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 66 Third Reading 66 16:21 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018 66

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 66 16:21 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is an invaluable resource for health policy-making in this country. For the last 30 years it has been Australia's principal source of health and welfare data. So important is it there was a very strong move when the government attempted to amalgamate the AIHW into the ABS. The entire health and welfare sector mobilised very strongly to make sure that the government did not do that, so valued is the AIHW amongst the health and welfare sectors and academics across the country. It produces accurate and trustworthy statistical information and reports that contribute a great deal to our understanding of our collective wellbeing. It is well-respected across the health sector for its independence, its professionalism and its ethical integrity. It has a broad remit. In the past month alone it has produced reports on everything from eye injuries to palliative care services, smoking rates to disability support and, of course, Australia's health 2018, a very important publication that gives us a broad insight into what is happening across the health of the nation—into funding and into health status—as well as providing guidance for future policy makers. In a sense, the AIHW in itself is a diagnostic tool. It tells us precisely what's wrong with the nation's health so that we in this place can come up with policy prescriptions. Critically, it also tells us what we're doing right so that we know where to double-down. I think the AIHW and its staff do a fantastic job. As the shadow health minister I don't have unfettered access to the vast resource that is the Department of Health so I have to look elsewhere for reliable data to shape opposition policy. The AIHW is an absolute treasure trove of this information. Without the institute we'd often be flying blind, and evidence based policy-making in this country would be all the poorer for it. So, Labor values the AIHW and wants to see it thrive. We want to see it continue to be as important and relevant 30 years from now as it has been for the last 30. Having said all of that, the AIHW exists in a radically different environment today than it did when it was established in 1987. It no longer enjoys a monopoly in the analysis of administrative health data. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has moved into this space as it has outgrown its traditionally narrow census and survey role, and policy agencies like the Department of Health are doing an unprecedented amount of their own in-house analysis. We hope they are able to do more. This all raises some pretty fundamental questions about the institute's role into the future, which is why the department commissioned a review of the institute in 2015. The Nous Group review considered the institute's role and purpose; its business model, product range and funding model; and its internal governance and organisation. The review made some 35 recommendations, most of which do not require legislation. It recommended a change to the institute's funding structure, better coordination between funding departments and better coordination with other information bodies, but its central finding was that the institute needs to undertake a major reorganisation and transformation to secure its future as a leading information agency. That is primarily what this government bill, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018, aims to do, and Labor is happy to support those changes. The bill amends the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987 to make changes to the governance and administration of the institute. The bill's major provision is to establish a skills based board replacing the current board structure, in which members are selected based on the groups that they represent. Currently, the board includes representatives from Commonwealth departments, COAG committees and stakeholder groups, a structure that the review concluded had encouraged a focus on operational rather than strategic issues. That being said, I do want to recognise and commend the boards across all of those 30 years for the work that they have done in ensuring that the institute continues to deliver good health and welfare data for the nation. Under this bill, the new board will have up to 12 members, including a chair, a deputy chair, a CEO—renamed from 'director'—up to three members nominated by the states and six others. Each of these members will be required to have skills or experience in public administration, education, Indigenous health and welfare, data, statistics, performance reporting, financial and corporate management, consumers' interests and/or law. Board members will be appointed for up to five years. The bill also reassigns responsibility for appointing board members from the Governor-General to the Minister for Health. The change is intended to streamline appointments and to bring the institute into line with other Health portfolio agencies. Whilst I acknowledge the moving from the Governor-General to the Minister for Health, I also strongly encourage the Minister for Health to consult with the opposition on the appointment of the chair, certainly, given the fundamentally bipartisan and independent role that the AIHW plays. The bill also removes the requirement for the AIHW to seek agreement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to collect health- and welfare-related data, instead requiring it only to consult with the ABS as necessary. The bill also includes a number of minor provisions—for example, setting out probity requirements for board members and procedures for board meetings. I think these are not radical changes by any means, but Labor certainly supports any measures that will help the institute reposition itself so that it remains relevant and even indispensable for decades to come. 16:28 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin I begin by commending the comments of the member for Ballarat and concurring with those comments. As the member for Ballarat quite rightly pointed out, the role of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is invaluable in assisting governments and oppositions in preparing their policies and frameworks for health budgets in this country. Indeed, the data is important in that it not only determines progress that is being made with respect to policies that are currently in place but also assists governments and oppositions in assessing expenditure efficiencies and enables governments and opposition to set priorities, to identify emerging issues and to identify social inequalities between communities when it comes to the Health portfolio. And I'm sure that there would be many other matters that would arise from the work of the institute. Health expenditure in this country for 2015-16, which is the last year for which I've got the breakdown of data, was $170 billion. Of that, $70 billion came from the federal government, $44 billion from the states and territories and some $56 billion from private health insurance and patients. All would agree $170 billion of expenditure is a large chunk of money that the Australian economy pays each year for a particular service or a particular sector. It's important to ensure that that $170 billion is well spent and that we're getting the best value for the dollars that are being put into the health system, and whether we're doing that well enough at the moment is indeed a vexed question. Could we do better? I suspect in some areas we could. That was a question that the Productivity Commission looked at in a research paper in April 2015, which it published under the title Efficiency in health. I will quote just one part of the commission's paper, because it goes to the heart of the importance of the work being done by the institute. I quote directly from page 73 of the report of the Productivity Commission: Information is central to an efficient and effective health system. It shines a light on good and bad performance, helps the community and governments to hold health care providers to account, facilitates good patient care, and forms part of the evidence base on health interventions. But transparency has fallen short of its potential in health, either because data do not exist or, more importantly, data are not made available. The United Kingdom, United States and Canada outperform Australia in collecting and releasing data on particular aspects of health service delivery, such as performance data on individual hospitals and administrative data on the use of health services. Better progress in these areas would benefit clinicians, hospital managers, researchers, policy makers and, ultimately, patients and taxpayers. That quote highlights not only the importance of the work that is being done by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare but, equally, the shortfalls that we currently have. There is a lot of data within our health system that is either not being collected or not being shared. By it not being shared in particular—I know that some of the data which I refer to is collected—it makes it much more difficult for governments to implement efficient health systems and it makes it much more difficult for us as a nation to try and provide the best health care possible across the country. Indeed, only last week at a presentation in this parliament with respect to the future value of e-health in this country, the point was very strongly made that the e-health system will enable much more coordination of health services across the country, which, in turn, will lead to efficiencies simply because there is very likely going to be much less duplication of medical services than is currently taking place. Currently, because quite often a doctor or a hospital is not aware of the particular conditions of a patient, they duplicate tests and spend time in providing other health support that perhaps others have already provided. Had the information been available to them through, say, the e-health record system, it would have saved that unnecessary expense. We can and should do better. Again, it's the collection of data that will make that possible. The question with respect to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also raises the question of who is collecting data. Again, the member for Ballarat talked in particular about the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the overlap that now seems to have arisen between the work of the ABS and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Perhaps there is an overlap, but I have no doubt that when an organisation has existed for some 30 years it has some history that goes to not only its credibility but also its development of the most efficient and expert ways of collecting that material. In fact, it would be an absolute shame to see the organisation in any way diminished either by funding cuts or by taking away some of the work that it has been doing over those 30 years. Surely the expertise that has been built up over those years in the department should not be lost, and I would hope it's not. Of course, that's not to say that the institute couldn't be improved. I see this legislation as perhaps a way of improving its work. Again, as the member for Ballarat quite rightly pointed out, the Nous Group conducted a review of the department and, in turn, came back with some 35 recommendations, and this was one of the key ones. I want to talk for a few moments about the work of the institute and provide some examples of the important work it does. In its latest report to do with the state of health in Australia in 2018, I'll talk about three different areas. The first is the health status of Indigenous people in this country. We know that there are about 787,000 people of Indigenous identity. Two-thirds of them live in regional, rural or remote Australia. whilst I accept that in recent years there have been some improvements with respect to their health status, in particular relating to child mortality, a reduction in smoking rates and an increase in life expectancy, the reality is that there are still many gaps. I will read out some of the gaps that the institute points to in their latest report. Compared with non Indigenous Australians, Indigenous Australians are 2.9 times as likely to have a long-term ear or hearing problem amongst children, 2.7 times as likely to smoke, 2.7 times as likely to experience high or very high levels of psychological distress, 2.1 times as likely to die before their fifth birthday, 1.9 times as likely to be born with low birth weight, and 1.7 times as likely to have a disability or restrictive long-term health condition. A lot of that is attributed to things like lower education levels, poorer housing quality, unemployment lower income, higher smoking rates and alcohol consumption and poorer access to health services. They all contribute to those statistics. Nevertheless they are statistics that paint a very clear divide between city Australians and country Australians and, in particular, the Indigenous Australians that live out in the country. The other example I use from the report is in respect of the poorer health outcomes experienced outside of major cities—again, where nearly a third of the population lives; three out of 10 Australians live outside of the major cities. I go to the question of smoking rates. In the major cities, it's 13 per cent; in inner regional areas, it's 18 per cent; and in outer regional and remote areas, it's 22 per cent. In terms of obesity, another issue that is frequently talked about as a measure of our health in this country, in the major cities, 61 per cent of people are either overweight or obese; in inner regional areas, it's 67 per cent; and in remote areas, it's 68 per cent. The last of the statistics I will use is the lifetime risky drinking habits. In the major cities, it's 15 per cent of the population; in inner regional areas, it's 18 per cent; and in outer regional and remote areas, it's up to 24 per cent. Those statistics paint their own picture and tell their own story. As I said, when we talk about people living in outer regional, remote and even inner regional areas, that's also where a lot of our Indigenous people live and in particular where a lot of the people that will be classified as people in the lowest socioeconomic status live. That's the last category I want to turn to with respect to some of the statistics. Compared with people in the highest socioeconomic group, people in the lowest group are 2.7 times as likely to smoke, 2.6 times as likely to have diabetes, 2.4 times as likely to state cost as a barrier to seeing a dental professional, 2.3 times as likely to state cost as a barrier to filling a prescription and 2.1 times as likely to die of potential avoidable causes. A higher ratio of people living in rural regional and remote Australia fall into the low socioeconomic status. Go away from the big cities and not only are people experiencing worse health effects; they are also in a higher level in the lower income group and the lower socioeconomic group. It's a major problem. That is the point I'm trying to make very clear with respect to the report and why I alluded to those three passages. The message is absolutely clear: Australians in regional rural and remote parts of the country have much poorer health outcomes than those in the city areas. The latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report confirms that. The question is: what are we as a society doing about that, and what is the Turnbull government doing about that? I know that there have been some programs put in place. I accept that and we support most of them. Indeed, we supported in particular the appointment of the Rural Health Commissioner, and I note that his annual report has just been released. But the truth is the government's now been in office for five years, and many of the programs that the government has committed to will not see results for many more years to come as well. So it's a long time waiting for people in country Australia to see a real shift and a real improvement in their health outcomes. It is that point that I wish to stress to the minister—and I see that the minister is here at the table. We as a parliament, on both sides of parliament, need to do a lot more because, quite frankly, we shouldn't have two classes of Australians when it comes to health outcomes in this country. It has been the case for too long. We know it's been the case for the Indigenous people. Whilst we have a Close the Gap strategy in place and, as I said earlier, we are making some progress, the progress is simply not enough, and it will not be enough until we make greater commitments to funding of the services that those people need. I get back to the core of this debate, and that is about the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. The importance of that institute is that it provides us with the statistics that we need in order to make sensible and effective decisions when it comes to health expenditure in this country. With those remarks, I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, and while acknowledging the valuable work of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the House condemns the Government for its relentless cuts to Medicare and the impact on the health and welfare of all Australians". The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Is the amendment seconded? Mr Husic 91219 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Makin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If I suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'that the amendment be agreed to'. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:42 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders Mr Deputy Speaker Irons, let me begin by thanking you for your passionate advocacy for the Curtin Medical School in Western Australia. Without you and others, this would not have happened, so you've played a very important part in ensuring additional resources for additional doctors and additional nurses in rural and regional Western Australia, and hopefully they will also practise elsewhere in Australia. This bill amends the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1987. The bill will modernise governance arrangements at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the institute, by implementing a board which collectively possesses skills or experience or significant standing in a range of different fields. Prescriptive eligibility requirements will be removed, as will ex officio positions and other representative positions. The changes will ensure that the board has the necessary expertise to focus on the key strategic issues and challenges faced by the institute in an increasingly contestable market for its services. The bill will recognise jurisdictional interests, with up to three members of the board to be nominated by state health ministers. This is critical to ensure the ongoing production of high-quality and relevant data and statistics. The bill will ensure that vacancies are filled in a timely manner, with the Minister for Health rather than the Governor-General being responsible for appointments to the board. Furthermore, the measures will bring greater stability to the board through membership terms of up to five years. The bill also makes other amendments designed to improve the operations of the institute, including changing the title of the director to 'chief executive officer'; assigning the board responsibility for appointing the chief executive officer; and removing the need for ministerial approval of contract limits. The bill modifies the institute's functions in relation to data collection activities, with the institute to consult with rather than seek agreement from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on the collection of health and welfare related information and statistics. The bill also includes transitional arrangements to ensure that the chair and the CEO can continue in their positions for the balance of their current terms, along with clarification on delegation of powers. I particularly want to congratulate both the current director, Barry Sandison, and the current chair, Louise Markus, for the AIHW's Australia's health 2018, a comprehensive review that was released last week. It highlighted many of the strengths and many of the challenges in Australia. I note the member for Makin's comments about the need for stronger support for rural and regional Australia, which underpinned perhaps one of the most significant budget measures—the $550 million stronger regional outcomes package, which will deliver 3,000 new nurses and 3,000 new doctors to rural and regional Australia. But I do agree that the results in Indigenous Australia are simply not acceptable. Neither side in this place will rest, or even consider resting, until we achieve parity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia. In that context, I particularly want to thank the opposition for the bipartisan way in which they have approached this bill. Ultimately, through this bill the board will be better equipped to focus on the strategic issues and challenges faced by the institute. The bill will also reduce the administrative burden associated with the appointment of new members to the board, resulting in greater stability and the timely filling of vacancies. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is a national resource. It is staffed by the most extraordinary group of men and women, who give frank and fearless advice. They provide data that helps us to understand and to improve our health system. I thank them and congratulate them. I thank all of the members in this House for their contributions to debate on this bill. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Makin be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 70 16:47 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018 70

Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018

Second Reading 70 16:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Labor will support the Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018. It provides for the Governor-General to appoint a second deputy chair to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. Currently the Governor-General has the discretion to appoint only one full-time APRA member as deputy chair. This bill will provide for the Governor-General to be able to appoint someone who is to be a full-time APRA member as the chair or a deputy chair of APRA. Currently there is provision for only one, and this will rectify that. APRA is the prudential regulator for the Australian financial services industry. It's an independent Australian government body that oversees banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance and reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and, most importantly, Australia's superannuation industry. APRA is governed by a full-time executive group of at least three and no more than five members. The terms and conditions of the appointment of members are set out in the APRA Act. Members are appointed by the Governor-General on the nomination of the relevant minister. Currently one member must be appointed chair and another member may be appointed deputy chair. Currently APRA has only three members, yet it's clear that Australia needs a strong, properly structured and well-resourced prudential regulator. The APRA Act highlights the regulator's purpose, which is to balance the objectives of financial safety, efficiency, competition, contestability and competitive neutrality and, in balancing these objectives, to promote the financial system's stability in Australia. The Productivity Commission's draft report into competition in the Australian financial system found notable failings in competitive behaviour in the home loans market as well as in the small and medium enterprises finance market. The draft report found that competition was less than desirable in other key market sectors, such as lenders, mortgage insurance, add-on insurance and pet insurance. Serving as deputy chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics has given me a clear view of some of the attitudes and the practices of those who are working in this industry and particularly, unfortunately, the big banks' attitude to their customers over recent years. Last month APRA released a scathing report into the Commonwealth Bank's board, its senior management and, indeed, its culture. The report ran to 110 pages and heavily criticised the bank for its widespread complacency, overconfidence, excessive complexity and insularity. The report also explained that CBA had a slow legalistic, reactive and, at times, dismissive culture. We all know too well the self-inflicted problems the banks have caused for themselves over recent decades. The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is now uncovering some of that through the evidence given. Some of it is quite shocking. It is not just plain misconduct but potentially criminal actions. It should never be forgotten that, for 600 days, the Turnbull government opposed the establishment of a royal commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector. It was only after the persistent efforts of the Labor Party in uncovering what exactly was going on in this industry—through numerous inquiries, both in and out of the parliament—that we were able to convince the government, thankfully, to hold a royal commission. The government ignored the pleas of victims; small businesses, particularly some of those businesses in the agricultural sector who have been struggling; and families and, indeed, individuals who have been ripped off by the banks through the banks' conduct. Much of that conduct is predatory lending and bad financial advice that wasn't in the interests of customers. The royal commission has shone a light on some of the worst aspects of the culture, attitudes to risk and decision-making processes in the banks and the financial services industry. It's clear we need strong and effective regulators, and there will no doubt be some serious recommendations that come out of the royal commission about the adequacy of regulation in the financial services sector in Australia. Labor welcomes both the interim report and the final report, once it's delivered in February. We look forward to some of those suggestions from the royal commissioner in respect of the adequacy of regulation and what can be done to improve confidence and also, ultimately, to ensure that customers have trust in their financial institutions. It has taken the royal commission to help the Turnbull government really see these things a little bit more clearly and to ensure that their mind is focused on better regulation in financial services. The history has also already really been written when it comes to this issue. Again, the evidence shows that the Turnbull government got another big call wrong in opposing the banking royal commission in Australia. They even shut down calls for action amongst their own backbench, their own members. In particular, they shut down some of those senators in the National Party who were involved in the earlier inquiries into what was going on in financial services regulation in Australia. Those senators began calling for a royal commission five or six years ago, and they were ignored by this government and the Prime Minister. It was only after getting the green light from the actual banks themselves that the government eventually rolled over and agreed to a royal commission. The commission to date has already shown, time and time again, just what happens when you have a light touch when it comes to regulation of financial services in this country. We all know that the government did everything they could to oppose a best-interest duty and the Future of Financial Advice reforms being introduced by a Labor government when we were in office. And then, when they actually got elected, they went out of their way to try to water down that best-interest duty and, in particular, the catch-all provision that exists at the end of that best-interest-duty test. In the light of that, we need to make sure about what's been going on in financial services. We need to make sure that we have a properly resourced, strong regulator with the backing-in legislation and indeed the personnel to ensure that they can keep an eye on what's going on in financial services, restore confidence and ensure that people can have trust in the advice that they're getting on their financial affairs. That's why Labor will support this bill. When the dust has settled on the royal commission, our regulators must be well resourced and well governed in order to make sure that the stories of the victims of banks aren't left behind and we can move on with confidence in the banking sector. Appointing an additional person to an important position like this in our Australian Prudential Regulation Authority will, hopefully, ensure that we never, ever see again some of the practices that we've seen, particularly from the big four banks but also from other financial services providers in recent years, which have been brought to light through the royal commission. Labor supports a stronger regulator to ensure that that never occurs again. That's why we support this bill. 16:56 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin We welcome the opposition's very strong support for the Treasury Laws Amendment (APRA Governance) Bill 2018. This bill bolsters the effectiveness of APRA by allowing up to two deputy chairs to be appointed. APRA is Australia's prudential regulator, overseeing banks, credit unions, building societies, general insurance, reinsurance companies, life insurance, private health insurance, friendly societies and most of the superannuation industry. It's an independent Commonwealth government body set up under its own act. Currently APRA is headed by an executive group consisting of between three and five members. At present one member must be appointed chair and another may be appointed deputy chair. Amending the APRA Act to permit up to two deputy chairs will assist APRA in operating as an effective and efficient regulator. This legislation recognises that it's important that the enabling legislation for APRA allows it to be supported as needed to continue its focus on improving culture and risk management within financial institutions. It builds on the government's recent reforms to the banking sector to improve the accountability of bank executives and other reforms that support the entry of new banks and increase competition in the sector. The amendment bill will provide greater flexibility in the way in which APRA can be governed by its members. In doing so, it can enable more oversight of the banking sector, as well as allowing the chair to have a greater oversight of the entire system and of APRA's overall performance. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 72 16:58 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 72

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

Second Reading 72 16:59 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley We're finally here. We're finally getting to debate the Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018. We're finally getting a chance to talk about something the government had been crowing about some time in the fin-tech area, trying to build its credentials in the innovation arena. The faux fin-tech champion, the Treasurer, had been talking up this need for reform in the matters we'll talk about in a few moments, but after introducing it and saying that this would help encourage greater innovation in fin-tech, he couldn't even be bothered to get this debate on. Here we are in the last week prior to the break for the winter recess, and the government has now decided to bring this on. They're fixing a set of arrangements that they stuffed up the first time—the ones they lauded and said would see a raft of new financial services products being generated by very innovative firms, and then it turned out they weren't working and that these arrangements would need to be made. They always manage to hype up their actions along the way, but hiatus inevitably follows hype, with very little action being done in this area. It is important that the more successful set of arrangements underpinned by this legislation eventuate. This bill provides an improvement to what is known as a regulatory sandbox for the fin-tech sector. The fin-techs themselves are smaller firms using technology to develop new products and services that should ultimately benefit consumers. There should be new avenues, particularly in areas where some of these smaller firms have identified (1) an opportunity to deliver better service to consumers and (2) either heavily regulated sectors or disgruntled customers—victims of profit over better customer service. Through the application of technology they are able to come up with something meaningful and much more valued by consumers. As we well know, financial services is not an area where we would necessarily want some people, particularly disreputable or bad actors, to operate in such a way that consumers lose out. There is a very complicated financial services architecture that underpins the way things are done. However, some jurisdictions have recognised that there is some value in providing limited room to move for a lot of these fin-tech players, to suspend the usual obligations to require a set of licensing arrangements from them prior to coming up with these types of things. This fin-tech regulatory sandbox has been used, as I said, in other jurisdictions. In the Australian context a series of boundaries were put in place for the scheme. This was launched by ASIC in December 2016. The framework allowed a total exposure limit of about A$5 million. A maximum of 100 retail clients could be affected by the services proposed within the sandbox, with no limit on the number of sophisticated clients. These are people on much higher incomes, who are probably much more familiar with investing and are prepared to invest larger amounts. There was a maximum test time of 12 months. A range of products would be permitted under that framework—for example: deposit and payment products to a maximum amount of about $10,000, general insurance for personal property and home contents to a maximum of $50,000, liquid investments for listed Australian securities or simple schemes with a maximum of $10,000, and consumer credit contracts with certain features and a loan size of between $2,001 and $25,000. That's the way that the framework had previously existed. In other jurisdictions, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, this has been trialled and operated with some degree of success over a similar period of time as what the regulatory sandbox has operated in Australia. In the United Kingdom there were about 50 entities from 146 applications that went through their arrangements. Singapore had 30 applications, with 50 entities actually using the sandbox. Malaysia had seven in the first six months. Hong Kong had nine, with the sandbox being used for 11 trials. I mentioned the parameters or the way in which fin-techs could use that sandbox as established by the government in December 2016 through ASIC. The difference with these arrangements is that the government did not put in a gateway arrangement to vet who was going into the sandbox. Their view was to allow people to go in and to operate along the lines that I mentioned earlier. Despite this light touch, as it was known, we need to bear in mind that in the United Kingdom, for example, there were nearly 150 applications to use their arrangements and the number of local applications to use the Australian sandbox was four over the same period of time. Despite the fact that this was a very open set of arrangements where fin-techs could go in, operate within the parameters that were set and do what they wanted, we got only four. The question is: how do we actually improve the arrangements? If we do want to see more products and more services developed, what types of reforms need to be undertaken? The government recognised pretty early on that something needed to change, and so what they did was basically come up with a set of arrangements in this bill to free up things further. Bear in mind, people who go through the sandbox do not have to necessarily apply for an Australian financial services licence or an Australian credit licence. I should clarify that they would get conditional exemptions from those requirements for the purpose of testing some of the products that I informed the House of earlier. ASIC, under these arrangements, would have increased powers to decide how that exemption starts or stops applying and could enforce specific conditions. The theory is that this will allow a greater range of products and services to be tested over a longer period and that ASIC can specify conditions or spell out how entities meet these conditions or just cancel exemptions altogether, if entities fail to meet the conditions. This all sounds good on paper. However, the test is whether or not ASIC will actually allow this to occur in a timely way or whether or not the government's arrangements, as outlined in this bill, would occur in a timely way or have the effect that they're expecting. We certainly do not oppose the bill, but we are watching very carefully the responses. We did watch with great interest the responses from a broad spectrum of stakeholders—people who you wouldn't necessarily think would share the same view on what is being proposed. It was interesting to see, through the Senate inquiry that examined this legislation, the responses from consumer groups and also industry sector representatives via FinTech Australia. Consumer groups remain concerned that the arrangements that have been proposed by this bill may potentially allow unscrupulous advisors to exploit the regime to sell potentially harmful financial products and services. It's important to note that a range of groups, such as CHOICE, the Consumer Action Law Centre and the Financial Rights Legal Centre, have said that they support the intent of encouraging competition, because they understand—like a lot of people: the government, the opposition and many others, particularly within the fin-tech space—that a range of new products could potentially emerge and provide for greater competition. While they do recognise that, it's not a free-for-all. It shouldn't be a free-for-all. In fact, those consumer advocates stated: While we support the intent of encouraging competition to create new services for consumers we are extremely concerned about the risks that this approach involves. They went on to explain: Rather than watering down consumer protections, the financial industry needs much higher standards to prevent the scandals that have drained consumer savings and investments. These are some of the concerns that have been put forward. The Treasurer was pretty dismissive of these legitimate concerns. He kept going back to the fact that innovation and financial services could create immense benefits for productivity and jobs, and pointed to protections. He said that the government had been 'positioning Australia to become a world leader in fin-tech'. Given the amount of time it takes for key reforms to get through this place, that is certainly a laughable claim. The mere fact of how long this legislation has taken to get before the parliament basically flies quite contrary to that claim of putting Australia in a position of being a fin-tech leader. The concerns of the consumer advocates are quite clear. They believe that a gate should be put on the entry point to make sure that people are legitimate and are genuinely pursuing innovation in this space—that that be put in place to protect consumers. They're not advocating anything outrageous. In fact, the other jurisdictions that I quoted earlier have exactly the same arrangements. They test out whether or not a fin-tech that has approached for permission to use this regulatory sandbox is genuinely going to pursue something innovative or something contrary to that which will be of limited consumer benefit. What was interesting through the Senate inquiry and through public comments that emerged through this process is that the ally, and the people who have a similar view, is the sector itself. The fin-tech sector itself has said that they think that the type of approach of applying a gateway in front of the regulatory sandbox is probably worthwhile. Back in March, through FinTech Australia and the then chair, Stuart Stoyan, they highlighted a number of things—and I'll get to the point where FinTech and consumer groups were as one in their thinking on a critical element of the architecture of the sandbox. FinTech Australia, through Stuart Stoyan, said that they believe the construct of the original sandbox was excessively rigid in approach. So much for the light touch that had been championed by the government. He supported the proposed bill, but FinTech Australia argued in favour of a series of changes to the regulations to accompany the bill, along with, importantly, strengthening ASIC's resourcing to make the sandbox more successful, which is what I want to come back to in my further comments. Mr Stoyan advocated increasing the breadth of products that could be tested in the sandbox, including safe and established retail client products, with fin-techs acting as agents for authorised product providers. They also made these three points. It should ensure only genuinely innovative new businesses can enter the sandbox, through an appropriate ASIC filtering process. Through that one comment there is a clear connection and alignment of interests between consumer advocates and the fin-tech sector, saying that genuinely innovative new businesses can enter. FinTech Australia also indicated the need for improved oversight and monitoring by ASIC of fin-techs while in the sandbox to allow those fin-techs to receive the benefit of guidance and support, and the need for changes to the relevant investment and other limits applicable to these products, as proposed under the bill's supporting regulations, to make these limits more workable. They also argued for an official review of these arrangements. Given the fast-moving environment they operate in, you could accept or believe that that would be a worthwhile recommendation. We had recommended to the government to have a 12-month review point but the government was highly reluctant to do so. I don't know why necessarily they would resist that. From the opposition's perspective, we weren't necessarily going to stand our ground on this in a stubborn way. I understand that the government is going to go to a 24-month review process, but it will be very interesting to see what might occur and, if anything does adversely happen in this space, what having a prompt review or a review conducted in a shorter time frame could have avoided. The government believes in its wisdom that it can wait two years—well, let's see what happens. Certainly, our view as an opposition is that there is great merit—particularly since competing stakeholders have argued the case for having a gateway at the front of this regulatory sandbox—in pursuing that, and we will be talking about that further down the track because there is probably some value in having that sandbox in place. One of the reasons why is another matter that was raised and that I alluded to earlier, and that is about ASIC resourcing. If you're looking at why this sandbox hasn't worked, there are probably two arguments. One would be that the arrangements as they currently exist are too restrictive and you've got to broaden them out. The other reason why it's not working is the awareness of these arrangements: the arrangements themselves are simply unknown. The people aren't using them whatsoever. They're either not finding the value of it, hence the view that it's too restrictive and not generating value, or fin-techs simply don't know that this thing exists. Either way, if the government's response is to free up, to liberate, the restrictions, in part responding to industry criticism, the key will be whether or not ASIC will have the resourcing to be able to do some of the things that I said earlier. There are a range of different things that ASIC will be permitted to do through the regulation-making powers that are underpinned by this legislation, and the question is whether or not they will be able to do them. The concerns from the opposition, which have been remarked upon in a series of bills that have been debated in this place, are about the resourcing of ASIC. We have genuine concerns about whether the resourcing is strong enough and whether or not there are enough people to be able to do some of the things and, particularly in the area where innovative financial products are being developed, to make the calls to see this happen. I said earlier that the government had held up a number of reforms. This was one of them. The other reform that has been argued for for years was rushed. A set of changes were rushed through last year that we urged the government not to do because they were Mickey Mouse changes; they would be way too complicated; and hardly anyone would use the arrangements in terms of equity crowdfunding. We saw the government come back in September last year with the arrangements that they should have put in place, and they didn't. Those have been held up in the Senate. Why? It is because the government couldn't really give a toss. They had no interest whatsoever in putting this legislation forward. Again, we'd argued the case about some of the deliberate delays which were imposed, which would see—if that equity crowdfunding bill were agreed to—a six-month delay for its operation and which were embedded within that bill. The reason given for that is that ASIC needed time to prepare. For what? The bulk of the changes in that particular bill with respect to equity crowdfunding would help provide a platform for capital raising for a lot of the firms, probably including some of the fin-tech firms, which are interested in getting support for their products. For an alternative fundraising approach, given that the bulk of the arrangements were in place, why would we have a further delay? The reason is that it's called for by ASIC. We've been arguing as an opposition to shorten the time. We understood that there would be broad agreement between the government and the opposition to do this. Just at the point where there was broad agreement that the new regime could start operating in August, the government pulled the handbrake on it. It has just sat, stagnant, in the Senate, and it's unlikely that it will be agreed to. By the time we come back, it will probably be one year since the champions of the fin-tech sector in the form of the government got their act together to get equity crowdfunding through. What's happened in the meantime? ASIC's working on another space of regulatory oversight that would affect this sector, in the form of putting a watchdog in place to oversight initial coin offerings. Make no mistake: there are some concerns about whether or not some people who are engaged in this practice as an alternative way of raising capital are doing things that are shonky and whether or not investors would be protected. But ASIC's managed, all of a sudden, to come up with a task force or a watchdog of its own on initial coin offerings, which are being used increasingly to raise capital. Why? It is because some of the existing mechanisms like equity crowdfunding, in their current form, in the absence of the actual reform that the government said it would do, are just sitting there withering away. People can't use equity crowdfunding, because it's too complicated under current arrangements, so they go to initial coin offerings, and ASIC already has a watchdog in place to be able to set this up. When the government talks about promoting fin-tech, about promoting start-ups and early-stage innovators and about new ways of doing things, it's just that—talk. When the time comes to actually get things done, they're not there; they're not making it happen. It's why we are debating in this final week before the winter break this piece of legislation that has been stalled for absolute months and that will go nowhere. The people who are missing out on this are the small firms that those opposite champion in their oft-repeated mantra of jobs and growth. If you were really pro jobs and growth, you'd make this legislation go through. It's worth noting that equity crowdfunding reform has been delayed. There are concerns that the under-resourcing of ASIC will not allow for quicker turnarounds on decisions, particularly in terms of some of the stuff that's been argued in this bill. As I indicated a few moments ago, there are some other moves being made by ASIC in terms of the oversight of ICOs that are obviously causing a further strain on resources. From what I understand, the government's already proposed hitting platforms in the equity crowd funding space too, with additional fees to cover the costs of oversight before the changes are even made to the laws to improve the operation of those arrangements. It will be interesting to see whether or not this bill gets moving through the Senate, whether or not the government gets its act together on equity crowdfunding and whether or not it legitimately responds to the concerns of people who are reliant on speedy decisions by ASIC along with proper oversight to ensure that the reputation of the fin-tech sector isn't ruined by bad actors. It'll be interesting to see whether or not all these issues get dealt with. In the other area that this bill covers off, this bill makes a number of changes in venture capital and angel investor tax arrangements. Some of them are straightforward. But it does prompt the question—we were in this place at the same time three years ago, and the bulk of these changes were being put forward: more beneficial taxation arrangements to encourage greater investment flow to venture capital. We have seen some bigger flows in terms of support for the venture capital sector in Australia. I wouldn't necessarily argue that it's because of these tax arrangements, but I'm not being churlish in arguing against it; the larger reason is because bigger institutional investors, like superannuation funds, have thrown their support behind venture capital. But there's absolutely no evidence from the government about what's happened on the angel investor taxation arrangements. There is very little evidence from the government that the arrangements they put in place back in July 2015 have actually kicked in. How many people have used them? These are arrangements that were modelled on the UK Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme arrangements, which have been in place in the UK for some time. We have no evidence whatsoever as to how they're actually being used. Admittedly, there will be a lag between financial years and the submission of taxation information to allow that to happen, but, for a government that has never been shy of talking itself up and arguing that its arrangements are working magically, beautifully and seamlessly, it is very odd to notice no information from the government on what's happened on these arrangements. Why? Obviously the government will completely ignore all these issues in the summing up, as they do on all the matters that are raised. Three years ago, we raised a very deliberate design departure in the angel investor tax arrangements—for example, allowing trusts and companies to access these arrangements, which is quite distinct from the UK arrangements—but none of that stuff has been followed up. The government is moving to prevent what it calls double-dipping and aggressive advice from some tax advisers in this space, but they will ignore the call for evidence. They'll ignore the call for any requirement to stump up and show the benefit of the changes that are made. They will ignore all the valid advice on anything else that is being put forward here and will be reliant on people down the track to clean these things up. It's more likely than not, as is often the case with this government, that they'll propose the changes for the sake of generating the hype, but they will very quickly sidestep any hurdle or any misstep that eventuates as a result of this stuff. Certainly, in terms of some of the arrangements we are discussing here, if the fin-tech sector is arguing for the same changes that consumer advocates are arguing for, then you should sit up and take notice of what is being said. This government certainly won't do anything of the sort. As I said at the beginning of my remarks to the House, these are the faux friends of fin-tech. They are only there to generate positive publicity within certain elements of what fin-tech are doing. If there's a requirement to follow through with the hard yards of actually making this legislation go through the chamber and operate quicker and if it's about putting forward the resources that will underpin this legislation and ensure their effective operation once they get royal ascent, that will not be there from this government. If it's to address legitimate concerns that are put forward by stakeholders regarding the construction of the legislation, this government will not do that either. They will just go onto the next thing and hope that they can cover up or overlook the problems down the track. I might add too that there is very little benefit in negotiating with this government on genuine reform to this stuff, because they just talk the talk and they will not walk the walk. They will not do anything that is designed to try to improve this legislation in a bipartisan way. This is just like what we said on equity crowdfunding. The changes they were putting through in March last year were a dud. We urged them not to do it. We said we wouldn't criticise them if they didn't do it and we would give them time to put the proper changes in. They still didn't do the job properly and then had to came back six months later with their tails between their legs, suddenly indicating, 'We've discovered that people want much more liberated arrangements on that platform.' With the Treasurer being the way that he is, there is no point negotiating with him on these things. It is because he is not legitimate in accepting legitimate concerns, advice and alternative approaches in the way that is required to improve these things. As I said, we won't oppose this bill, but we will be making changes to it in the other place to ensure that the legitimate concerns raised by stakeholders—who you wouldn't normally expect to agree with this—will be dealt with in a thorough and proper way. I leave my remarks at that. 17:27 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt What a pleasure it is to follow the member for Chifley in speaking to this legislation because, once again, we have the Husic-Keogh double act speaking on essential legislation for our financial services sector. What do we hear from the government on their own legislation? Nothing, zilch. I'm pretty much convinced that those on the other side of the chamber don't actually understand what this legislation does. One of the things that confirms that proposition for me is exactly what the member for Chifley has just said, and as he and I have both said on many occasions in this House. It is that we're getting sick of having to come back and deal with legislation that is coming into the House and having to fix up the government's own legislation, which didn't work and could have worked so much better if they had just followed our advice and our wilful cooperation to get these things right in the first place. That is in this context where we hear so much from those on the other side of the chamber who say that apparently Labor would know nothing about business and that apparently we don't understand the economy. What do we see? No speakers from the government side at all and no understanding at all from the government about what is actually required when it comes to dealing with the modern parts of the economy: the fin-tech sector, crowdsource funding and angel investors. These guys would not have a clue about any of that. The thing that we need to bear in mind is that this stands in contrast with what the government likes to say. In his first statement after being elected, the Prime Minister told our nation that, as a nation, we were going to be agile, we were going to be innovative and we were going to be creative. He told us that technology can be our friend if we are agile and smart enough to take advantage of it. What we have before us today is one of the first of what should be an innovative and agile initiative by this government. Instead, in fin-tech we have the first initiative, and it's this fin-tech regulatory sandbox which was initially launched back in 2016. But, unfortunately, this first foray into innovation by the Turnbull government has seen, to be frank, an epic fail. Labor has been pushing the government to better support the early-stage innovation and start-up community for years. It is, we know on this side of the chamber, the way of the future. The local fin-tech sector is fast growing. It's emerging as a real competitive threat to our major financial services players and potentially providing consumers with greater opportunities for new financial products. It may go against the grain for those Liberals that only seem to care for big business and their buddies in the big banks, but we in Labor know that the only way for this country to prosper in this evolving world economy is to support these dynamic small businesses and give them a platform to thrive as well. In 2016, ASIC did launch Australia's first regulatory sandbox, an opportunity for companies to test new products in a regulatory environment that allows fin-tech start-ups to determine if such products are potentially viable. This regulatory sandbox allows these companies to offer products that would normally not be able to come to market for a much longer period of time and would have to jump many, many hurdles in the process. The regulatory sandbox framework comprises three broad options for testing without a licence. There's eligibility for licensing exemptions where there are fewer than 100 retail clients, there's a plan to test for no more than 12 months and there's a total customer exposure of no more than $5 million, among some other conditions. The benefit of this sandbox is that innovative concepts can be tested in a more forgiving regulatory environment, bringing more consumer focused offerings to local and international markets. But, after just over a year, in Australia we have—wait for it—a grand total of three entities making use of this sandbox, with a mere 15 in the pipeline. Over a similar period, the UK has had 146 applications to take part in their program, while Singapore has had 30. Some may say, 'Oh, but look at those countries and their financial services markets; they're so much bigger than in Australia.' Actually, when we look at what we have in Australia in terms of funds under management and the scope and maturity of our financial services sector, where we have full and creative business minds applying to this sector, there is no excuse, and there's clearly no lack of willingness from the Australian marketplace to participate. We have a reputation of being global market leaders in the financial sector, so why are we not leading the world when it comes to innovation? I find it hard to believe that businesses would not be seeking out the opportunities to grow their businesses with the financial and regulatory support of government entities where it's available. No, the low participation rates clearly reflect the limited scope of products and services that were available as part of the pre-existing program. The government's current system, though, is so constrained that we can see it is effectively unusable. Widening the range of products permitted to be trialled and constructing a more engaging approval process, while providing increased consumer protection, should increase the appeal for others to take part in this system. In Australia, our local fin-tech sector, as I said, is growing. It is emerging as a real competitive threat to our major financial services players. If undertaken properly, this process could provide customers with greater opportunities for new financial products and potentially might be able to put forward something that the big banks can't offer. If we get this right, it will make available financial investment opportunities and advice not previously available. It will be able to penetrate into areas of the market that currently are not accessed by a lot of the financial services sector. There will be opportunities for wealth creation for each and every person in our electorates. But perhaps this is why the government can't seem to get their act together on proper plans for this. They don't want to disturb the peace that they have with their big bank brothers in arms. All the start-up sector has received since the 2016 launch of this project by this Liberal government is talk, some flashy media announcements and a bit more talk but very little concrete support. It's not too different, basically, from everything else that this government seems to do. This scheme was, as I said, put in place back in 2016 and is intended to make it easier to create evolutionary changes in our financial services sector, to make sure that that evolution is not prohibitively slow, and to have it move into the future to create more tailored financial opportunities for our community and across the sector. But it seems that the scheme has been heavily flawed. Getting the fin-tech regulatory sandbox right also means, of course, that there will be more work for ASIC. Yet what have we seen? As in so many areas, ASIC has actually received significant funding cuts under this budget. The government have cut $26 million from the ASIC budget over the forwards of the current budget. It's the financial services regulator. It needs to be properly financed. As I've said many times in this place: we've got a banking royal commission going on, which has been spewing out claims that need to be properly investigated. There will be findings that come when the royal commission concludes that will need to be furthered by our corporate regulator. But, instead, this government has seen fit to cut the funding for ASIC. At the same time, we have programs like this, we have legislation like this, that requires, rightfully, ASIC to assist in doing new regulatory work to make sure that we can have this fin-tech sector blossom. But, instead, funding has been cut from our corporate regulator. Who should be making the investment? The government should be making this investment to make sure that the regulators are properly resourced to do their work. It is unsustainable presently for them to continue to do their work properly as the cop on the corporate beat, let alone take on these new projects. We have heard time and time again that the government will crack down on companies and big banks doing the wrong thing. We've heard they want to enhance ASIC's powers—but where's the substance to that? An increase in their capabilities and responsibilities through this and many other bills should come with funding increases, not with a $26 million funding cut in the budget. ASIC has previously flagged with the government its limited capabilities with regard to staff numbers from its funding cuts. It's beginning to sound a bit like a broken record. Even on Friday, in the House Standing Committee on Economics hearing with ASIC, we heard from Mr Shipton, their chair, and from other commissioners that they are at a crossroad, that their powers and capabilities are effectively being limited and stymied by the budget allocations being given by this government, or rather the lack of budget allocations being given by this government. They are being muzzled by the government in their ability to effectively perform their role. In discussing this bill, in particular, we simply can't agree to adding a further cap to ASIC's hat without them receiving more support. In addition, consumer advocate Choice have raised significant concerns about this scheme. Choice and other consumer advocates are concerned that some of the concepts trialled in the sandbox environment are not demonstrating a legitimate need for regulatory relief and that some concepts may not be good for customers in practice as promised. They say this legislation would allow unlicensed financial advice on superannuation, insurance and long-term investment products. These services are—and I think everyone would agree—too complex and important for the long-term wellbeing of customers to be offered without adequate protections that are removed by the sandbox environment. It essentially creates an environment where the issues raised in the banking royal commission of poor advice, poor client relations and not acting in customers' best interests will be at further risk, if not done properly. A fin-tech regulatory sandbox is still very much worthwhile, but these concerns should be examined. It's why Labor believe that there is merit in this legislation being properly considered by a Senate inquiry so that we actually get this right. Despite significant government fanfare on the announcement of this program a mere two years ago, only three entities have bothered to be involved with it. This is why the government needs to make these changes. It's why we are here today, on yet another piece of legislation fixing the government's previous legislation so that we can get this right, because it is important. We have seen that overseas there has been far better take-up of those arrangements, because they've got it right. I refuse to believe that the local uptake of the regulatory sandbox arrangement has been poor because we don't have the brains to do it in this country. We certainly know that that is not the case. It is in stark contrast, I believe, to the way in which this country is at the forefront of so many of the financial services around the world and in being able to promote them. So it is important that we get this right. We don't want to lose this opportunity. We do not want to see a situation where we continue to stall and allow other countries and other financial services sectors to get the jump on us. We have fantastic innovative minds in this country. We need to make sure that they are allowed to blossom here and promote this around the world. The regulation of the financial services industry is such that we can support projects like this. We just need the support of organisations, in particular, ASIC, in funding and resourcing to make this happen. This is why Labor support the referral of this legislation to the Senate. We need to explore why local uptake has been so dismal and also make sure that consumers are adequately protected in the process. They say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, it is broke and we need to fix it. It is crucial that we encourage the development of fin-tech products that are genuinely innovative and provide tangible consumer benefits while growing our financial services sector and the economy at large. I commend the bill, but I ask again: as with so much of this government's legislation—for example, the crowd-sourced equity funding regime which we have dealt with several times in this House—the government need to do the work to make sure that they get the balance right. 17:39 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin We thank the opposition for their enthusiastic support of the bill. The government remains committed to establishing Australia as a leading global fin-tech hub. This bill builds on our work to ensure we have the right policy settings to foster innovation. In particular, schedule 1 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to lay the foundation for the government's enhanced regulatory sandbox by extending the regulation-making powers in that act. This will support fin-tech businesses to test their products and services without a licence from ASIC and under certain strict conditions. We believe this measure will reduce the initial burden faced by firms as they look to innovate in providing specified financial services, while at the same time retaining important measures to minimise risks to consumers. Schedule 2 of the bill makes a number of minor technical amendments to the early stage venture capital limited partnership, venture capital limited partnership and tax incentives for early stage investor regimes to clarify the income tax law, to provide certainty to investors and to ensure these provisions operate in accordance with their original policy intent. The measures contained in this bill again demonstrate the government's continued commitment to promoting a culture of entrepreneurship and risk-taking in Australia, and will help ensure innovative Australian businesses have access to the capital and, importantly, the expertise they need to grow and succeed. I therefore commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 79 17:42 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018 79

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2018-2019

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2018-2019

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2017-2018

Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2017-2018

Returned from Senate 79 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 79

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018

Second Reading 79 17:43 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The federal opposition is determined to ensure our law enforcement and national security agencies have the powers necessary to keep Australians safe. Labor also believes strongly in the importance of upholding the rights and freedoms that define us as a democratic nation. Australia is a nation under the rule of law. It is essential that, in designing legislation to protect our way of life, we do not compromise those very rights and freedoms that define us as a democratic nation and foster harmony and diversity. Ensuring that we view national security through the lens of the society we are seeking to protect and create is a fundamental duty of all parliamentarians. Labor shares in common with other Australian political parties the key objective of keeping the Australian people safe, which means approaching questions of national security in a bipartisan spirit. However, bipartisanship does not mean Labor will simply agree with every measure the government proposes; bipartisanship means Labor will engage constructively with the proposals put forward by the government with a view to testing and, where possible, improving those measures. It was in this spirit of constructive bipartisanship that, through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's statutory review process, Labor worked hard over 2017 and 2018 to improve several security and law enforcement powers on the Commonwealth statute books. The important work of the bipartisan Intelligence and Security Committee has seen a significant review into police stop, search and seizure powers, the control orders regime and the preventive detention order regime in division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914. And, as well, there has been a review by the intelligence committee of sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code, the declared areas provisions. There was also a further and important review by the PJCIS which resulted in its report ASIO's questioning and detention powers: review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979. This bill responds in part to these three reviews. The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 was introduced into the House of Representatives on 24 May 2018. The Attorney-General referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review on the same day. The government's complete adoption of the PJCIS's recommendations is a welcome continuance of the longstanding convention that the government of the day implements without reservation the bipartisan recommendations of the committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee's review of the police stop, search and seizure powers provided for under division 3A of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 recommended that those powers be continued. The bill inserts a new subdivision CA into division 3 of part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 to require reporting to the minister, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the committee on the use of the stop, search and seizure powers under division 3 of part IAA as soon as practicable after exercise of a power or powers, and an annual report from the minister. This recommendation is entirely in keeping with Labor's abiding commitment that our law enforcement and security agency officers should have the powers needed to keep Australians safe. However, the report also recommended that these powers, which are extraordinary, also should be the subject of future review by the parliament and not be allowed to simply fall into permanence on the Commonwealth statute book. Similarly, the Intelligence and Security Committee also recommended that the control order regime provided for under division 104 of the Criminal Code be continued with the provisions sunsetting after three years. The bill adopts this recommendation. These powers—that is, the control order powers—have, of course, only rarely been used. The small number of occasions on which they have been used is something that is commented upon by the intelligence committee in its report. One feature of the bill is that it introduces a new section 104.11A in the new subdivision CA of the Criminal Code, which would enable a court to vary the terms of an interim control order where there is written agreement between a senior Australian Federal Police member and a controlee. The explanatory memorandum states that this new section is designed to facilitate 'minor and uncontroversial' variations to an interim control order such as a changed mobile telephone number, change of residential addresses or change in educational or employment arrangements of a controlee. It's obviously desirable there should be a speedy and, as far as possible, informal mechanism leading to the variation of a control order which deals, as the explanatory memorandum suggests, with minor matters of this nature. The bill inserts a new section 104.28AA into the Criminal Code to set out limitations on the issuing court's ability to make costs orders in control order proceedings. Under proposed subsection 104.28AA(1), the issuing court must not make an order for costs against the controlee. However, if the issuing court is satisfied that the controlee has acted unreasonably in the conduct of proceedings, it may order costs against the controlee to the extent of the unreasonable conduct. Labor considers it essential that all the powers considered by this review be available to our agencies for as long as they are necessary to ensure the peace, safety and security of the Australian community. However, Labor also considers powers such as these must continue to be seen and understood as extraordinary. These powers were brought into our criminal law and law enforcement framework to meet the complex circumstances which have faced security and law enforcement agencies over the last two decades. Because these powers are extraordinary, it's essential that they're subject to sunsetting and continued parliamentary oversight through regular review by the committee on intelligence and security. It was in this light that the committee made the recommendations—and which I'm glad to say the government has adopted—to amend the Intelligence Services Act for the purpose of providing greater parliamentary scrutiny of these powers. This is something that the committee, in its report on this bill, has welcomed in these terms. At paragraph 1.34 of the committee's report, the committee said: The Committee also welcomes extension of its oversight to include Division 3A of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914 together with the additional reporting requirements that will be imposed. As the Committee noted in its earlier report, Committee oversight of the stop, search and seizure powers is in line with other review and oversight functions exercised by the Committee in relation to counter-terrorism. It's worth noting that the bill also extends the sunset periods for the declared areas provisions contained in the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new exception to the declared area offence in subsection 119.2(1) for individuals performing official duties for the International Committee of the Red Cross. This is a welcome protection for people and organisations carrying out humanitarian work in some of the most dangerous conflict zones in the world. The bill also amends schedule 1 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to provide that decisions of senior Australian Federal Police members to provide or refuse consent to vary interim control orders under new section 104.11A of the Criminal Code will not be reviewable under the AD(JR) Act. The bill extends the sunset date for ASIO's questioning and detention powers in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 by 12 months to 7 September 2019. In its report into the bill, the committee commented on this particular provision in the bill in these terms—and I'm quoting from paragraph 1.32 of the intelligence committee's report: The Committee notes that while the Bill implements one recommendation from the Committee's report into ASIO's questioning and detention powers, the remainder of that report (including the Committee's recommendation for repeal of the questioning and detention warrant power) is still being considered by the Government. As noted above, the intent of this recommendation was that there be sufficient time for a reformed ASIO compulsory questioning framework to be developed and then reviewed by this Committee. This bill, then, is somewhat unusual in that it responds to a single recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report on ASIO's questioning and detention warrant power. While it's the case that the report did recommend the extension of the powers in division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act, which includes the powers providing for questioning and detention warrants, I would like to put on the record very clearly that the report also made the recommendation that the ASIO questioning and detention warrants regime should be repealed. This is a power that has never been used by ASIO. In light of the fact that ASIO is an intelligence agency and not a law enforcement agency, it's a power that I think is fairly clearly unnecessary because of the collaboration that exists between ASIO and the Australian Federal Police. It's also worth noting that two previous independent national security legislation monitors had recommended, before this earlier report of the intelligence committee, that this power be repealed. I say again: the bill does not repeal the ASIO questioning and detention warrants power. Indeed, the effect of this bill is to extend for a year a power that the PJCIS has recommended should be repealed. It's understood, and the committee has noted that it understands, that in extending both ASIO's powers—the questioning and detention warrant power and the questioning warrant power—the government simply is seeking to leave the whole regime in place for a period of 12 months while the government works through what is to replace that regime. It's not entirely clear why the government has chosen to retain the questioning and detention warrants power at all, given that it has never been used, but Labor accepts that that short extension of the whole regime is appropriate, as did the intelligence committee, in order to allow time for a reformed compulsory questioning framework to be developed. It is worth noting that the government has accepted all of the Intelligence and Security Committee's recommendations in respect of the approximately 10 national security bills that have been brought to this parliament since 2014. This is the first occasion that I can think of that the government has seen fit to extend a power that is the subject of a repeal recommendation. Notwithstanding that, we in Labor, and I as a member of the committee, thank the government for continued implementation of PJCIS report recommendations and I look forward to the government bringing forward legislation that gives effect to the particular recommendation of the committee that the questioning and detention warrants power be repealed, as was recommended by the committee. The recommendation for this repeal of an extraordinary power does reflect a matter of which the House is already well aware—the fact that our enforcement of security laws must be regularly reviewed is not a reason in any way for them to be expanded, let alone made permanent. As I've said of the powers recently reviewed by the intelligence committee, extraordinary powers introduced to meet an extraordinary threat should be periodically reviewed and repealed, if it is clear that those powers are no longer needed. There is no doubt that Australians could perhaps always be made safer by stricter security arrangements. Australians, perhaps, could be made safer by stricter laws, but Australia is a democracy and we value our freedoms as well as we value our security. It's Labor's view that finding the right balance between our security and our rights and freedoms is a critical ongoing task that all parliamentarians must engage in. Because new threats to our national security may suddenly arise or diminish as a consequence of events unfolding overseas, or indeed in our country, it is particularly important that our national security laws and capabilities are, to some extent at least, never taken for granted as a set-and-forget proposition. It was in recognition of the need for ongoing review of our national security laws that Labor established the Office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and it was in recognition of the ongoing nature of this function that Labor fought hard for the retention of the monitor, even as the Abbott government announced in 2014 that the office would be abolished, in the misguided belief that its purpose was somehow complete. I'm pleased that the then Abbott government backed down on its proposal to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. The continued worth of the monitor has been shown in this bill, which picked up, in a very real sense, on the 2017 review of the stop, search and seizure powers by the then Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the Hon. Roger Giles AO. Similarly, the government's own independent intelligence review, conducted by Michael L'Estrange and Stephen Merchant, which reported in the middle of last year, recommended that the Intelligence and Security Committee should be given much broader powers of oversight. I think that there would be general support in this place for the expansion of the Intelligence and Security Committee's oversight role in the light of that recommendation of the government's Independent Intelligence Review report. On 13 June 2017, shortly before the report of the Independent Intelligence Review was received by government, the Prime Minister, in a national security statement, said: … I will … soon receive the review of the Australian Intelligence Community that I tasked last year. This is a regular review, and it is a critical look at how our world-class intelligence agencies and structures must adapt to stay ahead of the threat, anticipate evolving challenges and continue to reassure us of our future security, freedom and opportunities. I will report back to the House with the government's response to these initiatives … It's a little over 12 months since the Prime Minister made this commitment, and it appears that there may be some roadblock to the implementation of the recommendations. I can refer to the fact that on 23 October 2017, during supplementary budget estimates, Labor senator Jenny McAllister asked Mr Allan McKinnon, from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, whether a response of the government to the L'Estrange and Merchant report was to be forthcoming. At that hearing, Mr McKinnon, a deputy secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, stated that all the L'Estrange and Merchant recommendations were being implemented, saying 'almost all of them in their original form; a couple in slightly amended form'. On 7 May this year, after Senator McAllister had written to the Attorney-General on 4 April 2018 seeking an update on the implementation of the recommendations, the deputy secretary of the department Mr McKinnon wrote to Senator McAllister withdrawing his evidence given during estimates in October 2017. There is as a consequence no longer any government response to the essential recommendations regarding greater oversight of the Australian intelligence community by the Intelligence and Security Committee of this parliament. This House is still waiting for the fulfilment of the government's commitment to respond to its own review. Crucially, while the government has responded positively to the limited review powers recommended by now several PJCIS inquiries, the broader oversight responsibilities for the PJCIS recommended by the government's own review have yet to be responded to, let alone introduced as legislation to the parliament. We await the formal response and look forward to the PJCIS being given the recommended oversight powers necessary to ensure that the powers of our agencies and law enforcement bodies are proportionate and balanced by the need to protect the rights and freedoms that all Australians value. Finally, I should in this context mention what have been described as the Faulkner reforms, some of which have been realised in other ways but which nevertheless provide a useful framework which the parliament should commit to. Senator John Faulkner, who retired from the parliament in February 2015, was a fierce advocate for improved governmental transparency and accountability in our nation. He argued that in recent years Australia has benefited from professional and well-run intelligence and security agencies that have respected the parliament, the government of the day and our laws. But Senator Faulkner also argued that effective safeguards against the abuse of security powers cannot depend on the personal integrity and quality of the leaders of our agencies. Rather, it is the responsibility of the federal parliament to prescribe safeguards that keep pace with the expansion of security powers. I agree entirely. While I personally have great respect for the law enforcement and national security officers who are currently serving our nation, it is the laws of the nation that must safeguard our rights and freedoms, and it is these laws that we are now debating. Members of the federal parliamentary Labor Party recognise that in Australia, as in many other similar democracies, the powers of intelligence and security agencies have been strengthened and expanded significantly in recent years as a consequence of the increasingly complex and unpredictable security environment. Labor agrees that the maintenance of public safety in the current security environment requires enhanced powers for the agencies charged with this critical responsibility. However, with legislative changes extending those powers, the requirement for reliable, effective external oversight and other safeguards becomes critical to maintaining an essential level of trust in the community about agency operations. It was Senator Faulkner's view that it is the parliament to which agencies are accountable and it is the parliament's responsibility to oversee their priorities and effectiveness and to ensure that agencies meet the requirements and standards it sets. I agree. Senator Faulkner developed a set of reforms designed to ensure that the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight of intelligence and security agencies keeps pace with any enhanced powers being given to the agencies. Labor brought forward legislation in 2015 to give affect to these important reforms. One key reform proposed by Senator Faulkner was for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to have oversight of some operational matters of the security agencies. He came to this view before the government's own review into the intelligence committee, which I've already discussed, recommended similar powers of review. Labor continues to press for the significant changes to the role of the intelligence and security committee that were recommended by Senator John Faulkner in reforms which subsequently have been taken up in a private senator's bill by Senator Penny Wong and by the independent intelligence review of 2017. These powers of oversight go beyond the expanded powers provided for in this bill, because necessarily the reviews which are reflected in this legislation are limited to the powers that are reviewed. We look forward to the government positively responding to its own review and assisting Labor with the implementation of the Faulkner reforms. Labor will always work to keep Australians safe and, at the same time, we will ensure that the rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians are upheld. Getting this balance right can be a challenging task, but we always approach the work of the intelligence and security committee in a bipartisan and constructive manner, which should leave the Australian community in no doubt that Labor will always seek to ensure that the needs of safety and security are proportionate and balanced against fundamental rights and freedoms. I commend the bill to the House. 18:07 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. This bill was introduced to the House in May of this year, at which point the Attorney-General referred the bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review. The PJCIS reported on the bill in June of this year, and its single recommendation was that the bill be passed. Now, this bill implements the recommendations of two reports by the PJCIS, which were tabled in March 2018. The first report considered the control order and preventative detention order provisions of the Crimes Act and the Criminal Code. The second report considered the declared area provisions of the Criminal Code. The bill extends the sunset date for the control order, preventative detention order and declared area regimes by three years to 7 September 2021. It also implements, with some minor exceptions, the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM—I don't know if that's an acronym that we could make into any kind of spoken word. Those recommendations about these regimes were made in October 2017. Those recommendations respond to some reports by the PJCIS, as well as a few other things, in its entirety. As the shadow Attorney-General mentioned, Labor continues to demonstrate its longstanding commitment to working with the government in a constructive and bipartisan manner on issues of national security. We are, of course, dedicated to keeping Australians safe. For that reason, we welcome the government's implementation of the bipartisan recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. We note that, while the government has implemented the PJCIS recommendations, the powers contained in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 are to be extended. The government has not implemented the very significant PJCIS recommendation to repeal the questioning and detention warrants power. We also note that the government has not implemented the INSLM's recommendation that the subject of a control order should not have to pay costs for seeking to vary a control order. Rather, the subject of the control order could still potentially be ordered to pay the costs of a variation application if found to have unreasonably contributed to those costs. This is at odds with the fundamental principle of the criminal law that a defendant will not be required to pay the costs of the prosecution. As these are quasi-criminal powers, that same principle ought to apply, and the shadow Attorney-General made that point quite eloquently in his previous speech. But, as I mentioned, bipartisan support is extremely important, particularly for national security. Early identification and the capacity and ability to deal with people who are at an operational level and who present a clear and present threat to the safety and security of Australians should be an utmost priority not just of government but of all of us here in parliament. However, there is a need for us to work more, to have more programs and to perhaps pay more attention to those at other levels—at the engagement level and the influence level—who are not yet operational but may well be on their way to being operational to committing an act of violent extremism. It is important not just that we know—and indeed we do know; our security agencies and our law enforcement agencies are to be commended—but also that we understand terrorism in all its forms, whether it is a threat presented by violent jihadist actors or a threat presented by violent right-wing, violent left-wing or any other form of terrorist actor. Australia has a very comprehensive and robust framework of legislation for doing that, as well as comprehensive powers given to our law enforcement agencies so that we can know, so that we do have information and intelligence that allows us to proactively identify people who may be at that operational level. But we also need to focus on our understanding of the environments in which radicalising influences emerge and how we deal with those environments, how we mitigate those environments and how we mitigate the threats to Australians' safety and security that those environments present. The law and the suite of legislative amendments that Australia has installed around terrorism and terrorism-related laws since 2002 can deal only with the pointy end of terrorism and radicalisation. At that broad-base level, where young people are being influenced by negative propaganda from ISIS on the internet and in their social lives, as well as negative propaganda coming out of other extremist groups, the law can't deal with that. Legislative amendments will not be able to address that, because legislative amendments deal only with that pointy end. We need to also have a balance and focus on that broad base in the prevention of radicalisation and the early intervention of those early stages of radicalisation, influence and engagement before individuals become operational and present a clear and present threat. Labor has a longstanding commitment to working with this government and, in doing so, also ensuring that everything possible can be done to help keep Australians safe. As the shadow Attorney-General mentioned in his address before I spoke, it is also important that we have balance, proportionality and rationality in how we deal with this. It is very easy for us to lose sight of rationality, balance and proportionality and for that to actually have a negative or counterproductive impact on what we do in the counterterrorism space. We support this bill. We support the consideration that this bill provides, in terms of extending up to 2021 the sunset date for control orders, preventative detention orders and declared areas. However, if we are to put in every possible effort to keep Australians safe, we need to look at everything that helps us to implement those laws, that strengthens those laws and that strengthens our society to become the kind of society that is resilient to and resists the influence of terrorist actors and terrorist propaganda. 18:16 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise to speak on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2018. First of all, I fully concur that the control order sunset clause be extended. As part of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I thank all the members, and in particular the chair of the committee, Andrew Hastie, for the work they have done. The committee works in a bipartisan manner and actually gets excellent results. One issue I've always been greatly concerned about is the preventative detention legislation, in regard to law enforcement or police never having the ability to question a person under what we call a PDO. The way this would work if a person were under a preventative detention order is that they would need to be released and arrested under part 1C of the Crimes Act. The difficulty with this—and I've always had this as a former counterterrorism officer—is that if you have a person in preventative detention you can't ask them any questions, and anything they say can't be used in evidence. So, potentially, you could have a person in preventative detention who the police have put there because quite often there's not enough evidence to arrest and interview. That's part of the reason the PDOs were set up in the first place—to prevent that person from potentially going on to commit a terrorist attack. But, as they are in the holding cell under the PDO and not being asked any questions, they may have information. It could be, as you see in the criminal or terrorist world, that the code is, 'If I get picked up and I'm in custody, you go and commit the attack.' That's of great concern to me. The person in there may have information that could help law enforcement to prevent a terrorist attack. Law enforcement cannot give that guarantee and they never will be able to give that guarantee. A person who's in custody may have that information, but since they'll never be asked questions, law enforcement can never get the answers. The only way law enforcement can get that is to release and re-arrest. In the UK they have what's called pre-arrest or pre-charge detention. It doesn't need the same threshold to actually make an arrest for a criminal investigation and to charge. The reason they do this is that, when it comes to terrorism, law enforcement does not have the luxury it has when it comes to, say, an armed robbery, where you can allow the offenders to buy the masks, receive or steal the firearms, get a stolen vehicle and case out the joint, and then have the police pick them up pretty much on the morning they're about to commit an attack or commit an armed robbery. When it comes to terrorism, they don't have that luxury. As soon as they believe something is going to occur, even though they don't have enough evidence to charge, they will go in and make that arrest to ensure that public safety comes first. This makes it very difficult when it comes to the PDO. The UK have had so many terrorist attacks. There were the attacks in Manchester and also the attacks on the bridge outside parliament house last year—the anniversary of which has just occurred—where, sadly, two young Australians lost their lives. They've realised in the UK that they need every resource they can get, especially when they have 20,000 people of interest over there and 3,000 of them are extremists of great interest. In Australia—and this has been publicly stated before—we would probably have in the vicinity of 500. I acknowledge that the Attorney-General is looking into this. In fact, I and the Attorney-General, when he was in another role, put in a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, explaining why the police need the ability to question a person under a PDO. I would say that's a good sign, because the Attorney-General knows how important this change to the legislation is to protect Australians from terrorist attacks. I have another concern—and the member for Cowan has also raised this issue. Legislation is obviously very important at the pointy end, as are more resources for the Australian Federal Police. If we go back to the Howard days, the coalition was always putting in an amazing amount of funding when it came to counterterrorism measures and the Australian Federal Police. I congratulate the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, for recommending funding for the criminal intelligence security system in this recent budget. I've been calling for such a system for a number of years; it's a national database. This database will help law enforcement. One of the biggest issues is—and we saw this with September 11—the lack of data exchange and information between agencies. We saw this when the FBI were not able to receive information about those people who were undertaking pilot training and who ended up using commercial planes to commit those awful attacks on the Twin Towers in America. The criminal intelligence security database in Australia, which I know all law enforcement agencies across the country are very keen to have, will have the ability to have included on it people of interest who may, for example, be buying or possessing dangerous goods or chemicals. Quite often, the people involved in terrorist activities haven't got a licence themselves to buy such things, but they may have an associate who does. So it would help law enforcement to have that connection. For example, if they are watching a terrorist suspect and all of a sudden they realise an associate is buying high-consequence dangerous goods or undergoing pilot training, it doesn't necessarily mean any terrorist attack is being planned, but it gives a bit of reassurance. In the very worst case scenario, where something is being planned, it gives what we call a red flag alert to law enforcement, which is really important. When it comes to extremism, all the programs in Australia through the Attorney-General's Department—and I understand it is the same in the UK and other countries—rely on the person who is engaged in extremist activity to get involved by simply volunteering to undertake what is called a deradicalisation program. I think it's great if a person wants to put up their hand to have counselling and have it explained to them why their beliefs are totally wrong and that they won't go to heaven after killing the infidels and all of those awful things, which, sadly, have been preached to them. But the problem I have is that we have so many young people who don't volunteer. We go back to the incident outside the Endeavour Hills police station with Numan Haider, who met up with two police officers, one from the AFP and one from VicPol. I have met the police, and it should've been a low-key meeting. They were concerned about Numan Haider. He had been at the Dandenong shopping centre carrying an IS flag, which would obviously greatly concern law enforcement and suggest that this person is radicalised. When they met him at Endeavour Hills Police Station, he was friendly. He went to greet them but in actual fact started to stab them. The police members concerned ended up shooting him, and subsequently he lost his life. Numan Haider was a classic example of someone who had shown signs of being radicalised, and yet there was no mechanism in place to have a young person like that, or even an older person, with those views be compelled to change their behaviour or their views. One aspect I've been pushing for is what's called a community protection intervention order, which works the same way as a family violence order. With a family violence order, if an aggrieved family member makes a complaint to the police or directly to the courts, the magistrate will put conditions in place, including not allowing that person to associate with the aggrieved family member, be within 500 metres of that person's work place or make contact with them through social media or telephone calls. But, when it comes to an extremist at that low level, basically, sadly, we're waiting, as we saw in the Brighton attack, for a person to commit the terrorist act. To me, we need something at a lower level, such as this community protection intervention order. Quite often you hear the parents are very concerned about their child, normally a son, who's watching beheading videos, talking on social media with other extremists and being coaxed by extremist clerics. These clerics don't actually say, 'Go commit a terrorist attack,' but they imply that September 11 was good, the embassy attacks in Indonesia against Australia were a good thing and those who give their life for a terrorist attack go to heaven, planting the seed of evil in a young person's mind. And, eventually, in so many cases, the young person goes and commits these awful attacks. The way this could work is the police or a family member would go before a court. The magistrate would hear the evidence and would first of all decide whether the person's actions are extremist behaviour. The magistrate would then put conditions in place, such as that the person can no longer associate with other people with the same or similar views, watch beheadings or other IS propaganda videos or associate with people like the preacher who's trying to convert them. Benbrika is a really good example of someone who was forced out of a number of mosques, including the Preston mosque. Other Muslims regarded him as basically a crazy person who no-one would ever listen to, yet he would stand outside the mosques and go and convert young people. In total, I think he converted 17 young people to follow him to plan terrorist attacks, including at Federation Square, the MCG and other significant places. But he was allowed to coax these young people in. This is where straightaway an intervention order could be put on someone like that to keep away from the mosque and the young people he's trying to radicalise to ensure they don't go down the same path. I know Victoria Police is very keen on this, and it's something I'm very keen to pursue. Otherwise we're waiting for something bad to happen, because young people, in particular, who've been brainwashed and don't want to go on a voluntary program will eventually, sadly, if they don't change their view, commit a terrorist attack. All those people that say it is a bit of hype just have to look at the last couple of years, with the planned attack on Federation Square on Christmas Eve, the planned Mother's Day attack, the planned Anzac Day attacks where they planned to behead police officers and also the recent planned attack on a commercial aircraft going from Sydney to Dubai which, if it hadn't been intercepted by police, would have seen hundreds of people killed. I congratulate law enforcement members for what they've done. They have the full support of the Turnbull government. I acknowledge the bipartisan manner in which the report of this Intelligence and Security Committee and other reports have been produced. In closing, we must have preventative detention orders, the ability to question and also community protection intervention orders to really focus on those young people who've been radicalised to go down the wrong path, because waiting to see them commit a terrorist attack is not the way we should go. 18:31 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes In summing up, I'd like to thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018. Since September 2014 Australia's national terrorism threat level has been at 'probable'. This means that there is credible intelligence assessed by our security agencies indicating that individuals or groups continue to possess the intent and capability to conduct a terrorist attack in Australia. In this prevailing threat environment it is critical that our law enforcement and security agencies have the powers that they need to protect the community from the threat of a terrorist act. Consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS, and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, the INSLM, this bill extends the operation of the control order regime, the preventative detention order regime, the declared areas provisions and the terrorism stop, search and seizure powers beyond their sunset day of 7 September 2018. These powers will operate for a further three years until 7 September 2021. Each of these powers plays an important role in equipping our agencies with the capabilities they need to address the threat of terrorism. The control order and PDO regimes are vital preventive powers that enable law enforcement agencies to take proactive steps to mitigate the threat of a terrorism act when traditional law enforcement powers are not available. The declared areas offence forms an important element of managing the risk posed by the return of Australians who have participated in conflicts overseas with listed terrorist organisations. It equips our law enforcement and prosecution agencies with the tools to arrest, charge and prosecute returning foreign fighters. Terrorism stop, search and seizure powers under the Crimes Act enable law enforcement agencies to act immediately in the event of a terrorist threat to or a terrorism incident within Commonwealth places, such as airports and defence establishments. The bill will also continue the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's questioning and detention powers in relation to terrorism offences for a further 12 months. This will enable the continuation of these important intelligence-gathering powers while the government considers the PJCIS's recommendations and other recommendations in relation to ASIO's powers. In accordance with the recommendations of the PJCIS and the INSLM, the bill also makes other amendments to these counterterrorism provisions to ensure they continue to meet the operational needs of law enforcement agencies while also ensuring the proportionality of these regimes. The bill also increases independent oversight of these counterterrorism provisions to promote greater accountability and transparency around their use. Enhanced oversight provides confidence that these extraordinary powers are being exercised judiciously and in appropriate circumstances by Commonwealth agencies. In conclusion, I would like to thank the PJCIS and the INSLM for their detailed consideration of each of the sunsetting counterterrorism powers and offences. The work of the PJCIS and the INSLM was invaluable in informing the deliberations of government on the necessity and effectiveness of these critical counterterrorism provisions and ways to improve their operation. I also thank colleagues across all sides of the chamber for recognising the need for these important measures. This bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to ensuring Australia's counterterrorism legislative framework remains robust and that our law enforcement and security agencies have the powers that they need to respond to the evolving threat of terrorism. 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 Order! As there are fewer than five members on the side of 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. Third Reading 87 18:40 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 87

Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017

Second Reading 87 18:41 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. There are significant opportunities in the digital environment for improving the way we provide educational services, provide services to people with a disability and promote cultural and historical experiences in Australia. Many of these opportunities, however, may put Australia's educational and cultural institutions and organisations assisting people with a disability at a high risk of copyright infringement. There is a balance to be struck between encouraging the development of new and innovative services for the benefit of all Australians and ensuring that Australian creators can retain control and derive value from their copyright-protected material. Ensuring respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators is an ongoing challenge for all participants in the digital environment. Extension of the safe harbour scheme to service providers in these sectors will provide greater certainty to educational and cultural institutions and to those organisations assisting people with a disability about their responsibilities in engaging in the online space. The current safe harbour scheme in the Copyright Act 1968 was introduced following the commencement of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement in 2005. The scheme in the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement was intended to provide an alternative to court proceedings for copyright owners where their infringing material is hosted, cached or linked to by a service provider or where a provider's network services are used to infringe copyright. It sets out conditions with which a service provider must comply, including, in some situations, taking down infringing material or removing links to infringing material when they have been notified of a suspected infringement by a copyright owner. When the scheme was originally implemented in Australia, it was restricted only to carriage service providers—or providers of telecommunications services (such as internet service providers) as they are more commonly known. This cautious approach was taken because the internet was still in its infancy. This bill, through the extension of the existing safe harbour scheme, will ensure that a greater range of service providers can work with copyright owners to effectively protect copyright material without recourse to litigation. The extended scheme enabled by this bill will apply the safe harbour provision to educational institutions such as universities and schools as well as libraries, archives, museums and organisations assisting people with a disability. Where these additional service providers comply with the requirements of the safe harbour scheme, including the operation of a 'notice and take down system', their liability for monetary remedies will be limited. The education, cultural and disability sectors generally take a very risk-averse approach to protecting and managing the copyright of others. Many of the institutions and organisations who, under this bill, will be covered by the safe harbour scheme already comply with the requirements of the scheme and actively work with copyright owners to remove or disable access to infringing material residing on their systems or networks or to take action against repeat infringers. In doing so, they dedicate a significant amount of resources on their processors. Yet they still remain potentially liable for the infringement of their users, which is beyond their active control. This bill will reduce the potential exposure of these sectors to legal liability for authorising copyright infringement when third parties use their networks or services in a way that breaches copyright. This amendment will provide certainty to a group of institutions and organisations which provide services that are in the public interest and will support them in being more innovative in the online environment. This will therefore encourage these institutions and organisations to create and deliver enhanced online services for all Australians. Copyright owners will benefit from the extended scheme as it will provide them with a consistent mechanism for working with those organisations covered by the bill to address copyright infringement on a broader scale rather than having to pursue each and every individual who infringes copyright online. Last year, the government introduced and passed the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017 which was the result of a collaborative effort between rights holders, the education and cultural sector and the disability sector. The passage of the disability access act was an important step in simplifying and modernising the Copyright Act 1968 in response to specific challenges and concerns identified by rights holders and those sectors of the community. This bill now builds upon the effective working relationship that already exists between these sectors and copyright owners as a result of the disability access act. Users of these institutions' and organisations' services will also have additional protection under the safe harbour scheme. The changes will give users a clear process for ensuring that, where their material is removed from the institutions' or organisations' systems or networks, in line with a notice under the safe harbour scheme, it can be reinstated when the user can demonstrate that the material is not infringing. This will ensure, for example, that students and researchers can protect their legitimate use of copyright material in online forums. The government has made the decision to make this incremental expansion of the safe harbour scheme so that it can continue to consult on how best to reform the scheme to apply to other online service providers in the future. In Australia, the expansion of the safe harbour provisions has been reviewed in six separate government reviews over a period of more than 10 years. Each of these reviews called for submissions from the public. The Productivity Commission's 2016 review of Australia's intellectual property arrangements was the most recent of these reviews and it recommended that the scheme be extended to all online service providers. The government is, however, aware that a blanket extension of safe harbour remains a highly contested reform. This is why we chose to undertake further consultation last year. The consultation demonstrated the full spectrum of views from complete support to strident opposition. Both sides are worthy of a full examination. The government has appreciated the open and frank dialogue that we have had with representatives from both sides. On the one hand, we have heard that extending safe harbour would encourage piracy, contribute to the gap in revenue between subscription and ad based content services and remove the ability for rights holders to seek licenced revenue from online services. Of particular concern have been scenarios in which service providers derive profit from the infringing activities of their users. There are also strong concerns that the current conditions in the safe harbour scheme are no longer effective in addressing infringement and that they need to be reconsidered to ensure they promote a collaborative and supportive online environment. On the other hand we hear that Australia has legal uncertainty about the extent to which service providers can be liable for the actions of their users, which has a chilling effect on innovation. Service providers, who in many cases perform the same role as a carriage service provider, have pointed out that they are the ones that have no protection and that this makes Australia uncompetitive compared with other countries who have a safe harbour scheme. Internet users and service providers alike have argued that safe harbour provides a simple non-court based option to address infringement on the internet which should be a good thing for the creative sector. The worst outcome would be for the government to inadvertently impact on rights holders' ability to realise returns on their creative and financial investments. Australia has thriving creative industries whose work contributes enormously to our economy and our cultural life. The government is trying to achieve an environment that encourages innovation, but does not want to do that at the expense of a vibrant cultural and arts sector and the thousands of Australians it employs. At the same time the government recognises that there are many institutions and organisations that operate in the public interest of all Australians and there are actors on the internet who are trying to build a robust and innovative Australian digital economy. So far, opposing parties have been unable to meet in the middle of this protracted debate. So this bill starts the process of safe harbour reform by responding to where there is broad consensus and extending the scheme to a group of institutions and organisations that all agree are responsible players in the copyright space. The current Australian safe harbour scheme, which this bill will extend, is governed by procedural provisions in the Copyright Regulations 1969. These regulations provide the additional details about exactly how the safe harbour scheme works including: how industry codes must be developed, how notifications and notices should be issued and received, and the procedures for notice and takedown of infringing material. As part of the Department of Communications and the Arts review of the sunsetting Copyright Regulations 1969, last year stakeholders had an opportunity to indicate how these provisions might be updated. The government remade these regulations in largely the same form as their sunsetting version, save for some further enhancements to give effect to provisions contained in the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act 2017. However, the passage of this bill will require some further updates to the regulations. Therefore, the government recently released an exposure draft of amending regulations to facilitate the extension of the safe harbour scheme for consultation prior to passage of this bill. The government will focus on ensuring that the mechanics of Australia's safe harbour scheme, contained within the regulations, operate effectively in Australia's digital environment for copyright owners and the broader range of service providers defined in this bill. The government will continue to work with stakeholders seeking to find a way to further extend the safe harbour scheme in a way that allows Australian businesses to harness the significant opportunities of the growing digital economy while ensuring respect for the creative efforts and economic rights of creators. The government is confident that through this staged approach it can find a way to provide a practical and responsive safe harbour framework that operates effectively in the Australian environment. 18:54 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Labor supports the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017, the purpose of which is to expand the operation of the legal safe harbour scheme set out in the Copyright Act 1968 to a broader range of service providers. Labor has long advocated for the change that is brought about by this bill, and we have worked with the government to bring this bill forward. The existing safe harbour scheme established by the Copyright Act protects carriage service providers—in particular, internet service providers such as Telstra and Optus—from the civil liability that they would otherwise be exposed to for hosting or communicating material that infringes copyright. To be able to rely on this legislated safe harbour created by the Copyright Act, the carriage service provider needs to demonstrate that they operate a scheme for removing copyright-infringing material if they are notified of such material by a rights holder. Such processes are, of course, popularly known as takedown processes. This legislation will extend the legislated safe harbour scheme beyond carriage service providers to include, first, educational institutions through their administering bodies, including universities, schools, technical colleges, training bodies and preschools. The bill also extends the safe harbour scheme to libraries that either make their collection available to the public or are parliamentary libraries through their administering bodies; to archives through their administering bodies, including the National Archive of Australia and specified state archives, galleries and museums; to key cultural institutions through their administering bodies, including specific archives and libraries that are not open to the public; and, finally, to organisations assisting persons with a disability. The extension of the safe harbour scheme pursuant to this bill is generally supported by rights holders and their peak groups because it provides a social good without undermining the commercial interests of content creators or their capacity to negotiate effectively with commercial enterprises for the distribution of their copyright materials. Labor has consulted widely on this bill, as indeed has the government. We support the bill because it will provide greater legal protections for our schools, for our universities and for our libraries and cultural institutions to operate efficiently in the digital age. At the same time, this bill balances the interests of rights holders with those of the important educational and cultural institutions that will benefit from the extended protections provided under the expanded safe harbour scheme. This is in part because the entities protected by the expanded safe harbour scheme established by this bill do not benefit financially from the use of content on their networks, and so these reforms cannot be said in any way to distort the commercial market. Labor supports this bill as making balanced and reasonable reform to copyright law and we will continue consultations with stakeholders on whether further changes to the legislated safe harbour scheme under the Copyright Act may be desirable. 18:58 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I'm pleased to join the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Isaacs, in making a brief contribution in support of the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017. As the shadow Attorney-General has said, the provisions which are constituted in this bill are by and large matters for which the Australian Labor Party has long advocated, and we welcome their introduction while recognising that there is, of course, some way to go in order to fill some of the wider policy challenges posed in the area of copyright law. This is a dynamic area of the economy, yet it would appear that this is an area where our lawmaking processes have not kept pace with needs. Very briefly, in my own portfolio responsibilities for schools and universities, these are areas where the issue of the expansion of safe harbours is particularly important. In that regard, I note the shadow Attorney-General's comments about the social good that really lies at the heart of getting this balance right between rights holders and societal interests. On the basis of that and in recognition of very wide consultation undertaken by the opposition, acknowledging also the work of the government, I commend the bill to the House. 19:00 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith The Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 is a very important bill, because it is a fact that for many, many years there has been a lot of contest in relation to copyright law in Australia and that will remain the case after this bill is passed. Nonetheless, this bill goes some way to advancing the cause of those who would like to see rights holders protected and also copyright laws that are fit for purpose in the 21st century. We are fortunate in this country to have a great start-up ecosystem. It's something that I have certainly taken a very strong interest in for the entire time that I've been here in the parliament. In fact, the now Speaker, Tony Smith, and I established this parliament's bipartisan Parliamentary Friends of Innovation and Enterprise group back in 2014, and I remain the co-convener of that important group. We have, in the course of the work that we have done in that bipartisan friends group, really met with a lot of people who are in that ecosystem, whether that's individual start-ups, StartupAus, universities, venture capitalists, angel investors and a whole range of people in that ecosystem. They are incubators and accelerators. They are run for profit, not for profit, by universities or by community. A number of those participants in the start-up ecosystem in this country have a very strong interest in making sure that—in innovating and in creating new products and services for people to use, whether it's for domestic use or for export—they do not inadvertently run afoul of Australia's copyright laws. You can imagine that there are lots of different ideas and different applications involving the use of material that may be copyrighted. I say 'may be' because it's not even always clear what is copyrighted. That parliamentary friends group has heard from a number of people in respect of their concerns about Australia's copyright laws and how dated some people consider them to be. We've certainly had some very good bipartisan and, I have to say, robust discussions about a related issue. That issue is the fair use exemption that is sought by some stakeholders. There are people who are very strongly for the creation of such an exemption; there are people who are very strongly against it. That is because they worry about what that will mean for the erosion of their rights to the intellectual property that they have created and owned. Everyone in this place would agree that it is important to have very strong intellectual property rights. It has never been as important as it is now to have strong intellectual property rights. The enforcement and creation of rights incentivises innovation and incentivises economic activity. If you know that you won't be able to actually enforce your rights, then you lose a fair bit of the incentive to create the IP in the first place. It is important that we have a very strong intellectual property regime. It is also equally important, in making sure that that regime exists, that we consider the interests of both producers and consumers when it comes to the use of products and services that are created. Labor has traditionally been the party that seeks to protect the interests of consumers. Consumers often have less power in a market than producers do. We have some landmark consumer protection legislation against our name. There was the Whitlam government's Trade Practices Act 1974. During the Rudd-Gillard years, there was the Consumer and Competition Act 2010. We're interested in what can be done to redress some of the power differentials between consumers and producers. In copyright, you have to conceptualise it as an issue of consumers and producers. The market for complicated goods, for new goods and for new services is, after all, just a market. Even though the goods and services may feel unfamiliar to us and the new technologies are unfamiliar to us, it's still a market. In that market, you will still have power imbalances. When we talk about copyright law, it sounds like it might be something quite dull, but it's actually fascinating. That's because copyright law is what seeks to strike the legal balance between the competing interests and rights of the people who produce content and the people who consume content. You might consume it as an end user, as a retail consumer, or you might consume content from a production perspective or value-chain perspective. Content might be an input into a new product or service that you create through the addition of value. For people in that latter class, it's important that we think about how copyright laws work so that they're not, as I said, inadvertently caught up in copyright laws but also so that, more broadly, we can have the protection of rights without stifling innovation, creativity and economic activity. It's an interesting question, because it's really an intermediate-good content when looked at from that perspective. It's not a final-use good. So how do you ensure that, when there is a process of value creation or value addition, there are not unreasonable constraints or restraints on that economic activity, because that's not in anyone's interests? I always take a strong interest in copyright law from an innovation perspective. Of course, I'm also an end user of content. I've been known to listen to music. I've been known to read books occasionally, although not as often as I might like, as I'm sure many of us here would say. I see the member for Swan smiling at that proposition. He's a bit sceptical that I read books! But, as retail end users of content, we want to make sure that there's not regulation that causes difficulty in gaining access or puts in place constraints or restraints that are unreasonable. But, at the same time, I think most users in Australia want to pay their fair share for the use of copyrighted material. It's interesting that people are starting to learn about the importance of making a fair payment for content. People whose favourite TV show got cancelled because everyone was downloading it illegally instead of paying to watch it learned about the value of paying your fair share to access copyrighted material. So that is what we must consider when we come to any legislation that might seek to amend the copyright laws of this country. I think this bill really does strike at the heart of the second of the two main issues that continuously come up in our discussions in our enterprise and innovation group, and that's safe harbour. Should there be a safe harbour protection for people who use copyrighted materials, maybe inadvertently, without the correct permissions or arrangements in place? Or should there be a safe harbour for people who use materials of which they just don't know the provenance? They may be using a material for which they don't know who the author, producer or creator is? How do you reconcile all these competing interests? This particular bill that we're dealing with here would extend the operation of the safe harbour scheme that's set out in the existing legislation to a broader range of service providers. It's a fairly non-controversial foray into safe harbour reform. There certainly would be controversy if the bill were looking at a much broader version of 'safe harbour' than this bill is, but this bill, given its particular terms, seems to have broad support across the stakeholder groups. Of course, Labor consults stakeholder groups, as I'm sure the government does as well. This bill is generally supported by producers and rights holders and their peak bodies because it provides a social good without undermining their commercial interests. Also, it doesn't undermine their capacity to negotiate effectively with commercial enterprises for the distribution of their copyrighted materials. That's good and important to them because one of the fears that you hear a lot about when discussing safe harbour or fair use in the context of innovation is small producers being without much power vis-a-vis massive multinational corporations that might want to use their content to help develop machine learning or new applications that haven't been previously thought of. You as a producer might feel pretty powerful compared to an end user or retail consumer, but do you feel powerful up against a multinational technology firm? Perhaps not. They don't want to lose their bargaining power either. They don't want to lose their ability to negotiate, so it is important that we consider that in any copyright reform. This bill certainly does consider that. I think people are happy with it because they don't perceive it as eroding their power and their ability to get a fair day's pay for the work that they've put into creating the content that they've created. I think this bill should be supported because it strikes those balances and incorporates those sets of interests, and it should also be supported as a step along the path of really looking at what needs to be done to modernise our copyright laws in this country. As I said, this one's fairly non-controversial because it's actually about taking the rights of rights holders and the interests of educational and cultural institutions and then providing the extended benefits under the safe harbour scheme to try to better balance those two sets of interests. I say it's fairly non-controversial because the entities that will benefit from this particular legislation don't actually benefit financially from the use of the copyright material. It's a different situation to a big tech firm using it to create a commercial product, a commodity. That's not the case with this bill, so this one particularly can be fairly non-controversial. The founding principle for this bill is that passive carriers with no control over the material carried on internet services shouldn't be liable for copyright infringement, provided they take steps to remove infringing content when they're notified of its use. The scheme is that if you put something up, you don't know that it's a copyright infringement, the rights holder gets in touch and you take it down then there is no liability—that's the idea—whereas, if you've been obstinate and refuse to take down someone else's material, obviously that would be a very different proposition. This bill will help schools, universities, libraries and cultural institutions to operate efficiently without having to have the constant worry hanging over them about the inadvertent breach of copyright legislation. It's very important that we acknowledge that there are a lot of burdens carried by our educational and cultural institutions when it comes to the use of material. I've certainly had school and university librarians come and see me about these exact issues, because a school might pay a lot of public moneys towards the copyright agencies to pay fees for copyright for works that you might not even know the author of. In one case, those fees were going into a fighting fund against copyright law reform, an issue that gave a lot of people some cause for concern. It certainly is an issue that's been discussed in the halls of this building a little bit as well. I think it's worth noting that those school and university librarians aren't there advocating out of personal interest; they're advocating because they want to see an end to the waste of public money that's spent on trying to (1) manage the copyright regime and (2) pay fees to people when we don't even know who they are and can't track them down. So I think it's really a great step forward for those educational institutions, and the same goes for cultural institutions as well. But I want to make the point that we can't just stop with this bill. I know the other parts are much harder, I know that it's not an easy thing to reconcile and balance the competing commercial interests of producers, retail consumers and value adders, people for whom the product is seen as an intermediate good rather than a final good. I think we can articulate, though, what we want the principles to be: (1) we want thriving domestic production of artistic, cultural and creative works in which there is copyright; (2) we don't want unnecessary burdens on schools and cultural institutions, something that this bill deals with; and (3) we also don't want unnecessary impediments on firms and enterprises that are seeking to create new goods. The fact is that information is a resource. As well as something that is an end in itself, it's also a resource. We have to find ways to really look at what firms like Redbubble and other Australian firms that are content users are doing and say: 'Do we want to have a country where we have innovation, where enterprising people can generate economic activity and where we can have the interests of producers taken strongly into account and the bargaining power of producers not eroded? Are there ways to reconcile those principles?' I don't claim to have the answers to all these questions, of course. These are complicated questions. I certainly don't have a dog in the fight as to whether we should look after producers more, or tech firms more, or consumers more. But I do think all of those interests need to be taken into account, because we do have a very big opportunity before us with our innovation ecosystem. We do have the skills. We are an advanced economy, we have great skills and we have great people. We're a wealthy nation, comparatively, in world terms. We have this opportunity to really take our innovation ecosystem and use it. 19:15 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 and I thank the member for Griffith, my next-door neighbour, for her great contribution. I know that the member for Griffith is a wonderful musician and an author, so I think she does have some skin in the game or a dog in the fight when it comes to looking after the rights of people who create. I thank the member for Griffith for her creation. I say up-front that, from the outset, Labor has supported this bill. It is a balanced measure that will benefit educational and cultural institutions without compromising the commercial creative arts market or the public interest, but not at the expense of the creator's living. As I'm sure the member for Wakefield would agree, artists must eat. We must look after our artists and those who create, but also make sure that we look after educational and cultural institutions. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP I'll take that interjection from the member for Wakefield, who is making the point that I'm glad I have a day job rather than relying on my endeavours as an artist! I'll come back to that later, time permitting. This bill extends the scope of the safe-harbour provisions already contained in the Copyright Act. The current provisions were designed to protect carriage service providers from copyright infringements by their subscribers. They limit the remedies available against those providers, where the carriage provider does not control, initiate or direct the primary infringement. Certain circumstances must be present for the carriage service to have the benefit of these provisions, including that the provider must implement reasonable policies that provide for terminating the accounts of repeat infringers—they can't turn away from the poor behaviour. Also, they must comply with industry codes. We have a focus on self-regulation here, so they must do the right thing. Also, they must expeditiously remove infringing material and they must not receive a financial benefit that is directly attributable to the infringing activity. These are commonsense approaches, as I'm sure you would agree, Deputy Speaker Hastie. The remedies are limited and include orders to disable access to infringing copyright material. Remedies do not extend to damages or an account of profits. These are important safeguards for carrier services such as Telstra and Optus, who provide internet services to their customers—or, maybe, in turning my mind to Optus I should say that they try to provide internet services to their customers. I'm just kidding, Optus, and I'm sure you'll reply to the tweeted question I asked of you the other night about the World Cup game where the commentary was two seconds ahead of the vision, which is quite disconcerting when watching a game of football. Nevertheless, I'm sure Optus will be looking to improve what they're providing to the Australian public. This bill extends these provisions to include other institutions, such as educational institutions, including universities, schools, technical colleges, training bodies and preschools, and to libraries that make their collections available to the public or are parliamentary libraries. I'll just give a big shout-out to the Parliamentary Library here. I'm sure everyone in opposition would agree that the library in this building is the opposition's best friend—maybe a backbencher's best friend, as well. They do their job impartially. They do great research and provide a great service to the democratic institution that is this building. We also extend these provisions to archives, including the National Archives of Australia—and I mentioned the Queensland archives, which are located at Runcorn in my electorate of Moreton. The provisions are extended to key cultural institutions, including specific archives and libraries that are not open to the public, and to organisations assisting persons with a disability. Labor supports this bill because it embodies the principle that passive carriers with no control over the material carried on internet services should not be liable for copyright infringement provided they take reasonable steps to remove infringing content when notified of its use. It is important that our schools and universities who operate in the digital age are protected from unnecessary financial legal burdens if they are operating in a responsible manner. All of the institutions that will benefit from the extension of the safe harbour scheme in this bill do not receive financial gain from the use of content on their networks, which is a good framing mechanism for how we approach this balancing of the public interest with the creators' rights. In his second reading speech the Minister for Communications foreshadowed further broader reforms to the safe harbour scheme. The Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee reviewed this bill. Their report concluded that the government's incremental approach to safe harbour reform was appropriate. The committee supported the approach that educational and cultural institutions and organisations assisting people with a disability will be afforded protection immediately. I particularly mention those organisations assisting people with a disability. I'd like to say hello to Braille House in my electorate of Moreton, who provide a great service throughout Queensland and, on occasion, throughout Australia. They are taking an artist's work and providing it to people that would not normally be able to access it. Hello to all those at Braille House who were so welcoming when I visited during May. The committee also supported continued consultation with stakeholders. I note that the Greens political party tabled a dissenting report to that committee inquiry. I think some of their inner-city base would have a couple of artists, musicians or creators. The Greens political party, who often like to think of themselves as champions of the Australian arts, bizarrely put in a dissenting report to the committee, ignoring the concerns of artists, musicians and creators. In the face of the vast majority of rights holders and their umbrella organisations in Australia, the Greens political party backed the position of Google, a multinational giant, to extend the safe harbour scheme in line with the current United States scheme, which has been highly criticised and is currently undergoing a review by United States lawmakers. Radical changes to copyright laws, as advocated by the Greens political party and Google, would have the capacity to undermine the ability of Australian artists, musicians, authors and other rights holders to negotiate viable commercial arrangements for the distribution of their work. As someone who makes a very meagre living from the books I write, I declare a slight conflict of interest. I hear snickering from the member for Brand behind me. I do have three books published by Boolarong Press: The Twelfth Fish, The Big Fig and The Solid Rock. I'm working on a new book at the moment. Mr Irons HYM Is that a comment for cash? You've said that four times. Mr PERRETT HVP I'm sure the member for Swan has read or bought these books. They're available at the bookstore here. I'm happy to sign them for his next fundraiser—Lord knows he'll need one! They're very valuable. Ms Collins HWM They might've gone up in value. Mr PERRETT HVP I'm not sure if they've gone up in value, but they're certainly rare. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 I would direct the member back to the point of the bill. Mr PERRETT HVP Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; that's very kind of you. As I said, I declare that conflict of interest. It is hard for authors and artists to make a living in Australia. With a smaller population of 24½ million it's hard, even for the great musicians we know and listen to every day, to make a viable income. Nevertheless, let's go back to this: there are a range of stakeholder views about these complex issues. Labor believes extreme caution should attend any entertainment of a further extension to the safe harbour scheme. The incremental extension in the bill before the House is a measured and reasonable approach. I note that we have a thriving creative arts community in Australia. Just last week here in parliament, with Western Australia's Senator Reynolds we co-hosted an event for the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers. The event was to honour the short-listed Miles Franklin Literary Award nominees for 2018. It was a great opportunity to meet the authors, the publishers and others involved in the Australian literary industry, including booksellers—we went to a dinner the night before. Deputy Speaker Hastie, I know you would agree that it is bizarre that I have not made it to the Miles Franklin short list yet! But it was a great night to meet some of the fair dinkum authors who have devoted themselves. I do have some understanding of the creative process in writing. It is much more than an occupation; it is a calling. But monetary rewards are often not substantial. In fact, the rule of thumb in the publishing industry is that half of books published will not break even. So it's tough for editors, publishers and booksellers. Listening to that calling, that compulsion, that itch that can only be scratched by creating, by writing and by doing what artists do, I understand how they have so much skin in the game. You do expose yourself by writing. In another life many, many years ago, I was also part of a rock band. We still get together every three years, but that's only to fundraise for my re-election—and thank you to all members of my band. The lead singer, John Carozza, who is also actually a painter, a great artist, similarly has that calling, that need to create. Talking to John Carozza and talking to other artists, I see that experience and what it takes to create. The experience has given me a valuable insight into the creative process, whether it be of writing music, making films, writing books or whatever artistic endeavour it is. So I understand the need to protect rights holders in Australia. As I said previously, the artist must eat. This legislation is a measured response, not too crazy. It looks after the interests of the artist but also recognises that in the digital age there will occasionally be platforms where people publish artistic works without recognising the creator. As I said, this legislation says that the provider must do reasonable things to crack down on repeat infringers. They must comply with the industry codes, they must expeditiously remove the infringing material and they must not receive a financial benefit that is directly attributable to the infringing activity, because that money should, obviously, go to the creators of the artistic piece. The piece of legislation before the chamber, the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017, is something that that the Labor Party is happy to support. We know that the continued prosperity of our creative arts community is dependent on supporting our creative artists, and this is something that the parliament can do to make sure that we protect their original work and negotiate appropriate compensation for its use. The artists do have a particular calling whatever that artist be, whether it be poor old Tom Collins, or Joseph Furphy, slaving away at night on his writing after working in his brother's foundry down in country Victoria, creating one of the greatest pieces of literature, Such Is Life, or whether it be someone like Stella Miles Franklin, who never really made much money as a writer but was still able to put away a few dollars—enough to create that lasting legacy of the Miles Franklin Literary Award, something that's now been added to and is now able to support artists to be able to turn their mind to their work, to have a space away from the workplace to create their piece of literature, their piece of film or whatever it is that the artist is creating. Obviously, we're all keen to support artists, and this is a legislative response that is measured, that is appropriate and that is able to support the creative arts community, because so many of our artistic efforts are also used to increase our links with other countries, particularly with Asia. Some of our musical talents are over there ahead of DFAT, creating lots of contacts with China and South-East Asia, and that's why I recommend this legislation to the House. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Centrelink 94 19:30 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin As MPs, one of the things that we do frequently in our role is deal with constituents who contact our office. The largest volume of constituent work that's coming through my office at the moment is in relation to Centrelink. We've seen today a report by Anglicare that talks about the amount of assistance people are needing to get through the Centrelink system. I want to put on record that I understand that this is not due to the staff at Centrelink, who work extraordinarily hard, who have a very difficult task and who are trying to deal with a huge workload under enormous pressure. The staff at Centrelink are doing their very, very best to help those Australians who need the support of government support payments. But the Anglicare report that came out today talked about the additional support that non-government organisations and, indeed, our offices are providing those people who can't get through the Centrelink system. Indeed, Anglicare reports that a survey of 218 of its staff conducted in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia has found that an equivalent of 6.6 full-time employees on their staff are spending their time dealing with just Centrelink issues. So there is no doubt that there is a serious issue with Centrelink and its systems at the moment. I really don't think the government quite understands how much this is hurting ordinary citizens. In my electorate office in the last two to three weeks we have dealt with a very large volume of these. But what's really concerning is that some of my constituents tried to contact Centrelink about their payments and hadn't received a response. Some of their payments were taking months and months and the response they were getting from Centrelink was very inconsistent. They were also being told: 'Our waiting times have blown out a little bit. It's probably just the waiting period. Just sit tight and I'm sure we'll get to it.' But when my office took these calls and intervened it turned out that in some of these cases that was not what was going on. In some cases, people had actually provided Centrelink with all the information Centrelink needed but Centrelink's system didn't recognise it because it was in some sort of file somewhere or something hadn't been processed or somebody hadn't hit the right button. Some of my constituents have had significant back pay because of this. I want to draw to the attention of the House some of these examples from the last three weeks alone, because some of them are extraordinary. My office has had contact with one constituent who put in for an age pension and had been waiting for four months got back pay of $5,135. Another one who had been waiting over four months got back bay of $7,936. Then there was the back payment of the carer payment and allowance for another constituent who had had her application in for over 12 months. She got back pay of $23,000. That's $23,000 that she needed that she didn't have because of Centrelink's system. She had to wait a year for it. Another one was back paid $3,955 for a wait for carer payment and allowance. Another one received four months back pay of youth allowance of $2,385. An age pensioner who had been waiting four months received back pay of $3,161. Another constituent who had age pension arrears but also was eligible for the pensioner bonus scheme had been waiting for about 4½ months. He got a back payment of $44,495 that he had needed but didn't have because of the Centrelink system being broken. I really think that the government needs to turn its attention to dealing with these waiting periods and the systems of Centrelink. There is clearly something going on when I as an MP or NGOs like Anglicare are having to intervene continuously to get constituents money that they are entitled to and, importantly, actually need to survive. Some of these pensioners and carers were borrowing from family members who they are having to repay. Some of them were at risk of homelessness. They couldn't get the money that they needed from Centrelink, which they are entitled to, because Centrelink's system was so broken. They tell the stories of getting on the phone to Centrelink and waiting an hour or an hour and a half on hold, trying to get their application processed. They go around in circles. They are told, 'No, you just have to wait. We are behind on our waiting list. We'll get to it,' when actually there was a problem with the system and, if they hadn't contacted my office, they would never have got this money. They would have been waiting longer and longer to get this money. This is money that they really, truly needed and that they are entitled to. The government needs to fix this. (Time expired) Armenian Genocide 95 19:35 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I rise to support the motion moved in the Federation Chamber earlier today, which begins: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) the first major international humanitarian effort of the Commonwealth of Australia following Federation was to mount relief efforts for orphans and other survivors of the Armenian Genocide;    (b)Australia’s relief efforts were supported by Armenian relief committees— That is, those committees that came to the aid of the people who were the victims of the genocide, including via the establishment of orphanages and financial support for orphanages as well as for the other victims of the genocide, including Christian minorities, the Greeks and the Assyrians. We recognise every Australian, every Victorian and every person of good spirit and character who was part of that relief effort to support people in dire need. As the only member of this place with Armenian heritage, I particularly welcome this motion moved by the member for North Sydney. I also welcome the contributions, in a bipartisan way, from the members for Bennelong and Hunter, who particularly acknowledged the full extent of the genocide that occurred. There were other speakers to the motion, and I don't want to dispute their motivations or intent. We welcome their empathy, but we also must acknowledge that a word was missing from their remarks. They rightly spoke of a humanitarian tragedy befalling the Armenian people. They are right; there was a humanitarian tragedy. Another member spoke of the need for Armenians to be rescued, but didn't properly articulate from what. They spoke of events from 100 years ago befalling the Armenian people—the loss of life, the marches through the desert and the need for relief funds to support people in dire and desperate need—but did not dare to speak the tragedy's name: genocide. This motion acknowledges the Australian humanitarian effort to support the Armenian people who suffered from a genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. I respect everybody who has made a contribution to the motion earlier today. But for the victims, their families and their successors, the healing journey can only begin by acknowledging the depth of the wound. Earlier this year in the Federation Chamber, I remarked on the genocide, its impact and the Australian humanitarian relief. The marching of Armenians to their death started a mobilisation of Australians. It has been outlined extensively in the book Armenia, Australia and the Great Warby Vicken Babkenian and Peter Stanley. They wrote: In its drive to awaken public consciousness, the Armenian relief committee of Victoria prepared a number of pamphlets containing visual and literary images of Armenian suffering and innocence. One of them, titled An SOS from Beyond Gallipoli, included an excerpt from a telegram sent by Dr Mabel Elliott from Yerevan in late November 1921. She described how 'all day long you can hear the groans and wails of the little children outside our office building'. When the sun shone they were quieter, she said, but in the rain the wails began again. 'One day', she wrote, 'the rain turned to snow and it was awful to listen to them.' Elliott shared the terrible dilemma familiar to air workers who know that all they can give is still too little to solve the problem. Another pamphlet, titled Stricken Armenians Appeal to Australia for Help, included a graphic photograph of emaciated Armenian refugees. The caption read, 'The frightened, half-clothed little creatures live upon grass and herbs, and hide like little rabbits in holes on the hillside.' The pamphlet asked, 'How you can help the Stricken Armenians?' and then suggested that '£10 feeds, clothes and educates a Child for a year'. The story of the Armenians being marched into the Syrian desert, and of humanitarian and cultural genocide, slowly drifted back to Australians from our Anzacs. By 1917, The Age newspaper was reporting extensively on Armenians as 'the martyr nation of Christendom', saying, 'Think of the fact that 600,000 of these virile people were rounded up, as stock is rounded up, and done to death.' It was not just a genocide of lives; it was also a cultural genocide that was designed to remove the memory of Armenians and their cultural and religious traditions. That is why I support the motion in the Federation Chamber today. It is because we honour the memory of those Armenians and the Australians who rallied to support them. Minister for Home Affairs 96 19:40 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair There's more and more evidence piling up against the member for Dickson that he's simply a tick-and-flick minister as the Minister for Home Affairs. The Minister for Home Affairs is no stranger to scathing reports when it comes to out-of-touch government performance management of the now Department of Home Affairs. There have been: two ANAO reports into garrison support and welfare services on Manus Island and Nauru; two Commonwealth Ombudsman reports about the management and documentation of people held in immigration detention; an ANAO cybersecurity follow-up audit because of the department's failure to be cyber-resilient; and an independent report after two Australian citizens were wrongly detained in immigration detention. On 6 June, the Auditor-General handed down its latest report, The integration of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The report investigated the merger of the department of immigration and customs as well as the establishment of the Australian Border Force between May 2014 and December 2017. Failure after failure had been detailed by the Auditor-General, showing a litany of errors made during the merger. As part of the integration, the Turnbull government used 33 contracts which were worth more than $1 million each, and 31 of these contracts were not evaluated upon completion, leaving it unclear whether the millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars that were spent on these consultants were worth it. We know the department ended a two-year contract worth $17.6 million. The department ended the contract one year early because it wasn't satisfied with the performance of the firm they hired. Despite the fact the department ended the contract a year early, they'd already paid a staggering $17.1 million to the firm. The minister's department describes severing the contract and shelling out $17.1 million as 'terminated for convenience'. Only the out-of-touch Liberals would call wasting $17.1 million convenient. On top of this wasted money, the department will collect less than one-third of the additional customs duty revenue they believed would result from the merger. The report found the department's record keeping continues to be poor and the department didn't maintain adequate records of the integration process. The department's own assessment of its records and information management is in a critically poor state. Regrettably, there's been a brain drain in the department, with almost half of the senior executive service officers working for the department in July 2015 no longer there two years later, which means the professional experts who protected Australia's national interests have deserted the department because of the Liberal government and the way it treats its workers. The minister will try to deny these failures, but the Department of Home Affairs has admitted to the identified shortfalls by agreeing to the recommendations of the Auditor-General. Another failure by the Minister for Home Affairs is the arbitrary, unjustified and haphazard way he's cut access to the Status Resolution Support Services, the SRSS. The SRSS program provides short-term support to noncitizens, many of whom are vulnerable people, including a basic living allowance of 89 per cent of Newstart, casework support and access to trauma counselling. This vital assistance is provided while people wait for their immigration status to be resolved or for the department to make a decision on their visa applications. Senate estimates confirmed the minister approved SRSS eligibility changes in February and, some four months later, is still undertaking vulnerability assessments and doesn't know just how many of the 12,000 people currently receiving the assistance are going to lose access to their support because of his decision. The minister's poor mismanagement of these changes has only further exacerbated confusion and panic about how individuals, especially children, will be impacted. I wrote to the minister on 8 June this year to make it clear that Labor does not support his decision to remove SRSS in this way—and I await the courtesy of a reply. The Minister for Home Affairs must stop playing politics with vulnerable people and immediately explain why the government have made these changes, who will be impacted and when these cuts will happen. Given all of these failures and shortcomings, the Minister for Home Affairs can't continue to run from his poor track record forever. If the Minister for Home Affairs is so out of depth when it comes to managing his own department, why has the Prime Minister granted him unprecedented powers over Australia's domestic security agencies? It's clear that the Prime Minister needs to appease the member for Dickson with a mega portfolio so that he can protect his own job. China 97 19:45 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Tonight, I want to speak about communist China, its human rights abuses, its territorial expansion and concerns arising out of that which I have for my own country. I'm well aware that there are strong economic links between my electorate and China, but trade dollars should never make us blind to the loss of human rights, the loss of freedom or the loss of sovereignty. We need to acknowledge the fact that China has perpetrated and continues to perpetrate atrocities and oppression upon Tibetans and their political and spiritual leaders. The US was willing to call it out earlier this year, demanding the release of the Tibetan spiritual leader, the 11th Panchen Lama, who was abducted by the Chinese authorities and replaced by a fake Panchen Lama two decades ago. We should also call it out. It is the Panchen Lama who selects the next Dalai Lama, and China's fake Panchen will ensure that the next Dalai Lama will be a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party. Likewise, earlier this year, Chinese authorities detained Roman Catholic Bishop, Guo Xijin, and replaced him with a bishop who is also a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party. A long line of Catholic bishops and priests have been arrested by Chinese authorities, many of whom have disappeared while in custody. An entire church was blown up in the city of Linfen. It was quite literally blown up earlier this year in a clear demonstration of the Chinese Communist Party's intolerance of religious freedom. We can also recall the internment of Falun Gong meditation practitioners and the subsequent allegations of organ harvesting of those prisoners. Just like they do with Tibet, China lays claim to Taiwan. It has imposed on our national carrier, Qantas, to recognise Taiwan as China on its flight schedules, when clearly it is not. Taiwan is Taiwan. China's creeping territorial expansion into the South China Sea, or I should I say the West Philippine Sea, also needs to be contested. China promised those waters would not be militarised, yet they are now dotted with military bases on artificial islands created by China. China's investment in countries like Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and East Timor sets up debt traps for those countries, which they will only be able to service by giving up land or ports where future Chinese military bases can be established. These are countries right on our doorstep, yet little is said about that in the Australian political arena, where, sadly, China also has a creeping influence. Chinese party sympathisers are actively involved in our nation's political system. China's Ministry of State Security is known to have sent agents to our shores to intimidate people in this country. The Chinese company Huawei is currently lobbying our members of parliament to allow it to run our nation's 5G network. Huawei has close links with the Chinese Communist Party and must report security information back to it. We should say no to Huawei. We should also have said no to a strategic port like Darwin falling into Chinese hands. The Chinese lessee, Landbridge, has extensive links with communist China's military apparatus. That link should now be terminated, given China's growing ambitions in the Asia Pacific. At some point, we must put aside fear of lost trade and assess the slow creep of Chinese influence and its ownership of our strategic assets, including farmland and agriculture businesses, given that those assets are being and will be geared to serve China's national interest, not our own. China has reached back over centuries to lay historical claim to disputed territories. Professor Clive Hamilton in his book titled Silent Invasion points to the alarming and outrageous fake history being peddled by communist China, that China somehow discovered, mapped and settled Australia in the 1420s. We have to ask: what is China's end goal here? How far does China believe its borders extend? Should we not as a nation which believes in freedom, national sovereignty and human rights be standing up, saying that we condemn communist China's abuse of the rights and freedoms of those under its yoke; that we do not accept incursions into what should be free territories, like Tibet, Taiwan, the West Philippine Sea or Pacific island nations; and that we will not allow China to establish an economic or political beachhead on our own shores for some fanciful future claim on Australian territory? Communist China's attacks on human rights and sovereignty are symptomatic of their lack of respect for and lack of belief in any kind of universal freedom. In Australia, we believe in freedom. We should stand up to any threats to freedom, both here in our own nation and around the world, even if those threats are posed by a trading partner like China. Melbourne Ports Electorate 98 19:50 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports I notice that the Australia Institute reports that my electorate is the fifth-ranking electorate to benefit from the government's proposed 2018 tax cuts. I suppose that ranks Melbourne Ports as one of the high-income seats in Australia. It's no surprise to me that it's the fifth-ranking electorate by per-capita income according to the Australia Institute. In 20 years of standing up for Melbourne Ports, I've made sure, when we were in government and when we were out of government, that I was a fierce representative and remain a fierce representative for that seat. Many people complained about Building the Education Revolution in other electorates; they didn't in mine. I was there when the programs were set up, halfway through to supervise them and right at the end when we delivered them to 32 schools in the electorate. It's a great pleasure to go through the Catholic school system, the Jewish school system and the government school system, including two high schools, Elwood College and Glen Eira College, which have absolutely boomed because of some of the infrastructure that we put in in those days. Also when Labor were in power, Melbourne Ports was very unusual in that we secured two childcare centres. Every other electorate only got one tranche of funding. We got two, one in Port Melbourne and one in St Kilda, both of which are an adornment to the work of the previous Labor government. I was also pleased to work with a colleague of the member for Dawson, Mr Larry Anthony, when he was minister, to secure the existence of Centrelink in South Melbourne so that the 11,000 social security holders who live in that area were able to continue to access—particularly, close to the housing commission—the important facilities and assistance that Centrelink provides. We also got, during the Labor period, $2.3 million for the Salvation Army crisis centre and opened a St Kilda Community Housing project which enabled 34 units of special emergency shelter for homeless people to be erected. Perhaps three of the things that I'm proudest of and that lead into future projects that I'm going to be pushing in Melbourne Ports are in the area of the arts and in the area of veterans' affairs. First, in veterans' affairs, there was a curious situation where, at the Melbourne General Cemetery, there was a memorial to the Jewish servicemen who fell in World War I and World War II. One of the 'stronger Australia' grants that we had for the centenary enabled us to re-establish that important memorial in Ripponlea, right near the Ripponlea shopping centre. The federal government support was leveraged into two very important philanthropic organisations who also took up supporting the relocation of that important memorial. Two things that I remember the most and I'm going to continue to be pushing include the Australian National Academy of Music. Once, during our period of government, the previous arts minister didn't see the wisdom of continuing Paul Keating's great Melbourne equivalent of the Juilliard School of music there in South Melbourne, at the South Melbourne town hall. I think the former minister got a real surprise when people stood up in the Labor Party caucus and really got stuck in. Anyhow, the Australian National Academy of Music is strongly preserved. During this government, we had to confront the current Minister for Education, Senator Birmingham, when it seemed that all of the great young actors, drama workers and ballet students of a very high calibre at the National Theatre—a very famous institution, which is on the corner of Barkly and Carlisle Streets in St Kilda—were going to have their VET courses taken away. All of the young people, some of whom are top stars in their artistic professions, wouldn't have been able to continue without that fierce representation. I'm going to continue speaking out in favour of the Pride Centre, women's football and security for the George community centres in Melbourne Port for the next round of funding—(Time expired) Western Australia: Darling Range By-Election, Canning Electorate: Infrastructure 98 19:55 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I would like to congratulate Alyssa Hayden, the newly-elected member for Darling Range, who was successful on Saturday in the state by-election in the seat of Darling Range, which is in the north of Canning. She's a very passionate and experienced candidate, having previously been an upper house member in the WA state parliament. I know she will serve the people of Darling Range very well. I must say, though, that it was a pretty low bar for candidates to establish trust. You just had to be the person you said you were. Alyssa ticked that box. But she is much, much more. I know she is going to be a wonderful advocate for the people of Darling Range. This was always going to be an uphill fight for us. Less than 18 months ago Labor won Darling Range in a landslide. We started six per cent behind in the polls and managed to achieve a nine per cent swing against the Labor government, 14 months or so after they'd been elected. The other night Alyssa said: 'Being a good local member is about your community and delivering for the people and listening to their needs. It's as simple as that.' I know she's going to do just that. This result is a repudiation of the McGowan Labor government. At the start of this campaign the Labor government was desperate to tell us that the by-election wasn't about Barry Urban, the previous member—that he wasn't the issue and there was nothing to see here. Now that they've lost, Labor have changed their tune and are leaning on Barry Urban's lies as an excuse for their failure. In part, that is true. The people of Darling Range put their trust in him back in 2017 and it took less than 12 months for Labor to break that trust. But it would be a mistake to say that was the only reason voters abandoned Labor in Darling Range. The campaign was a repudiation of the McGowan government by the families, seniors and first-home-owners who were wearing Labor's increases to the cost of living—bigger power and water bills that have hit WA households by up to an extra $700, which is $700 that people don't have and can't afford to pay. People are also sick of the spin. A lot of lies have been peddled throughout the campaign. Probably the most outstanding lie peddled by Labor was that 'only Labor will bring the train station to Byford'. This is just a flat-out lie. The Byford rail line has been secured, thanks to a funding partnership with the federal government. The coalition has committed $241 million to ensure that the Byford train station project can go ahead. I refer to Budget Paper No.2, part 2, at page 144—it's there on the page, funded this year. Labor, it seems, would prefer that this money didn't exist. People are just sick of the lies and they just want to see results. Finally, Labor did not listen to the community throughout the campaign. They ignored one major issue that the people have brought up with Alyssa and me again and again, and that issue is the extension of the Tonkin Highway. In brief, the extension of the Tonkin Highway is an essential infrastructure upgrade for the people of Serpentine and Jarrahdale. It will extend the highway from its current terminus at Thomas Road, west of Byford, and connect it to the South Western Highway, south of Wungong. Once completed, this new stretch of highway will reduce congestion, improve the safety of our local country roads and get heavy transport out of the town centre of Byford. Right now we have big trucks moving through the town of Byford and also through many of the new subdivisions. Parents are obviously worried, with their kids playing out in the streets, that these trucks are a danger to them. If we extend the Tonkin Highway south it will change that. It's really important. I've campaigned for this extension for a few years, so I was pleased in April that the federal government decided to contribute $581 million to extend and upgrade the Tonkin Highway. This funding was announced in partnership with the WA government, which said it also would contribute, but so far we have seen nothing. For the record, I refer again to Budget Paper No. 2, part 2, at page 144, which makes very clear that the federal government is funding the Tonkin Highway extension south. That isn't an empty promise; it is fully funded. You can understand my concern when no mention of this vital infrastructure was made in the WA government's budget, and why the community was even more concerned when Labor refused to talk about it through the Darling Range campaign. The people of Darling Range are confused and disappointed, because they understand how significant the Tonkin Highway extension will be for our region. In summary, I repeat my congratulations to Alyssa Hayden. I look forward to working with her and I call on the WA state government to extend the Tonkin Highway and fund it. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 99 NOTICES

Monday, 25 June 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 101 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Co.As.It 101 10:30 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler It was my great honour recently to attend the 50th anniversary celebration for Co.As.It. Co.As.It have been providing services for the Italian community in my electorate and indeed much more broadly around Australia for 50 years now, and they celebrated this at the Italian National Day celebrations in Sydney just last month. Co.As.It also promote Italian culture, including through their family history group, which preserves and promotes the history of Italian migrants in Australian. Italian Co.As.It community care workers support the elderly Italo-Australian community and allow older Italo-Australians to stay in their homes—and vitally connected to their community—for longer. The organisation also run support programs for serious issues like drug and alcohol addiction, gambling, and mental health. This is an invaluable community service. To celebrate their 50-year milestone, Co.As.It have published a photobook by Paolo Totaro AM—Visual Legacy: Italian Australian Elders. Paolo, himself an Italian migrant, travelled to Australia for work in the 1960s. He went on to work for the Australia Council, founded the Community Arts Board and was also the foundation chairman of the New South Wales Ethnic Affairs Commission. He said of this time: I avoided the famous and the rich, they don't need this sort of celebration. I wanted to capture the image of the ordinary Italian-Australian experience ... We are not any more new Australians, we are Australians, who showed enormous self-reliance and resilience from the very start of our arrival in this country. In this book, he celebrates the lives of these Australians. Many of the stories highlighted are those of migrants who travelled to Australia, who made that journey that so many have made, to forge a new life for themselves and their families. They travelled to a new country where they didn't speak the language; they bravely made their way in Australian society and created a community—a community which is evident in Leichhardt and Haberfield, and right around Australia. This book celebrates their lives. As Lorenzo Fazzini, president of Co.As.It said: You won't find any tall poppies in this book. These are all very humble people, but they are the images of the people who have 'created' the Italian-Australian community. Although some of these people are no longer with us, we continue to learn from them, respect them and thank them for paving the way. I'm very proud to call Paolo Totaro a dear friend of mine. He is someone who has made an extraordinary contribution to his nation, Australia. With this book, he has added to the wealth of that contribution. Cooper, Professor David Albert, AO 101 10:33 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I rise today to commemorate the life of a great Australian, Professor David Cooper AO, who was taken prematurely from us a few months ago. Professor Cooper made an outstanding contribution in the field of HIV and AIDS. He leaves behind an incredible legacy of world-class, cutting-edge research, the influence and impact of which extends well beyond Australia to right around the world. He leaves behind so many Australians who owe their own lives to his work and care. Less than two weeks ago, I joined over 1,000 people at a memorial service at Sydney Town Hall to remember his life and his extraordinary work in our health sector. As one of those who spoke at the service was to comment, David Cooper was the right man, in the right place at the right time. In 1981 he travelled to Boston Massachusetts and worked as a research fellow in cancer immunology. This trip coincided with the outbreak of HIV/AIDS in the United States. Sadly, on his return to St Vincent's Hospital, he recognised the same illness in Australian men. At this time, AIDS was barely understood. It attracted the condemnation of some and was feared by many. Indeed, initially HIV wasn't even used to describe this terrible disease. Yet Professor Cooper had no hesitation in becoming an evidence based medical voice in what had become an emotive, highly-charged public discussion. At the memorial service Michael Kirby, who lent his name to the institution that was at the centre of much of Professor Cooper's work, said: David Cooper was tireless in the preparation. He was superbly professional. He gathered together a magnificent team. He reached out, beyond our country. We should be proud of such a scientist and of our country, its universities and the institutions, that produced him. His family that nurtured him. His religion that taught him. The patients that loved him. But he was not ours alone. He belonged to the world of science. Today we honour him as a global hero. As an academic, Professor Cooper's research and discoveries are substantial, including his seminal paper on seroconversion illness. In the course of his career he published over 800 scientific papers. In 1986 Professor Cooper was named director of the newly founded National Centre of HIV Epidemiology in Clinical Research. This centre later became the Kirby Institute. He worked there until his death. Professor Cooper was truly a global leader in treating HIV/AIDS, be it in our own region or in places like Africa, where the disease has caused such devastation. His contribution on HIV/AIDS and infectious diseases was recognised when he was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2003. This award was posthumously upgraded to Companion of the Order of Australia in this year's Queen's Birthday Honours List—the highest honour that can be bestowed by our nation. David is survived by his wife, Dorrie, and his two daughters, Becky and Ilana. To a life well lived in the service of other I pay tribute. Vale Professor David Cooper. Sako, His Beatitude Louis Raphael 102 10:36 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The week before last I visited Iraq, which was an important visit, which I'll report more broadly on to the House at another time. I want to focus these remarks on the Chaldean community. I was very pleased to meet again with His Beatitude Louis Raphael Sako, the Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon and head of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Iraq since 2013. I had met him previously on his visit to Sydney as Patriarch, and I was pleased to meet with him for dinner in Baghdad the week before last. The reason I want particularly to pay tribute to His Beatitude is that this week he will be created a cardinal of the Catholic Church by His Holiness, the Pope. I think it's appropriate that this House recognise this event. As some in the House would know, Chaldeans are a very important part of the Christian population of Iraq and Syria. The Chaldean Church has been in existence since the year 1552. Migration to Australia for many Chaldeans began in the 1970s, and particularly during the post-Saddam crises in both Iraqi and Syria we have welcomed many Chaldeans into Australia and particularly into my community in McMahon. The Chaldean Church is very ably led by the Bishop, His Grace Amel Nona. I know he joins with the rest of the Australian community in wishing their Archbishop congratulations on being appointed as a Catholic cardinal. Patriarch Sako grew up on the Iraq-Turkey border. He was ordained a priest in 1974 in Mosul, before being ordained an archbishop in 2003. He shares with many in the House and all of Iraq despair at the destruction of Mosul, something I'll talk about separately in the House on another occasion. He has promoted religious tolerance amongst all religions, and he has called for unity with other religions, and I quote, 'especially with Muslims, with whom we have humanitarian, social and ties.' He is an impressive man, being able to speak Syriac, German, French, English, Italian and Arabic. He's a man of great determination. After having completed his studies, he was forbidden to teach religion during the Saddam Hussein regime. He sought a meeting with Saddam, but was refused, so he then undertook an entirely different doctorate with a small religious component in order to qualify as a teacher under the Saddam Hussein regime, and continued to teach. He has also been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm sure the House will wish him well in that endeavour, but most particularly wish him and the Chaldean community in Australia congratulations on his elevation, which will occur in Rome later this week. The Chaldean community was good enough to invite me to go to Rome for that celebration. Alas, I will be here in parliament with all of us, but it is appropriate that we spend a small amount of time in this parliament recognising His Beatitude Archbishop Sako and recognising the efforts and contribution of the Chaldean community in Australia more broadly. La Trobe Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 102 10:39 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I rise today to congratulate recent Queen's Birthday honours awardee from La Trobe Mrs Anne McGill AM, from Berwick. She was honoured for her significant service to the community through charitable organisations at a regional, national and international level. Mrs McGill is known for her role with Rotary Inner Wheel, in which she has inspired members to raise an incredible $2.5 million for various community causes. The selfless Berwick resident has also volunteered for more than two decades of her life with the Victorian Cancer Council. She has also had a vital role fundraising for health services, as the founder of the Coin for a Cord Day appeal for national cord blood research. Some of Mrs McGill's noteworthy roles have included, for Inner Wheel Australia, national cord blood research coordinator, 2001 to 2016; founder, Coin for a Cord Day appeal; president, 2001 to 2002; vice-president, 1990 to 2000; secretary, 1997 to 1998; national committee member, 1999 to 2002; and council member 1990 to 1991; and, for the Inner Wheel Club of Narre Warren, president, 1987 to 1988 and 2007 to 2008; treasurer, 1996 to 1997 and 2014 to 2015; committee member, for many years; member, International Women's Day Subcommittee, 20 years; and member, more than 36 years—an incredible effort. Today I would also like to congratulate Queen's Birthday honour recipient Mrs Terri Anne Cater OAM, from Narre Warren North. She was honoured for her significant service to athletics. The 1976 Montreal Olympic athlete represented Australia from 1974 to 1984, which included the 1974 Commonwealth Games in Christchurch, in which she won a silver model in the 4 x 400 metres relay in the incredible time of three minutes and 30 seconds, and the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane. She is currently the team coach of the Australian national under-20 sprint and middle-distance runners and has served as a mentor to the national junior under-19 squad since 2007. Mrs Cater has also served as an Athletics International committee member since 1997, including a three-year stint as secretary. From 1988 to 2015 Mrs Cater also served as head coach of the Caulfield Grammar girls athletics team as well as coaching both the boys and girls cross-country teams from 2004 to 2015. She also served as the secretary of the Victorian branch of the Australian Track and Field Coaches Association for an incredible 15 years. In addition to her OAM, Mrs Cater was the recipient of a certificate of appreciation from the Glen Eira City Council in 2008. I congratulate Mrs Cater for all the great work she has done not only in representing the country but in helping young people representing Australia. Apprenticeships 103 10:42 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham Across my region, since the government was elected, we have lost 2,353 apprentices. I'm sure members of this chamber appreciate that an apprenticeship, the opportunity to train in a traditional trade, is a really important, worthwhile pathway for young people to employment and to a good career. Many of us would know that many of those trades—plumbing, construction, hairdressing and so forth—set young people up very well for a great future. So it is very, very concerning to see this level of loss of apprenticeships across the years since the government was elected. It is perhaps not surprising, given that the government has cut significantly out of the vocational education and training budget. Indeed, another $270 million was cut in the most recent budget. The government talks a lot about the fact that vocational training, apprenticeships and so forth should be on equal standing with a university qualification. I would not disagree. I think young people should follow where their passion, their abilities and their commitment lie. If that's university, that's great, and we need to make sure they have the opportunity to do that. And, if it's a trade, they need the opportunity to do that too. It was very interesting last week, when parliament was sitting, to have the opportunity to meet with some amazing young people brought up to visit parliamentarians by the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union. They were a cross-section of young men and women who were doing apprenticeships in trades. They were very keen to talk to us about the challenges that they face with apprenticeships, to support the importance of governments backing that pathway and to advocate for better support for TAFE. Many of them talked about how important their TAFE experience and their TAFE teachers had been to them. So I really think it is very important to acknowledge that the government needs to do much better on supporting vocational training and apprenticeships. I'm very pleased that Labor has a very strong policy platform to offer these young people, workers seeking to retrain and families and communities, particularly regional communities where this is an important opportunity for employment. We have said that for any major government infrastructure funded by the federal government at least 10 per cent of the employment needs to be of apprentices. I think it is important for the government to be a leader in providing apprenticeship opportunities in major projects and also in supporting pre-apprenticeship programs and adult apprenticeship programs to give them the opportunity. We need to do much, much better in this field. Grey Electorate: Drought relief 103 10:45 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey Sadly, there are regions in South Australia that are starting to use the dreaded d-word, 'drought'. Rainfall has been patchy. For many it's okay—on my own farm, in fact, it's okay—without being outstanding, and it hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, though, there are some large areas, particularly on Eyre Peninsula, that are highly deficient in rainfall. I called a friend this morning in the Minnipa area, and he said he was on decile 2, and for those who don't understand these rainfall configurations that means it's in the lowest 20 per cent of all years for rainfall up until the end of May and into June. That is very concerning. It's not too late to change, and we remain optimistic, but it is certainly getting very concerning. Some properties in that area are actually looking down the barrel of possibly their third drought—third failure—in four years, even though the one that interspersed it two years ago was a record season. But three years in four is certainly a real challenge. Some properties, particularly on lighter soils, have been sown dry. This has become an increasingly common practice of recent years with the advent of no-till farming, It's been very successful, that's why farmers do it, and it's been a good way of managing soil. But this year it's fairly bare already, and since the crops have gone in there's been virtually no rain and a lot of wind in some of these areas, and it is causing a great deal of stress and concern. I thank the Prime Minister for being engaged on his issue and his firsthand experience from going into western New South Wales a few weeks ago. The government has made some responses since that time and has a number of measures in place. The one that I'm most pleased about, that we legislated in this place 12 months ago, is the increase in the levels for the farm management deposits. It's a very important tool for farmers and is up to $800,000 per individual now. It allows for farmers to make allowances for droughts themselves, but you've got to have a couple of good years under your belt before you can do that. So that's a huge plus. Farmers can now, since the last budget, access that money early in the case of drought and can offset against interest rates. We've also announced the extra support for the farm financial counselling service, which is very important. People under stress need all the help that they can get, and they need all the help that they can get that doesn't cost a lot of money. These people can become the best friend of farmers under stress. From 1 July, there is very particularly relevant information for South Australians. They will be able to apply for concessional farm loans through the regional investment bank—previously, we've had to do that through our state body and PIRSA. We've been incredibly unsuccessful in South Australia and wondered why other states were been able to win support and we hadn't. So that should be fixed. Vocational Education and Training 104 10:48 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Last week, my colleagues and I met with TAFE teachers and students in recognition of TAFE Day last Tuesday, and we heard about the damaging impact of cuts to the TAFE sector by this government. In Western Australia there's been a 22 per cent decline in TAFE traineeships and apprenticeships—that's over 9,000 fewer trainees and apprentices in Western Australia alone. In my electorate of Cowan, there's been a 25 per cent decline. In the last five years, more than $3 billion has been cut from TAFE and training, and Australia now has about 140,000 fewer apprentices today than we did when the Liberals were first elected. In Cowan, where the largest occupational group is in the trades, this 25 per cent decline cannot be attributed simply to natural attrition, as if somehow the demand for traineeships and apprenticeships has decreased, as the member for Cunningham pointed out in her constituency statement today. In Western Australia, the number of trade apprentices in construction has fallen by 3,600, and automotive and engineering trade apprentices are down by 400. TAFE courses have been cut. Campuses have been closed, and TAFE teachers have lost their jobs. In 2009, TAFE taught around 81 per cent of publicly funded students. But by 2015 that share had declined to 50 per cent. TAFE's market share of publicly funded students has dropped to an all-time low. In 2016, 11 TAFE colleges in Western Australia became just five, with 230 jobs axed under this coalition and the former WA Liberal government. There are five key trades that are getting cut in Western Australia: car trimming, furniture polishing, floor laying, wood turning and furniture upholstery, which were all previously offered at Polytechnic West. As TAFE will no longer provide training for these crafts, potential apprentices are going to be forced to go to the eastern states. The government's failure to ensure ongoing and critical funding to TAFE has reduced employment opportunities for middle-aged workers, working-class people, particularly women, young people and workers who are seeking to retrain later in life. It has also limited our capacity to meet demand for growing occupations such as disability, aged care and technology-focused sectors. Meanwhile, youth unemployment is rising, skilled migrants are being brought in to do jobs Australians could do, TAFE fees are increasing and course options are falling. Personal Income Tax Plan 104 10:52 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney I am proud to be part of a government that's committed to creating jobs, boosting the economy and reducing the tax burden on hardworking Australian small businesses and households. I am proud to be part of a government that backs aspirational Australians that work hard to get ahead. The Personal Income Tax Plan became law last week, making income tax lower, simpler and fairer. This is despite Labor voting against it. This is a win for the hardworking people of Tangney and for all Australians. The coalition government has ensured that all taxpayers in Tangney will be better off. The Personal Income Tax Plan gives immediate tax relief to low-income earners. This financial year, over 10 million hardworking taxpayers will get tax relief. Millions of Australians will take more of their own money home every week, spending their hard-earned cash on their families and the things that matter most to them. Many will be young people entering the workforce for the first time. This permanent tax relief will leave them with more of their own money to invest in their future. The government is also committed to protecting Australians against bracket creep. From 1 July 2018, the 32.5 per cent tax bracket will increase from $87,000 to $90,000. Around three million Australians will get a tax cut of up to $135 per year. From 1 July 2022, the top threshold of the 32 per cent tax bracket will increase again to 120,000, providing a tax cut of up to $1,350 per year. The removal of the 37 per cent tax bracket completely will benefit 1.8 million Australians. This is great news for the 94 per cent of Australian workers who, under this plan that is now law, will not face a higher marginal tax rate of more than 32.5c in the dollar over the lifetime of their career. Hardworking Australians in my electorate can take those extra hours, can do the overtime and can accept a promotion, without seeing their benefit or their success eroded by higher taxes. This government is committed to a tax system that rewards effort, is internationally competitive and drives a strong economy. The financial leadership of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister is strengthening the Australian economy, helping create jobs and promote business investment. The Personal Income Tax Plan is a plan that all Australians share in and will benefit from. Your income is your money. You earned it, and you deserve to keep more of it. Canberra Electorate: National Broadband Network 105 10:54 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I met with NBN Co last week and in that meeting we talked about the experiences many Canberrans have had with their new NBN connections—the unexpected dropouts and the need to replace equipment, like fax machines. In 2017, complaints about the NBN alone increased by 204 per cent—204 per cent!—and what has become increasingly clear is that consumers have not been brought along the NBN rollout journey, which is why Labor's NBN service guarantee is so welcome. Labor's NBN service guarantee will set wholesale service standards for fault rectification time frames, installations and missed appointments. It will apply financial penalties on NBN when those standards are not met and it will establish stronger penalties to safeguard small businesses from excessive downtime. It will ensure the NBN is more accountable to retail providers, so that retail providers can in turn be more accountable to their customers. Consumers will benefit from have having a clear link between service standards, individual consumer outcomes and fair recourse when things go wrong—and that is happening very often. But what about helping Australians actually understand the NBN before the switchover happens? Compare the experience of consumers with the switchover from analog to digital TV. Advertising campaigns ensured Australians were informed about when the switchover would happen and what it would mean for people—what it would mean for them. Targeted advertising was used and new televisions and set-top boxes had stickers to say if they were digital-ready. Workers at technology and home appliance retailers received product training to assist customers make an informed purchase. This was under a Labor government. So why not? What about the NBN rollout? NBN Co's website talks about some existing devices and services perhaps not being compatible with new NBN technologies—medical alarms, emergency call buttons, monitored fire alarms, home or business security monitors, fax and teletypewriter devices and wireless door bells. For each of these difference devices or services the advice is the same: contact your retail service provider to check if your particular device or service will continue to operate when connected to the NBN. And while you're at it, check to see if there are any costs involved. Imagine the rude shock for many Canberrans when they find out that their devices don't work only after the switchover to the NBN and that they need to upgrade office equipment, security systems, fire alarms and door bells at a cost. For many, that is an unexpected and probably unwelcome cost. Then they need to wait for an appointment, which, based on 204 per cent of complaints in 2017, shows is likely to be missed—more uptime, less downtime and greater accountability are needed. Bennelong Electorate: Queen's Birthday 2018 Honours List 105 10:58 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Bennelong is often called the innovation capital of Australia—that's because it is! A large part of what makes us great is our booming health industry. But, as with all things, nothing is great without incredible people behind the scenes. I'm very pleased to see that some of these people have been recognised in this year's Queen's birthday honours. Mark Harris is one such health innovator, working in a field that is very close to my heart. For the past 13 years he has served as Executive Director for the Centre of Primary Health Care and Equity at the University of New South Wales, and is currently the Deputy Director of the Translational Cancer Research Network. Amongst his many roles, Mark has served as Director at the Centre of Obesity Management and Prevention Research Excellence in Primary Health Care from 2013 to 2018; Director of General Practice at South West Sydney Area Health Service 1993; volunteer general practitioner at the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre since 2000; and the Editorial Chair of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Guidelines for Preventive Care in General Practice. Mark was formerly a member of the Heart Foundation Clinical Issues Committee, from 2003 to 2012; he is a Life Fellow at the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; an Australian Academy of Health and Medical Services Fellow in 2015; and has received numerous awards. These include the Muru Marri Indigenous Health Prize Impact 2014, the Peter Baum Public Health Award 2013, Professorial Research Fellow at the National Health and Research Council 2011-2015, the Charles Webb Bridge Medal, the Australian Association of Academic Primary Care 2010 and the Humanitarian Award from the Refugee Council of Australia in 2010. Mark Harris's efforts have been nothing short of admirable. Mark has had a positive impact on Australian health, and his contributions and input to the Australian health industry have been spectacular. Another academic local is Andrew McLachlan. He has served his community as researcher, educator and administrator, as demonstrated by his current role as the dean of Sydney University's pharmacy faculty. Andrew has had roles as professor of pharmacy (aged care), past associate dean (postgraduate) and past associate dean (research). Andrew has also worked in the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing's expert Medication Reference Group and in the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, from 2010 to 2017. He chaired the National Medicines Policy Committee from 2009 to 2013. He was a member of the Australian National Medicines Policy Executive and many other bodies, including the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, the Human Research Ethics Committee, Sydney's local health district and Concord Repatriation General Hospital. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has now concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 106 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Aged Care 106 11:01 Mr HART 263070 Bass by leave—At the request of the member for Franklin, I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the public release of the latest quarterly data on the home care package waitlist has been delayed by the Government; (b) there was a commitment to release the data two months after the period that the data covers, but this timeframe has now not been met; and (c) the data has been sitting on the desk of the Minister for Aged Care without any action being taken; (2) further notes the: (a) latest figures showed around 105,000 older Australians are now waiting for a home care package they were approved for; (b) average wait time for a high level package has blown out to more than a year; and (c) demand for home care packages grew by 20,000 older Australians in the last six months of 2017 alone; (3) condemns the Government for the aged care crisis it made on its watch; and (4) calls on the Government to be honest with older Australians and immediately release the latest round of data on the waitlist for home care packages. I rise today to support this motion, and I join with the member for Franklin in condemning the government for the aged-care crisis that it has created on its watch. I have a distinct sense of deja vu as I stand here today, just as I did in the chamber last week, to once again make the point that older Australians and their families are languishing in limbo while the delivery of care packages is delayed. I brought to the attention of the House the plight of thousands of elderly Australians waiting for a home care package for which they've been approved, and potentially thousands more waiting for approval for packages following needs based assessments. At this point in time, we don't know exactly how many people are in this situation, because the public release of the latest quarterly data on the home care package wait list has been delay by the government. There was a commitment to release the data two months after the period the data covers, but this time frame has now not been met again. Instead, the data has been sitting on the desk of the Minister for Aged Care, seemingly without any action being taken. The last figures released revealed around 105,000 older Australians are now waiting for a home care package they were approved for, with the average wait time for a high-level package having blown out to over a year. Given that demand for home care packages grew by 20,000 in the last six months of 2017 alone, I wonder just how many older Australians will be revealed as waiting for their home care package once these latest figures finally make the slow journey off the minister's desk. We know through the estimates process that the Department of Health previously committed to releasing the data two months after the period that the data covers. With the latest quarter ending in March, this means the data is now a fortnight late. There are questions that the minister has to answer: Where is this data? Why is there a delay? What is he hiding? Why is transparency so hard for this government? Let's not forget that this is not an abstract exercise. These figures represent real people, elderly Australians who need care and support to remain with dignity in their own home, and their families, many of whom are feeling the pressure to provide suitable care to their loved ones whilst navigating a complicated and, some might say, dysfunctional system. I think that it's fair to say that this government doesn't care enough about these older Australians to get it right. The Abbott-Turnbull government created the aged-care crisis, cutting billions from the budget over the last five years. There was not one new extra dollar for Australia's aged-care system in this year's budget—not one extra dollar. Slashing funding to residential care to try and fix the home care mess is an insult to older Australians. Not only will residential services suffer from a decrease in funding on this minister's watch; the commitment in the budget to 14,000 home care packages is woefully inadequate in the face of growing demand. As I said in this place only seven days ago, this government's inaction is placing older Australians in a terribly vulnerable and difficult situation. Australians who need home care assistance will be forced to look at residential care if they are unable to look after themselves in their home environment. But they will find that, because of this government's refusal to provide additional, real funding, that residential care will be difficult to find. It is a no-win situation that places elderly Australians at risk of a lack of adequate care, and lacking the dignity, that they deserve. Indeed, when we talk about risk, we are talking about the additional risks to people of being unsupported in their own homes. Even though it may be better for them to be in a familiar environment, if that environment isn't supported by a home care package, there are additional risks. The priorities of this government are, sadly, skewed. They can find $80 billion for tax cuts for big business and they can find billions more for tax cuts for the highest income earners, even six years before they are to be delivered, but they cannot seem to find the funds to provide older Australians with adequate care at the point in their lives when they need it the most. If this government truly cared about older Australians, it would treat them with honesty and respect, not withhold these important figures or try to pull the wool over their eyes with sneaky budget diversions and cuts. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 Is the motion seconded? Ms Bird DZP I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:06 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore On Friday last week, I had the opportunity to meet with the Eurobodalla aged care and dementia networking group to talk about aged-care packages and dementia in general. While I have asked them to send quick summary emails regarding their primary concerns, asking me to present these to the minister, there were some recurring themes. Due to the media hype and the lack of real care from those in opposition, there has been a bit of confusion about age-care packages and what they actually mean for people, and some concern about the waiting list. On budget day the government announced that thousands of new home care packages would be on offer. I understand this means the number of home care packages will rise from 87,000 to 151,000. That is a vast improvement. There is great community interest in the $200 million the Turnbull government has invested in the Boosting Dementia Research Initiative. In this third year of the plan, we know there are a series of potentially world-leading Australian projects now underway to combat dementia. It's amazing that 127 projects, involving 285 researchers working across 24 universities and research institutions, are presenting major milestones towards dementia prevention, management and cure. Dementia is the second most common cause of death in this country, and for women it has eclipsed heart disease as the leading cause. Around 425,000 Australians are living with the condition, with an estimated 1,700 people believed to be developing dementia each week. It is critical that we find effective preventions and cures; otherwise, we can expect 1.1 million Australians to have dementia by the middle of this century, meaning more than 600 people a day will be at risk of developing the disease. Some of the advances in our groundbreaking research include the promise of ultrasound technology to improve memory and slow the onset of dementia; determining if increased iron levels in the brain are the missing link in the development of dementia; the impact of childhood stress as a dementia risk factor, especially among Indigenous Australians; the potential for eye scans to reveal three biomarkers associated with early signs of cognitive decline; harnessing the power of music to assist people in managing and living with dementia, which I imagine would be extremely beneficial; and specialised staff training, including massage, music and reminiscence therapies, to improve dementia care, as many of the elderly with dementia slip into their original cultural background, particularly those from another nation. The $5.3 million pilot program aimed at improving aged care for people living with dementia, through an emphasis on applying innovation, is indeed a great initiative, and community groups all around are looking forward to the rollout of this program. Statistics show that dementia in particular affects three in 10 people over the age of 85 and almost one in 10 people over the age of 65. Kiama Municipal Council, in conjunction with Dementia Australia and research done by the UOW, developed a great model of awareness and community engagement around the needs and solution pathways for those suffering from dementia in their community. The network in Eurobodalla wishes to start having discussions on the strategies to introduce just such a program. Today I've sent contact details to make sure that that network combines with Kiama so they can start. Last week, the Eurobodalla dementia network committee presented a number of ideas to me, and I would like to take this opportunity to put some on the table. We'd love to have a pilot program to develop a beyond-65s hub; to examine the potential of financial pathways; to maximise ACAT time and reduce paperwork compliance; to assist the work done by the ACAT and RAS, which is the Regional Assessment Service team; to better determine ways forward and to develop a better pathway for not only people ready to receive aged-care packages but also their carers. As we explored these ideas, we discussed that some form of identifier number could be introduced so that the provider could help access information. Many of the dementia clients about to go onto packages forget their number, and often, when the information is sent to them, they don't understand the material and then lose it or ignore it, so we need to get something to help the providers. Under our reforms, all home care packages are provided to individual consumers rather than the previous method where home care packages were awarded to approved providers under an allocation process. This change gives older Australians the ability to choose their own provider and direct the government subsidy to that provider. They can change that provider if they wish, including if they move to another state or a different region. These reforms allow such organisations as the Eurobodalla dementia network committee and the Kiama Municipal Council to meet with us, give feedback and take their ideas forward so there are better services for people who are ready for aged care, who need in-home care packages or who need better care as they journey through dementia. 11:11 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I am very, very pleased to second this motion by my colleague on the aged-care crisis. I want to talk to the Chamber about three ways in which it is having a very real effect on older people in my electorate at this very moment. The first aspect is obviously the issue around home care packages. I've had a lot of families contacting me in great distress because their elderly relatives have been assessed as needing a high-level care package, and they have been waiting months, some up to a year, to get that service. Imagine what that means in reality for those families. They have an elderly family member, living at home, who they are trying to support, and, at the same time, the elderly family member has been assessed as needing a package that they can't get. What that means is: those families are stepping in, trying to provide that support to their elderly relative, often when they're managing their own work, life, children and so forth. I've had people in tears because it's really awful and they feel terrible complaining about having to support their elderly relative, but the pressures on their family are enormous. Before the budget, from the stuff leaked to the media, it seemed that we were going to see some big initiative. What did we get? Around 14,000 measly places across four years across the whole country when the government's own figures showed that over 100,000 people across Australia are on these waiting lists. It is an absolutely critical issue that the government needs to get serious about addressing. The second aspect, and what became obvious from the budget, is that the funding that was provided for those 14,000 places wasn't new money; it was coming out of residential care. I can tell you: residential care needs more investment, not less, at this particular time. Just the other week, I attended a forum in my electorate organised by the Health Services Union as part of their campaign for better aged-care services. I just want to acknowledge the speakers who were there. Gerard Hayes, from the Health Services Union, spoke, but we also heard from four amazing aged-care workers—Amanda Hampton, Karen Singh, Lisa Walker and Lyn Martin. Their love of their job and their dedication to the people they work with is one of the most inspiring things I've heard. It was really well received at that forum, because people understand, particularly if you've got elderly relatives in residential care, that these carers at the front line provide the love, care and protection that we would all expect for our elderly relatives in aged care. They were talking about the pressures and stress they're under around issues of funding, staffing and quality care and their cry-out for more care from government to make sure that those services are offering the dignity, respect and quality of life that our older Australians deserve. I'll tell you what they don't deserve. They don't deserve to have their work undervalued. It's not good enough to say to aged-care workers, as the Prime Minister said in question time last week, that 'what you should aspire to is to either get a better job or move up to management'. The reality is we should respect and honour the work that these workers do day in and day out, looking after our elderly with love, care, compassion and dedication. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he rethink what he said and maybe make a clarifying statement about the fact that that work is important and we value it. We've got a shortage of aged-care workers. We need to be backing them in. The third aspect that's having a real effect on older people in my electorate is the decision by the Department of Human Services to cut the Warrawong Centrelink and Medicare office. There's a report out today by Anglicare Australia talking about the impact that the loss of face-to-face services in Centrelink is having on vulnerable people, and that includes our older Australians, particularly in terms of the increased automation making it a much more stressful experience. Hank Jongen, speaking on behalf of the department, said that they recognise that not everyone wishes to or can access digital solutions. That's absolutely true. I would call on Mr Jongen, in the spirit of his comments to the media today in response to the Anglicare report, to review the decision to close the Warrawong office, which is right in the heart of communities that are very disadvantaged and that also have very high populations of elderly people from a non-English speaking background, who need to have a Centrelink and Medicare office they can go into to speak to someone face to face and lodge their documents. On those three aspects, where we have real issues for older people in my electorate, we need to get much better at servicing them. 11:16 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby As the federal member for Boothby, I represent more than 28,000 people aged over 65 and their families in my community. I recognise the importance of supporting our older Australians and know that one of the most important duties we have as a nation and as representatives in this place is to particularly care for and represent those older Australians who cannot care for and represent themselves. That's why the Turnbull government is investing in our aged-care sector. The Minister for Aged Care, the Hon. Ken Wyatt AM, MP, has ensured that aged care is at the forefront of our government's significant reform agenda, and I want to congratulate and thank the minister for the wonderful job that he's doing. He really does care about the welfare and wellbeing of every single senior Australian. For too long, particularly in my home state of South Australia, the health, safety and wellbeing of our senior Australians has not been a priority. We have all seen the devastating report on the treatment and conditions of people in aged-care facilities, particularly at Oakden in South Australia, which will have a devastating, lifelong impact on the victims and their families. That's why the Turnbull government is prioritising our senior Australians—so that no family ever has to endure the shameful abuse and neglect that occurred under the previous South Australian Labor government. Our reforms are giving people more choice over the sort of care that will best suit their needs and their families' needs. The government's investment in aged care is at a record $18.6 billion this year and is set to grow at around six per cent per annum over the next four years. We're supporting older Australians to remain living in their homes by delivering an additional 14,000 new high-level home care packages on top of the 6,000 level 3 and 4 home care packages announced in September 2017. We're providing an additional 13½ thousand residential aged-care places and 775 short-term restorative care places across the nation. We are providing interim care and support services, like Meals on Wheels, cleaning and personal care, through our record $5.5 billion investment in the Commonwealth Home Support Program, which assists around 800,000 older Australians. And, importantly, we are providing transparency as we implement these reforms. This all means that, over the next four years, aged-care funding is up, home care packages are up and residential aged-care places are up. This is a stark comparison to what those opposite did when they were in government. In the 2010-11 budget, they ripped $9 million out of aged care. Then, to make things worse, the then Labor government's 2011-12 budget ripped another $211.7 million out of aged care. And, in 2012-13, Labor cut residential care places. The Turnbull government is fixing Labor's aged-care mess with significant long-term reforms and a detailed, costed plan to support older Australians. We are investing $61.7 million in the My Aged Care system, to make it simpler and easier to use, to ensure older Australians have access to the services they need, when they need them. We are supporting healthy ageing, by improving mental health services for senior Australians and introducing a new grant program to encourage physical activity. We are establishing a new and independent one-stop shop Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, to give older Australians and their families the confidence that they will be properly cared for and that they know where to turn when they have problems. We are establishing a single set of standards so that the same core, non-negotiable expectations will apply across all services and will strengthen and streamline the regulation of safe, quality care. In the 2018-19 budget, the Turnbull government announced an additional $32.8 million to increase access to community based palliative care, to support older Australians who wish to pass away in their home, with their family. This is something that a number of people in my electorate raised with me, and I'm pleased to see that we have introduced it. We have also committed $5.3 million to improve care for people living with dementia, with an emphasis on the use of innovative technologies. We are doing a range of other things, with record hospital funding and GP bulk-billing, and I again thank the minister for the wonderful job that he is doing caring for our senior Australians. 11:22 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This government is sitting on the current waiting list for home care packages. It has delayed the release of the quarterly data from March, and one has to wonder why. As I said in this place last week, I expect the minister is in his office trying to get the department to scratch a few names off it, because there were already over 100,000 Australians sitting on that list, waiting for home care, as at the end of December last year. We know that that list had 20,000 people added to it in the last six months of last year. It is no wonder the government is sitting on the last quarterly release of data, from the March quarter. It is no wonder the government doesn't want this parliament still in session when those figures are released. I think we all know why the government doesn't want to release that data—because it's busy trying to remove names from there; it's busy trying to get more packages released. And good on it—it should be trying to get more packages released, but it should have been trying to do that long before now. The problem here is that this is a government that in the last budget tried to pretend it was doing something amazing and remarkable. That is the cruel hoax of what this government has done. To have to sit here and listen to the other side bang on about how wonderful it is and what a great job it is doing—I don't think it's a great job when you've got 100,000 older Australians waiting for care as at December of last year. It's not good enough. It's not good enough from any government who can afford $80 billion in tax cuts for the big end of town to sit in here and say, 'We're not going to give older Australians one cent more than was already in the forward estimates,' when we've got 100,000 people waiting for home care packages, 'but we'll give $80 billion to the top end of town.' It shows its priorities. It absolutely shows what this government is all about. This government has sat on this waiting list, this national priority queue, and has known about this data for well over a year. It knew that this queue was growing faster and faster. It did release 6,000 packages in September last year, and that's a good thing, and we welcome that from our side, but at the time we said, 'It's good but it's not good enough; we're going to need to do more.' And we were right, because that list is going to continue to grow, and the 14,000 new packages in the budget, level 3 and level 4, are welcome but it's not nearly enough. As my colleague the member for Cunningham pointed out, it's not even keeping up with demand. To say that we're going to release 14,000 packages, when the list grew by 20,000 in the last six months of last year, is not good enough. What is this government going to do? What is it going to take for this government to be honest and open with the Australian public and have a fair dinkum conversation about how we're going to fix this? How are we as a community going to deal with the issue of old-age care in Australia, dealing with older Australians? My office is inundated. As the member for Cunningham talked about, we're getting calls from children who want to get care for their parents, children who are not going to work, adult children who are trying to care for their parents, but they've got full-time jobs and they need to go to work. They need to pay their mortgages. We need to have a proper discussion as a community about how we are going to deal with this going forward. The government needs to do that, rather than trying to turn this into a political issue, like they did with the budget, and pretend they're doing something remarkable, when clearly they are not. When I talk to providers of home care, when I talk to providers of residential aged care, they know that this is a growing problem. They know that we have older Australians at home, going into residential care when they don’t want to. They know that emergency departments have got older Australians there, who, if they had the proper care at home, would not be there. So this is impacting on other sectors of the health services. It is impacting emergency departments, it is impacting residential care and it's impacting a whole range of other services, because these people cannot get the care they've been assessed for and approved for but haven't been allocated a package. It needs to get better. The government needs to find a solution to this. To continue to say, 'Oh, it's all good. We fixed it. There are 14,000 in the last budget. Aren't we fabulous!' is not the answer. They need to be honest. They need to come clean. They need to release the data as soon as possible and have a fair dinkum conversation with the Australian public about what is going on in aged care in Australia today. They need to be honest about the type of care that people are able to get. To say that half the people on that waiting list are currently receiving services means that they are actually getting some services but not what they actually need to stay at home. The whole point of the assessment process is to make sure people get the care they need to stay at home. 11:27 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I listened to the words of the member for Franklin. She's all fired up. Let go to the last points of this motion today: (3) condemns the Government for the aged care crisis it made on its watch; and (4) calls on the Government to be honest with older Australians Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 230531 I just remind honourable members that the member for Franklin was heard in silence. The member for Grey has the call. Mr RAMSEY HWS They 'call on the government to be honest with Australians'. I mean, really, that is a bit rich coming from that side of the chamber. The issue we are dealing with here is home care packages. The member for Franklin knows full well that when her team was in government we didn't know the extent of the waiting list for home care packages. Labor's waiting list was hidden because the requests for home care packages lay with the providers. The providers kept that information to themselves. They in fact made major changes to the aged-care industry, and then sat there on their hands and did not know what this demand was. That's why I give the aged-care minister great credit, because he has flicked the scab off and shown what that demand is. To say that this demand just materialised over the last years is a load of rubbish. An opposition member interjecting— Mr RAMSEY HWS The demand was there before, and your people chose to ignore it by allowing a system to stay in place that hid the demand from the government and from the Australian public. We instigated the increasing choices legislation in February last year. We now know the extent of the problem, and we have moved in a very significant way. The health minister should be congratulated. In fact, aged care will receive $19.8 billion this financial year. That is $5.5 billion more than the last time that Labor was in government. In five years, it has increased by around 30 per cent. It is outrageous for those on the other side to maintain that the government is not putting the blowtorch on this problem. We've identified the problem, and we are moving to fix the problem. With the transparency of the list we have had for the first time a clear picture, and we have allocated 20,000 new places for home care packages. That is a remarkable figure—20,000. You go: 'Yeah, well, that's in abstract; 20,000, good on the government. Whatever.' But in fact that is an 86 per cent increase over the last four years! Yet we are told by those on the other side of the chamber that somehow this problem has all eventuated in the last five years! I understand they are concerned about aged care—we're all concerned about aged care. But it is misleading and it is hypocrisy of the first order to make the statements that are in these motions accusing the government of dishonesty. We are the first government that has been absolutely honest on this issue, and we know—and the people know—what is needed. So I congratulate the minister. I've had him out in my electorate; I think he's possibly going to be one of the best aged-care ministers this country's ever had, quite frankly. He is a man with compassion; he cares; he understands the industry, as it were; he understands the issues; and he's quite prepared to go out and meet, greet and talk with my constituents, at least, but I know many more as well. I've had him in Ceduna and in Peterborough, where we addressed a number of other issues as well while we were there, including the extra challenges that aged-care facilities face in country regions. Most of us in this room, hopefully, would be aware that aged-care facilities need around 65 to 80 beds to be properly operationally efficient. In South Australia we have small regional centres and lots of little country towns that already have aged-care facilities. They are very, very important in the communities, so that people can age in situ as it were. But these aged-care organisations are completely under stress, and the minister organised some funding in the last budget to aid those issues. So he does well. 11:32 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I welcome the opportunity to support this motion on aged care, because this government must be held to account for its shameful and deceitful handling of the issue of home care packages and aged care in general and what that says about an out-of-touch government. Let me go to some of the ways this government has completely failed to deliver for our most vulnerable Australians, for the people who care for them and for their concerned families. Let's be clear: the government pulled billions of dollars out of residential care in 2015-16. One can only imagine the reverberations of that right across the community and how that has contributed to what is an aged-care crisis right now. The government, in this budget, hailed one of the greatest achievements of the Minister for Aged Care, in that 14,000 places were announced for home care packages. There were 14,000 places announced in the budget when we know around 105,000 older Australians are waiting for these packages! Indeed, in the last six months alone, 20,000 people joined the waiting list. Worst of all, it turns out that the government is actually slashing residential care to try and fix the home care package crisis. Over the next three years 21,000 residential aged care places will be cut to pay for the small increase to the number of home care packages. There is no new money in the budget at all for the funding of home care and residential aged care. None! Older Australians and their families remain frustrated, and confused and let down by this government, which is so out of touch it clearly has no idea what it means to be hoping for help with an older loved one. It has no idea what it means to watch an elderly parent wait in vain for assistance at home. It has no idea what it means for a family to struggle to provide that care themselves, juggling rosters at work and juggling their own children, who need their care and attention. Families are taking risks, ultimately, because sometimes it just doesn't work out the way you want it to, and then you worry desperately because you can't get home on time, because an elderly loved one is home all alone just for that bit too long, because they didn't get a shower at all, because they missed their midday medications or because they didn't eat their lunch. You worry that the Post-It Notes you put out to remind them to take their pills or turn off the gas or to put the heating on might have fallen away or been pulled down or missed. I recently had a visit from a constituent who's been waiting for over 12 months for a package for his mum. He's at his wit's end. Each time it appears one is coming up his mum has deteriorated just a bit more and they say she needs a re-assessment, and then there is another wait. He is absolutely convinced that the government is forcing this to happen so ultimately she deteriorates so much without home assistance that he will have to place her in residential care, where he will have to find a bond and move his mum away. He said: 'Mum doesn't have much. We don't have much. They just want me to come up with a stack of money we don't really have, pay up-front and put her in a home, when we just want to keep her with us and we could do that with some help.' The coalition continues its smoke-and-mirrors tricks in relation to the most basic functions of government—releasing timely information. Data on the wait list for home care packages is missing in action. Where is the data? Why is there a delay? What are the aged-care minister and his government hiding? Finally, the Prime Minister exposed the lack of respect he has for aged-care workers last week when he said that he expected these Australians to aspire to a better job. The arrogance of this statement and the absolute failings of this government to deliver on aged care tell us so much about the priorities of those who sit opposite us. They simply don't care about the elderly. They don't care about the people who raised us, cared for us and love us. They deserve so much better than this smoke-and-mirrors approach. The government don't care that they are forcing Australians to work till they're 70, and they don't care about the workers who look after our elderly. These workers have been screaming out for reform and resources, a call that has been ignored by this government. They need resources so they can continue to do the job they love and the jobs they aspire to. The only people the government do seem to care about are the wealthiest Australians who stand to gain the most from their tax cuts, the bankers and high-flying executives who will have their corporate tax rates slashed, and, oh yes, let's not forget Captain Cook who's getting a $50 million memorial. As I said just last week, a society is judged by how it cares for its most vulnerable. Our elderly are our most vulnerable, and this government has failed to deliver home care packages and care to so many older Australians. It created an aged-care crisis. It is ignoring the aged-care crisis, and its budget fails to fix it. (Time expired) 11:37 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I rise to speak on this motion as being moved by the honourable member opposite. One should put this in the context of an ageing population in Australia. The reality is that the number and proportion of people aged over 65 is going to double over a period of some 20 years; that the fastest growing cohort in the Australian population are people aged 80 and over; and that the entry point into old age when I was a child was probably somewhere around 60 to 65—it's now 80 or more. People in their 60s and, indeed, in their 70s, for the most part are living vital, active lives, unlike generations ago in the past. Indeed, if one goes back far enough, to the beginning of the last century, average life expectancy in this country for men was just over 50 and in the mid-50s for women. So what we've seen over the passage of a century is a huge increase in longevity, which is continuing today. That increase in longevity in terms of death rates came about, firstly, by the very significant reduction in death in childbirth—something which was an infliction for centuries into the past. One only has to go to a cemetery or a graveyard where there are gravestones and headstones from a century ago to see that so many of them relate to women who were young and died, sadly, giving birth, and, tragically, to many children who died in the early days, months and years of life. And then in the second part of last century, we saw this huge increase in longevity through the fact that surgery and medicine and all the wonderful pharmaceutical products which are now available have meant that people are living longer and longer. So this is not some recent matter that we've dealt with. These matters have been a challenge for governments in Australia for some 20 or 30 years. I could have been here almost 20 years ago in the same sort of debate when I was the aged-care minister, addressing these sorts of issues, and it is an ongoing challenge for whoever happens to be in government. So the context of providing aged care is important in terms of a debate such as this. I understand why the opposition have raised a motion such as this. It's the sort of thing that happens in this place regardless of who happens to be in opposition at the present time, but the context of the challenges of an ageing population, which are ongoing, need to be taken account of in considering these matters. Secondly, one must take account of the fact that home care packages of this sort are a relatively recent invention. If you go back two or three decades, the reality was that most aged care was seen as residential aged care. Yes, there were meals on wheels and similar services, but what we've seen over the last 20 years or so is a huge increase in home care packages, reflecting the fact that most Australians, when they need care in their old age, want to stay in their home, rather than moving into a residential accommodation, if they can possibly achieve that for themselves, and their families would like that as well. The reality is that if you look at the proportion of care being provided as home care in its various guises now, it is much greater than it was, say, two or three decades ago. This is an ongoing challenge for the nation in terms of an ageing population. The great baby-boom generation, which, if I look around, seems to include most people in this chamber right at the moment—with some notable exceptions—at the moment are part of the baby-boom generation. That great generation, which increased the population of Australia over that period from the end of the Second World War onwards, is now moving into old age, so the challenges of providing aged care, regardless of who is in government, are going to be ongoing challenges for the future. Prior to February 2017, we didn't actually have lists or queues in relation to home care packages, not because there weren't people waiting; it was simply because prior to those reforms in February 2017, they weren't published and queues, to the extent that they existed, were managed by the providers themselves. Having this information is an advance, but we shouldn't pretend for a moment, in a party-political way, that this is not a challenge that is going to face every government, now and into the future, regardless of who happens to be in government. 11:42 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I am very happy to speak in support of the motion put forward by my good friend the member for Franklin. Mahatma Gandhi once said that the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members. Older Australians who require care, either in their own homes or in residential aged care, are some of society's most vulnerable. Often our mothers, they are also our fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts and uncles, and they don't have a voice on so many occasions. So I'm honoured to speak on this motion in the Chamber today in support of some of our most vulnerable Australians. This Turnbull government is shamefully treating too many older Australians with something verging on contempt. Back in May, we saw the Turnbull government wax lyrical about how they were looking after older Australians by promising 14,000 new in-home care packages over the next four years. What they didn't say was that the funding for those 14,000 in-home care packages is coming from existing funding for residential aged care. This out-of-touch Prime Minister has reduced beds in residential aged care to pay for in-home care packages. We have an ageing population and an aged-care crisis created by the Turnbull government, a government that has shown itself to be both underhanded and irresponsible, and we have those opposite laughing at this. By 2025, the projected gap between available residential aged-care places and consumers who will actually need those places will be 94,200 places—that is, 94,200 older Australians will need residential aged care and won't be able to get it. This is a festering national disgrace, and the blame will fall squarely at the feet of this out-of-touch government. Prime Minister Turnbull and his cronies have created this aged-care crisis. They have ignored— The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The member for Goldstein, on a point of order? Mr Tim Wilson IMW He used the term 'cronies'. I think that's a completely unacceptable way to refer to other members of parliament in this place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP It's an expressive term, but it is not outside the parliamentary rules. Mr PERRETT HVP The word 'crony' in the dictionary says 'a close friend or companion'. If you're saying that you're not the Prime Minister's close friend or companion, I'm happy to take that interjection. Come in spinner. This Prime Minister and his cronies have created this aged-care crisis. They have ignored this aged-care crisis, and the 2018 budget failed to fix this aged-care crisis. Yet, like fake news on steroids, they have pretended to actually do something. Duplicity and ignoring that there is a crisis will not make this crisis go away. Using smoke and mirrors to pretend to announce extra funding for aged care will not change the bottom line, which is that there is no extra money allocated for the growing cohort of older Australians needing care. A budget announcement of 14,000 extra home care packages is laughable, as the waiting list nationally for home care packages grew by 20,000 in the last six months of 2017, as my good friend the member for Franklin would know. However, suddenly we don’t get up-to-date figures, because the Minister for Aged Care has not released the data for the first quarter of this year. That quarter ended in March, almost three months ago. We know the department has previously committed to releasing the data two months after the end of that quarter. The release of the data is now a month late. What is the minister hiding? The last data that was released, now six months old, revealed almost 105,000 older Australians were waiting for a home care package, with the average wait time for a high-level package blowing out to more than a year. As I saw in Eight Mile Plains—I was having a barbecue on the weekend—this causes heartache inside families. It's just a piece of data for those opposite; it's a heart-aching story for the real Australians who are actually trying to get their family into some sort of caring environment. Sadly, we know that older Australians don't have time. They don't have the years to wait to get the care that they need now. Sadly, we have a government that can find $80 billion for tax cuts for big business, including $17 billion to get to the big banks—which were not struggling the last time I looked—but they can't get one extra cent to give to older Australians. We know the Prime Minister has no idea how important the work of caring for our elderly is. We saw that in question time last week, with his cruel and insensitive advice to those who care for our aged was that they 'should aspire to get a better job'. I think the advice was to someone in Braddon. How incredible. The Prime Minister needs to spend some time in one of our world-class aged-care facilities—not just one of those selfie flash-mob fleeting visits—actually sitting down and talking to people who provide aged care. Then he might have an understand of how difficult this crisis is. (Time expired) 11:47 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein The members' time has expired on that last point, but perhaps we could broaden that and say his arguments have expired as well. I have to say it's very disappointing, frankly, to even speak on this motion when you've got a government making as much of a commitment to aged care as any government in Australian history. Despite that, the opposition come out and make bold claims, seeking to deride the incredible effort this government is making to ensure that people at a vulnerable stage of life get the support and assistance they need. It is particularly disappointing when they oppose every single measure that is necessary to underpin that proposition. If you want to afford aged-care places, you need people in jobs, you need people to be contributing and paying tax and you need to make sure we see growth in the economy to provide for those people who are most vulnerable. If you ever want to look at the vacancy in that policy position and the absent understanding of just how critical a stronger economy is, we only need look at the opposition benches and their policy framework. But let's get past their disappointment and get to the disappointment of the previous speaker. The previous speaker started with a long list of things that he wanted to blame on the Turnbull government. One of them apparently is the ageing population itself. An ageing population firstly is a celebration of technology and ingenuity and how people can live longer, happier, healthier lives—and manage chronic conditions. It is a power of the spirit of humanity and the technological improvements that have improved this country. But, even then, to blame the ageing population on the Turnbull government is frankly nothing short of absurd. When you look at why we have an ageing population, you see it isn't just because of the trajectory of the population; it's also because there was this big boom of people born in the middle of the 20th century. He may have forgotten, but the reason for that is that it was a legacy of war and everything else. And it's not just that a large number of people were being born. On top of that, people were able to go on to live longer, healthier and happier lives. So, on one level, we might as well accept that criticism; it's actually a compliment. But, to be frank, I don't think we can take responsibility for it. There has been no minister for aged care in this parliament that I have seen that cares as much as this Minister for Aged Care. He's come down to the Goldstein electorate to meet with local aged-care providers, support staff, workers and managers of local aged-care facilities, and we've been very proud to host him. Yes, he is, as some members have noted, received like a rock star, and he is a rock star, because he is compassionate, caring and mindful of the challenges and on top of every single part of the detail. Recently, in fact, we went to the opening of the Abberfield Aged Care Facility on Bluff Road in Sandringham, where a family has come together to invest in an aged-care facility. Every single client who lives in it expressed to me their deep satisfaction with the services and, particularly, the staff and their compassion and concern for how the clients are cared for. The fact that the minister turned up to open it was a great credit to him and a great contribution to that community. But it sits across a backdrop of the commitment that this government makes across the board and across the nation, not just in Goldstein. Year on year, under this government, home care packages have been up and residential care places are up, and every year aged-care funding has been up. I'm a Liberal. We don't just think about it in terms of dollars and cents; we also think about it in terms of outcomes. Every dollar that goes in has to deliver an outcome for Australians. And, it's not just that, since the coalition government has been elected, aged-care spending has increased by an average of more than six per cent per year—and that's on average a billion dollars of extra funding and support for older Australians each year. We have also been able to mobilise people to be able to live broader, fuller, healthier and happier lives. That is something that we are incredibly proud of, because it means that people at a vulnerable stage of life who aren't able to change their circumstances get the support and assistance they need. But it's not just in the provision of aged care, at home or in a centre, that there have been such huge improvements. It's also in the capacity to shift and focus on many of the other issues that affect people in an ageing population. Increasingly, through services like palliative care, we are providing support to people facing serious conditions and making sure they get the assistance they need, and addressing the challenges faced by those, like my grandmother, who face dementia. At every point, this government is delivering for Australians who are ageing. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Armenian Genocide 115 11:52 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I move: That this House: (1) notes that:    (a) the first major international humanitarian effort of the Commonwealth of Australia following Federation was to mount relief efforts for orphans and other survivors of the Armenian Genocide;    (b) Australia’s relief efforts were supported by Armenian relief committees established across the nation;    (c) the Australian Government made available the government steamer Hobsons Bay, to support those humanitarian relief efforts; and    (d) an Australasian Armenian relief committee was established by Reverend James Cresswell in 1922 to coordinate Australian relief efforts; (2) recognises:    (a) the extraordinary humanitarian efforts of the then newly formed Commonwealth of Australia for the orphans and other survivors of the Armenian Genocide, as well as the other Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire including Greeks and Assyrians, as one of Australia’s first major international humanitarian campaigns, which set a proud tradition of international humanitarian efforts by Australia;    (b) the tireless efforts of all of those Australian individuals and organisations involved in this historic humanitarian effort mobilising a broad spectrum of political, civic and religious leaders, including James Cresswell, Edith Glanville, Jessie Webb, Stanley Savage, Isobel Hutton and Cecilia John, as documented in the University of NSW Press publication Armenia Australia & The Great War authored by Professor Peter Stanley and Vicken Babkenian; and    (c) the special bond between Australia and Armenia forged by the humanitarian efforts of the newly formed Australian nation to support the Armenian people during one of the darkest chapters of modern human history; and (3) calls on the Australian Government to ensure that this important part of Australia’s history and the role of individual Australians supporting the victims of the Armenian genocide is properly commemorated. On the eve of Anzac Day, our own day of national commemoration, millions of people around the world, including in Australia, come together for a different purpose. They pause to remember those who perished in what was one of the great crimes of the modern era—the Armenian genocide. While very different, Anzac Day and the Armenian genocide are forever linked. Both are associated with events that commenced a day apart. As our ANZAC troops finalised preparations for the landings that would take place in the darkened hours of 25 April 1915, the intellectual, political and religious leadership of the Armenian community was being arrested in Constantinople. The two events were separated by around 300 kilometres, little more than the distance from Sydney to Canberra. On that night, 230 Armenians were arrested; just eight were ever to be seen again. It was the first act of a genocide which, over the course of the next eight years, would see up to 1.5 million Armenians murdered or die as a result of death marches, sickness or starvation. The linkages between the events of Gallipoli and the Armenian genocide run deeper than simply time and geography. Australian troops, particularly POWs held in Turkey, were to bear witness to many of the atrocities of the genocide. Many of the dead were interred in houses and churches that had been home to Armenian communities. Their experience was typified in the words of Lieutenant Leslie Luscombe, from Geelong, who was captured at Gallipoli. He wrote of what he witnessed at a railway junction in Turkey: On the platform a considerable number of Armenian women and children were huddled together … Turkish soldiers armed with whips were driving the women and children into the sheep trucks. It was evidently intended to transport them to some distant concentration camp … All the Armenian men that could be rounded up were liquidated. Australians, so far away but more aware than ever of this part of the world because of their own losses, rallied to support the victims of this genocide. This motion recognises those efforts, which, collectively, represented the first major international humanitarian effort of our still relatively new nation. In so doing, they started a tradition that has typified our role in the international community. Be it through the work of individuals, non-government organisations, our religious institutions or the federal government itself, Australia has proved time and again its generosity of spirit in helping those far from our shores who are in desperate need. The horrors of what was befalling the Armenian people motivated Australians from all walks of life—from the churches to our councils and parliaments, and, equally importantly, among our citizenry. Those relief efforts began in Victoria, with the establishment of the Armenian Relief Fund in 1915. By 1922, Armenian relief committees had been established in every state and territory, and an inspiring South Australian, the Reverend James Cresswell, was to become the national leader of Australia's contribution. Through those relief funds, the equivalent of some $1.5 million in today's terms was donated to help Armenian orphans and survivors—an incredible contribution from a nation that was emerging from its own losses during the Great War. In addition to financial relief, Australians donated urgently required food and other goods, and many travelled to the region to work in orphanages that became homes to tens of thousands of children who had lost their parents in the genocide. The efforts of those Australians who extended a helping hand and friendship across the globe should be recognised by this parliament, as they represent an important part of the early narrative of our own nation. We should be proud of their contribution and ensure that they are appropriate commemorated. In so doing, we will also be sending a powerful reminder that Australians will always stand against those who seek to commit acts of genocide or ethnic cleansing. In remembering the victim of the Armenian genocide and the Australians who came to their aid we send a message that the events which started in 1915 are not just some footnote in history. If we hide from the truth, if we fail to recognise the evil that was perpetrated against the Armenians, we simply provide succour to those today and in the future who think that they can deny the most important of human rights—life itself. At the most human level, we owe that recognition to those who today continue to bear the scars of the Armenian genocide—people like the Premier of New South Wales, Gladys Berejiklian; or my predecessor in North Sydney, Joe Hockey; or our colleague the member for Goldstein, whose own families were devastated by the Armenian genocide. We owe it to the thousands of Armenian Australians across our country who want the truth of the genocide to be known. That is surely not too much to ask. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion is seconded? 11:58 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I second the motion. One of the things Australia is renowned for is the generosity of its people, yet too often in this 21st century we hear people in our communities lament our level of investment in foreign aid. Foreign aid brings Australia respect and influence around the world. It helps keep the world stable in geostrategic terms. It creates and grows export markets for Australia. But, most of all, it is the right thing for a wealthy country like Australia to do. But our generosity comes not just through government. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Australians make their own donations to needy people elsewhere, typically in developing, failing and war-torn nation states. As the terms of the member for North Sydney's motion indicate, this is not a new phenomenon. It is a historical fact that, during the early hours of 25 April 2015, Armenian political, religious, educational and intellectual leaders in what is now Istanbul were arrested, deported to the interior and put to death. Many more were forced off their ancestral homelands, facing abuse, starvation and eventually—again—death. The work and efforts of those Australians who responded to the plight of the Armenian people in the years following 25 April 1915 were extraordinary. The work of those involved in the Armenian Relief Fund of Australia set an example which many have followed in the subsequent decades, and the establishment of the Australasian Orphanage must have had the collateral benefit of bolstering the reputation of the young Australian nation; it certainly forged enduring relationships between our two peoples. For Australians living in the first quarter of the 20th century, the historical homelands of the Armenians and other Christian minorities could hardly have been further away, yet widespread media coverage of their suffering at the hands of the Ottoman Turks was a call to arms for many here in Australia. The New York Times reported almost daily on the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the process as systematic as well as authorised and organised by the government. Theodore Roosevelt would characterise the events as 'the greatest crime of the war'. At least 1½ million Armenians lost their lives in that period. But, as is so often the case, despite the distance which separated them and the victims, the response of Australians seemed beyond what you'd expect from a distant, small and young nation-state. Of course, the bond between our two peoples had been forged out of the military presence in the region of the Anzacs. Many Anzacs witnessed and recorded the shocking treatment of the Armenian people. I've had the honour of laying a wreath at what is known as the Armenian Genocide Museum in Yerevan, Armenia's modern-day capital. Like my visit to the World Holocaust Remembrance Center in Israel, it was a deeply emotional experience. Of course, there are sensitivities about the use of the word genocide, and I understand that. But surely we spend too much time arguing about a descriptor, a word, and too little time providing closure for so many Armenians, Assyrians and other minorities. Whatever the words used, the fact is that between 1915 and 1923, hundreds of thousands lost their lives at the hands of the Ottoman Turks for no other reason than their religion or ethnicity. Up to 30 countries around the world, and our own New South Wales parliament, have now declared the actions of the Ottomans an act of genocide. I do not believe the ongoing failure of Australia to do the same helps rebuild trust and relationships. Indeed, it may further inflame tensions. We invest so much in the strength of our international relationships, and yet I believe one further act could further strengthen our place in the world. The failure to have a debate certainly does not send the right messages. Remember, it was Hitler who, ahead of his invasion of Poland in 1939, said, 'Who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?' Australia has built much strength and earned great respect internationally and domestically as a result of our willingness to recognise and take collective responsibility for our treatment of our Indigenous peoples in the years following European settlement. Others around the world can learn from our experience, our actions and, of course, our courage. 12:03 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I rise to second this motion and thank my friend, colleague and neighbour the member for North Sydney for bringing forward this critical debate. Let me say from the outset, it is clear and unequivocal that the murder of Armenian nationals by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923 constituted genocide. This motion brings pride to students of Australian history—the pride of knowing that our forebears saw a people suffering on the other side of the world, then joined hands that together stretched across 14,000 kilometres of sea and terrain that separated Australia and western Armenia to help those who miraculously survived the Armenian genocide. As the member for Bennelong, I represent an electorate with more Australians of Armenian origin than any other member of parliament. They are almost all survivors of the Armenian genocide. All of them lost family members. All of them lost their homes. All of them want justice. All of them are proud that Australia, the place where they were forced to make their home but loved without exception, did its bit and more to help their suffering ancestors. I've long called for this parliament to recognise the Armenian genocide. I'm happy that today, by debating this motion, we are taking a significant step towards achieving that goal by recognising Australia's first major humanitarian relief effort—and what an effort it was! By late 1922, survivors of the Armenian genocide, who'd fled from Ottoman persecution, were scattered across the Middle East and Europe and were heavily dependent on foreign aid. Reverend James Cresswell, a congressional minister from Adelaide, also assisted the Armenian relief fund and was unanimously appointed as the national secretary of the Australasian Armenian relief fund. Reverend Cresswell assisted with the establishment of the Australasian orphanage in Antelias, Lebanon, in November 1922, which housed the surviving orphans of the Armenian genocide. Over 17,000 orphans, who'd lost their mothers and fathers, were housed at the Australasian orphanage, some of whom later had the privilege and opportunity to call Australia home. The director of the orphanage was Captain James Knudsen, an ANZAC war veteran. He was assisted by Hilda King, secretary of the Australian Student Christian Movement, and, later, Melbourne nurse, Miss R Gordon, who both greatly assisted relief efforts and devoted most of their energy to the advancement of the institution. The orphanage was part of a global network of over 200 orphanages, which fed and housed over 130,000 orphans. I would like to also recognise the Republic of Turkey that grew from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. It is not the same nation that committed those atrocities, but a nation with which Western countries now enjoy strong diplomatic relations and healthy trade, commerce and tourism. In fact, my partner's daughter today is holidaying in Turkey. We've seen repeatedly, through international history, that the first step down this long road is the acknowledgment of past wrongs. This step helps not only to honour the dead but also to ensure that the passage of time is not used to deny or distort historical truth. Joined by my colleagues today, and by Joe Hockey before us in this place, many political leaders around the world have rightly called the atrocities that took place between 1915 and 1923 against the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek peoples by its correct term—genocide. These include Pope Francis, President Ronald Reagan, Stephen Harper, Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel and many more. Today I join them in calling for Australia to recognise the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocide. I am patiently waiting for the day that Australia not only recognises our efforts to aid refugees and orphans of the Armenian genocide but also joins with 30 other countries calling for Turkey to recognise the events of 1915 as genocide. 12:07 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It is right and proper that this parliament recognises the events of this great humanitarian crisis inflicted upon the Armenian people and others at this time—and I congratulate the member for North Sydney and the member for Hunter for ensuring that we do so. Of course, it's particularly important to recognise the humanitarian efforts of Australians, which were, perhaps, the beginnings of those links of friendship and comradeship between the Australian people and Armenian and Assyrian people and all those affected by those terrible, terrible events. Australian soldiers had a chance during World War I to interact with the Armenian people in particular. Many Australian soldiers who were taken prisoner were billeted in the former homes of Armenians—that is, Armenians had been expelled from their homes, and their homes had been ransacked, pillaged and, in many senses, almost destroyed, and Australians were put up in them. One Australian solider, Thomas Walter White, described the scene he witnessed. He said: A number of Armenian women and children of all ages sat outside the church on bundles of clothing. They looked very sad and miserable, and little wonder, for their menfolk had been killed, their houses and furniture confiscated and now they were being turned into the street from their last possible sanctuary. Of course, those Australian solders were particularly keen to be generous in providing any support they could when they saw what was happening to the Armenian, Assyrian and Pontic Greek people. There are many great people named in the motion. In particular, I want to mention Stanley Savige—I've met his descendants at commemorations, and they are very proud of Sir Stanley—an Australian Army soldier who served in the First World War and the Second World War. In 1918, Lieutenant General Savige served in the campaign in which he was instrumental in protecting thousands of Assyrian refugees in particular. Following the capture of Urmia, Savige discovered tens of thousands of fleeing Assyrian refugees. He deployed a small group of volunteers from his own force, along with the refugees, to form a rearguard to hold back the Persians and Kurds in this great conflagration. I know other members will have covered the matter of the Armenians, but I want to make particular reference to the suffering of Assyrians at this time. The Assyrian people, the native Christians of Iraq, Syria and Iran, obviously feel these events very closely today. It is considered that 750,000 people died, with hundreds of villages burned and churches destroyed. The Assyrians have a word for these events, 'Seyfo'. I've been to the Seyfo commemorations on many occasions. The Seyfo covers not only these terrible events but also the 1933 massacre of Assyrians at Simele by Iraqi government forces, in which 3,000 Assyrians were killed. Seyfo means a lot to the Assyrian people because it was one of the starkest examples of generations of suffering the Assyrian people have encountered. The week before last I visited Iraq. I had lunch with His Holiness the Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East in Erbil. I met with many other leaders, including the Chaldean patriarch in Baghdad. I will report to the House separately on my visit to Iraq. It was important for me to see the state of minorities in Iraq as we speak, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Yazidis and others. Our work is not yet done. As we focus on tomorrow and on the oppressed people of Iraq and providing refuge to so many thousands—as we have done and should continue to do—we should also recognise the importance of historical events, which this motion does. The average Australian in 1918 would not have heard of Armenians or Assyrians or Pontic Greeks. The average Assyrian or Armenian probably would not have been able to tell you where Australia was. Yet these bonds of friendship were created at that time. I think that, in some ways, it's why we provided such refuge—particularly to Assyrians but also to Armenians and all people affected—so many years later, in the 1980s and 1990s. Even today, my electorate office deals regularly, on a daily basis, with assisting more refugees being settled in Australia. I welcome them myself sometimes at morning teas after their arrival from the terrible devastation of Syria or Mosul in Iraq. There are few greater pleasures I have as a member of parliament than holding those morning teas, welcoming those refuges. I do so in recognition of the longstanding support that Australia has given to the people affected by these terrible events: the gut reaction, the on-the-ground immediate reaction of the Australian soldiers, which was followed up by charity efforts afterwards at home. I commend the motion to the House. (Time expired) 12:13 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Recently this House commemorated the charge of the light horse brigade at Beersheba, representing 100 years since the wells at Beersheba were taken, opening the way for the end of the third Gaza battle and for the light horse to assist General Allenby to take Jerusalem on 11 December 1917. It put to flight the 500-year rule of the Ottoman Empire in the Holy Land, the Holy Land I note that many Armenian monks had settled in from early in the fifth century, and now occupy the Armenian quarter of the ancient city—although, it's only about 14 per cent. Those are streets I have wandered dozens of time, and I have eaten far too much fine Armenian food in that magnificent city. The Australian light horse would fight through the Jordan Valley, finishing at the battle of Samakh on 25 September 1918. Damascus would fall on 1 October and, of course, the Ottoman Empire would fall on its sword on the ship HMS Agamemnon on 30 October 1918. The fight against the Ottomans would continue by the Turkish independence movement and by so many others until the last sultan left in November 1922. Our history in the region has been vast. What so many don't realise is that, amongst the fight and all of that history, for so long a people bore the brunt of aggression from the Ottomans. Those people were the Armenians. On 25 April 1915 Australian soldiers valiantly went ashore at Gallipoli. Unbeknownst to us, the day before, 200 to 300 Armenians were rounded up—it was the beginning of what many have called the genocide of the Armenian people. It was not the only time; tragically, the first time was in 1896. Around 50,000 Australians of Armenian descent from 43 different nations now live in Australia, which is pretty exciting. The first Armenians came here during the gold rush, as did so many other people seeking fortunes and new lives. Large numbers came after the 1896 tragic events, many others following 1915 and 1922. The majority came in the sixties and seventies from the Middle East after Nasser came to power in Egypt, and many more came after the occupation of Cyprus and the civil unrest in Lebanon, Syria and, of course, the horrific situation in Iran. The last wave came in the 1980s, following the devastating earthquake in Armenia in 1998, and in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the USSR. Armenian Australians bring a fantastic social culture. They bring a contribution. They bring great success in law, banking, finance and sport. They bring great political representations such as a former New South Wales Treasurer and now New South Wales Premier, and Mr Wilson, the member for Goldstein, with whom I've spoken this morning. Mr Wilson is apparently one-quarter Armenian, as he said in his maiden speech. Our culture is enriched by those who have come. The tragedy, though, is that so many Armenians have come because of the bloodshed enacted against them—not just in 1896 but through 1915 to 1922. We acknowledge in this Chamber on 25 April 1915 that a bunch of colonies became a country when 50 per cent of Australia's able-bodied men from 18 to 45 signed up to fight. And, whilst Australia formed its sense of modern identity on the battlefields starting with Gallipoli, Armenia formed its sense of great and secondary tragedy from the events that followed. These things should not be hidden. They should be discussed. They should be open. Reconciliation comes from an honest appraisal of events and an honest appraisal of history. I thank the member for his motion this morning that seeks to bring an honest appraisal of events that happened 100 years ago. Time should never extinguish events, but it should give us time to reflect, to heal and to seek to move on. I am exceptionally proud of what our Armenian communities have done in Australia. It is hard moving from a land you love—a land replete with history and wonder, and a land that goes back not just centuries but millennia—to come to a new country: a young country with modern standards and an ancient country in terms of those who came first. As we seek to understand—not to hide from but to seek reconciliation from the past—I reach out and welcome our Armenian communities to a modern Australia, to know that this now, for those who live here, is your home. You are extraordinarily welcome, and we look forward to working together as we build stronger, safer and more inclusive communities. 12:17 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I'd like to start by thanking the member for North Sydney for bringing this important motion and to also welcome everybody here in the chamber today who's come to listen to this motion. Many of the speakers before me have spoken quite frankly and openly about the issues that happened 100 years ago. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise this as just one example of Australia's humanitarian efforts during wartime. Australians are known for our warmth and generosity, and there are many stories of our humanitarian efforts. The humanitarian effort with the Armenians, though, was Australia's first as a Commonwealth nation. Wherever they went in the Middle East, Australian forces encountered Armenians. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that a community of several thousand lived in Egypt, mostly in Cairo, and that the Anzacs, who were stationed at the Mena Camp in Cairo, met these Armenians as they patronised their businesses. I've been to Mena House several times in Cairo, and each time I'm regaled with stories of the Australian history and presence there. Here's a little known story: in December 1914, Henry Miller Lanser, a motor mechanic from Sydney, visited a recording studio in Cairo owned by an Armenian Setrak Mechian, and he recorded a Christmas message to his family back in Australia. It is the only known recorded letter by made by an Australian soldier during the First World War and perhaps the only one in existence. In late 1915, 5,000 Armenians were rescued from the Mediterranean coast by a French cruiser. They were taken to Egypt to Port Said using three Australian transport ships. The Egyptian government established a camp for the Armenian refugees. There are many, many more stories of encounters between Australians and Armenians during the war. The Australian-Armenian humanitarian the effort culminated in the establishment in Lebanon of the Australian-run orphanage in late 1922. The Australian-run orphanage housed around 1,700 Armenian orphans. The Australasian Armenian Relief Fund was formed during that year, and its secretary, the Reverend James Cresswell, toured the Armenian refugee camps and orphanages in the following year, documenting some of the heartbreaking images of suffering among the Armenians he saw there. Australia responded, with then PM Billy Hughes allowing for free transport of relief supplies for Armenian refugees on the new Commonwealth line of steamers right up until 1929. After the war Armenian migrants to Australia increased, particularly in the 1960s. The largest single group came from Egypt in 1962 and 1963 as a result of the nationalist movement in Egypt by Gamal Abdel Nasser, which saw the expulsion of Greeks, Armenians, Italians and Maltese, predominantly out of the port city of Alexandria, which, incidentally, is where I was born. Australia has had a long relationship with Armenia and with its people, as we have had with many other nations. The relationship with Armenia, though, is characterised by a humanitarian bond exhibited through a range of humanitarian efforts by Australians and a relationship forged by respect for human life. Australians should indeed be proud of our history. We should be proud of our history of humanitarianism—something that we might want to reflect on from time to time, because this history is part of the forging of our nation's character and our Australian values. The humanitarian efforts by Australians towards Armenians should be recognised as an important part of our history. It serves to remind us all that even in war there is heroism, compassion and a shared humanity. Once again I thank the member for North Sydney for bringing forth this motion. I believe it is a very important motion for the Armenian people in Australia, and I hope that this motion starts a long road to reconciliation that is much needed for the people of Armenia. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Violence Against Women 120 12:23 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I move: That this House: (1) notes that the rape and murder of Eurydice Dixon is the 30th instance of a woman being killed by men's violence against women in 2018; (2) recognises the importance of providing strong leadership in changing men's behaviour towards women to prevent such behaviour by men; (3) understands that: (a) at least one women a week in Australia is killed at the hands of a man, usually a current or former partner; (b) one in three Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15; and (c) one in five women has experienced sexual violence; (4) acknowledges the social and economic impact that violence against women has on our communities; and (5) encourages all Australians to not wait until International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (White Ribbon Day) in November to be active, engage on this issue and take action. It shakes me to my core that in 2018 women are still not safe on our streets, in our communities and, more disturbingly, in their own homes. Women have been marching to reclaim the night since the 1970s and, frankly, I am tired of trying to take back something that should not have been taken from us to begin with. Rape, violence and murder still continue to be perpetrated against women, largely by men known to them. They are women who deserved better than what this government has done to protect them. I acknowledge all the women who have been killed at the hands of men. They were vibrant women who deserved better than to have their lives simply extinguished in moments, their final breaths painful and extremely violent. At the request of Eurydice Dixon's family, I wish today to remember all women killed by violence this year: Qi Yu, Caroline Willis, Karen Ashcroft, Cynda Miles, Katrina Miles, Debbie Combargno, Cecilia Haddad, Kay Dix, Teah Luckwell, Simone Fraser, Katherine Daley, Kerrie Keath, Marija Karovska, Le Ngoc Le, Sally Rothe, Radmila Stevanovic, Noura Khatib, Nancy Barclay, Amelia Blake, Antonia Tatchell, Margaret Indich and eight other, unnamed, women. One of these women was killed violently across the road from my own home. Time limits exclude me recounting the terrible ways in which all these women's final moments were spent. It is our collective responsibility to remember these women and act to keep all women across Australia safe. I applaud the work that is being done by the Andrews government in Victoria, which is being led by their Minister for Women, Natalie Hutchins, and their new TV advertising campaign calling out disrespect of women. Lasting and meaningful change for women is what this country needs. It means leading by example and lifting your own standards, and holding those around you to account if they do or say something disrespectful to women. This is the exact kind of campaign we need to change the behaviour that we see far too often. We have had a Prime Minister who has had no shortage of opportunities to call out his own members, senators and party members for disrespect, and each time he has failed dismally. The Prime Minister, at every opportunity—and that's every opportunity where he's wearing a white ribbon or a purple ribbon for White Ribbon Day or International Women's Day—says: … not all disrespect of women ends up in violence against women, but all violence against women begins with disrespecting women. What I hear from our community is, 'But what is he doing about it?' He has had ample time to stand up for women, which would mean standing up to his own colleagues. When Michaelia Cash, the then employment minister, cast aspersions over young, aspirational women working in the opposition leader's office, he said nothing. This was disrespect. He had the chance when the health minister got busted for verbally abusing and physically intimidating a woman, who then only apologised months after the media intervened. He missed his opportunity again. Recently, at a Liberal Party meeting, where an older women was physically assaulted by a man, he said nothing. These are all examples of disrespect towards women, and they are all reasonable and fine opportunities for this Prime Minister to demonstrate that his commitment to women is not just a set of well-chosen words; they are opportunities for him to demonstrate that he is prepared to act. His words and his actions do not accord with community expectations. We need a leader to lead, to act on real reform when it comes to violence against women; however, he has shown absolute cowardice in his ability to call out poor behaviour in his own cabinet. Silence and inaction will only allow this disrespect to continue. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. It is time this man raised his own bar and set the standard for the people around him and this country. The Liberals talk a big game about being responsible economic managers; if this government is serious about creating real and meaningful change in this country, they would save the Australian economy an estimated $21.7 billion a year, not to mention countless lives of the women who deserve better. We need to speak up and we expect our leader to stand up. We need to speak up for the women who can no longer speak for themselves, women whose lives were tragically cut short by the scourge of gendered violence, because enough really is enough. The women of this country deserve better, and we need to act now before another woman is killed at the hands of her partner or at the hands of another man. The most dangerous place for a woman on a Saturday night is in her own home surrounded by the people who love or claim to love her. This is not something that I want for my daughters, who are now 16 and 10. I do not want them marching for another 30 years in the streets to reclaim the night. May the women that we've lost already this year to gender violence rest in peace. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is the motion seconded? Ms O'Toole 249908 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 12:28 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I, too, want to thank the member for Lindsay for putting this motion before the chamber. I was delighted to be able to prepare my contribution along the totally non-political lines that I expected this debate to be held in. Unfortunately, I was hugely disappointed that the member for Lindsay decided to try and make this some form of political fight against Malcolm Turnbull. However, we just have to move on from this. Ms Husar interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member will be heard without interruption. Mr DRUM 56430 I want to simply lodge my support for the total push that this society has to have to make women feel safe in our community. If we do have an election in 12 months time and the Labor Party are lucky enough to win that election, they're not going to be able to stop domestic violence in the way that they think they might. However, the murder of Eurydice Dixon last week certainly has shocked everybody in Australia and it has brought this issue to the fore once again. It has also brought to the fore the statistic of one woman being murdered every week, effectively, in Australia. It has made all Australians sit up and think, 'What more can we be doing to make sure that this doesn't happen again?' I have a daughter who lives in Melbourne, not far from where Eurydice Dixon was murdered last week, and that rocks a father to the core. It goes back to those conversations that I think all fathers have to have with their sons, talking to them at the very earliest opportunity to ensure that they understand the high bar that needs to be set in relation to respect for women. As the Prime Minister has rightly said, not all disrespect for women ends up in violence against women, but that's where all violence against women begins. We need to go on from that, and we need to make sure that in no way are we prepared to normalise the statistics that we have just read out. The 20-odd names that the member for Lindsay read to the chamber represent a totally heartbreaking story for each and every one of those families. It is ridiculous in this First World nation that we have such statistics and facts as part of our society. I know that the Assistant Minister for Children and Families, David Gillespie, is working hard on the Safer Pathways network, which aims to increase the uptake of services for the prevention of domestic and family violence. In the budget that has just been handed down, the coalition government committed $54.4 million for services for women affected by violence and for online safety initiatives. Some of these budget initiatives include $11.5 million for the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT—and that program is going to run for two years; $6.7 million to maintain funding for DV-alert, to continue domestic violence response training for our community frontline workers; and $14.2 million for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, to make cyberspace safe for women. The 2018-19 budget builds on more than $300 million that has been spent on women's safety in previous budgets. The government's existing investment in women's safety includes $100 million that was provided for a women's safety package in September 2015, with $59 million for practical, immediate action to keep women and children safe. There was also $36 million allocated for support and training for frontline services to deliver high-quality services for women who are in need. The opportunity has never been greater for women to be able to do whatever they want, but right at the core of that is the responsibility of any society to keep its women and children safe. This motion is particularly about our women. They have the right to be safe, and we need to do everything that we can to assist with that aim and that right. 12:33 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I'm saddened to speak on this motion put forward by the member for Lindsay, but I thank her for moving it. I am sickened by the senseless death of young, talented Eurydice Dixon and would like to take this opportunity to extend my condolences to her family, her friends and her fans. I am also saddened that Eurydice was the 30th woman to be killed by men's violence against women in 2018. I acknowledge the member for Lindsay reading out that long list of names. Sadly, we are not even quite halfway through the year—too many deaths. Eurydice's death has touched many, right across the country. The fact that we are in parliament today speaking on this motion bears testimony to this. Let's make sure that her death, as horrific and sad as it is, is a catalyst for change. Violence against women weighs heavy on this nation's soul. It is everyone's business and everyone's problem, and it's particularly incumbent upon me and all men to force change. Before we can fix a problem, we need to better understand it. Fortunately we have some wonderful organisations in Australia who assist women who have suffered violence by men. I'd like to particularly mention the Women's Legal Service Queensland, who are located in Annerley in my electorate of Moreton. Some of these organisations are also doing valuable research so we can learn about the signs and triggers when it comes to violence against women. From this research, some of the persistent myths peddled by some people are gradually being dispelled. Myths like: violence against women is perpetrated by average blokes who snap and turn violent out of the blue. Research by the Domestic and Family Violence Death Review Network showed that men commit 80 per cent of murders in couples with a history of domestic violence. Overwhelmingly, the majority of those men had a history of abusing the women that they ultimately killed. One-third of these murders were committed by men after the relationship had ended. This research is important. It tells us there are warning signs—warning signs that we are ignoring. Further data was released last week from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. That data should make all Australian men stop and think. It revealed a 40.7 per cent average increase in domestic violence and 71.8 per cent increase in non-domestic assaults across New South Wales on State of Origin game nights. Over the six years that the data was collated, the spike in domestic and non-domestic violence on State of Origin game nights was significant and consistent. In the 12 hours from 6 pm on game nights, women and children in New South Wales are almost 40 per cent more likely to become victims of domestic violence. I'm sure Queensland, sadly, would replicate those results, depending on what happens on the field that night. This is a frightening statistic. I mean, I love the State of Origin series. I get a bit sad sometimes. But I think sport contributes to a cohesive society, but with statistics like these that I've just mentioned, we need to take a closer look at what we can do to curb these spikes in violence. The State of Origin series is played by men; I know there is a women's game started, but these statistics relate to the men's series. The State of Origin and Rugby League in Australia are governed overwhelmingly by men. It is clear from this research that Rugby League games are actually putting women at risk. It's clear from this research that we need to do more. What we don't know is why. This is a problem that men have the power to fix and that men need to fix, and men need to fix it now. It is unacceptable that women live in fear of being injured or killed by a male partner or former partner, and it is unacceptable that women are sometimes blamed when men rape or murder them. Obviously, most men are good, decent people who would never hurt a woman, but it is up to good, decent men and good, decent women to call out behaviour that contributes to violence against women—particularly men, all men. White Ribbon Australia suggests five actions for men. No. 1 if someone says something that makes you feel uncomfortable, ask them to repeat it or say to them, 'I'm not sure what you mean.' No. 2 bring it home; challenge the person who is being disrespectful by saying, 'What if this was your sister or your daughter or your son?' No. 3 turn the conversation around by saying, 'I believe abusing a woman is wrong.' No. 4, if you're in a group and the conversation is uncomfortable, ask if anyone else feels uncomfortable too. No. 5 talk to the person privately about what they said or did and its effect on others. Sadly, nothing will bring Eurydice Dixon back, but she should never be forgotten. We all have the power to prevent more violence against women. Let's start today. I again thank the member for Lindsay for having the courage and conviction to bring this motion into the parliament. 12:38 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my pleasure to rise and speak on this motion, albeit a motion that reflects on the terrible and tragic death of a young woman in Melbourne, Eurydice Dixon, and I want to say my heartfelt condolences go to her friends and to her family. This was a tragic and horrific death—a death that, like every other death of any woman in a violent situation, should never have happened. There is no doubt that, as we all know, domestic violence and family violence is a scourge in our community. It is absolutely unacceptable that on average one woman every week is dying at the hands of a partner or former partner. This is an unbearable statistic, and I'm very proud of the work that we as a committee—the member for Lindsay and other members of the committee, and of course the member for Chisholm, who is here with me—have done in making a range of recommendations to address family violence law reform in the federal context. I do want to make this particular point, though: this terrible and tragic death did not happen in a domestic violence setting. Eurydice Dixon died at the hands of someone we understand she did not know. It was, for all we know, a psychopath. Frankly, anyone who does this is not mentally well, is psychopathic in their treatment of any other person. We all deserve, whether we are women or men, to be able to walk through the streets or through our parks in safety. Of course, that is not guaranteed, and that's why I commend Victoria Police for the warning that they gave, saying 'please be careful', because at the time they gave the warning to Melburnians the alleged perpetrator of this evil act had not been arrested or caught. I remind everyone that this matter is before the courts, so we need to be very careful about what we say in relation to this terrible and tragic murder. First of all, I want to make it clear that I commend Victoria Police. I don't think it's right that Victoria Police were criticised in the aftermath of this tragedy, because, frankly, whether you're a young woman or a young man, in a dangerous situation it is perfectly appropriate for Victoria Police to issue such a warning. I know that any parent would want that warning, whether they be the parent of a young woman or a young man, or anyone, in fact, who is walking through a park where a terrible tragedy such as this had just occurred. As police have said, it is dangerous, so it is very appropriate and proper that the community should be appropriately warned. I will reflect on an article written by Karen Matthews in The Geelong Advertiser just last Saturday, in which she made that very point. She said she found some of the sentiments to be offensive. She said, It began with a wave of indignation by some criticising police for advising women to be mindful of their safety while walking alone at night. She went on to write: Now I don't know what police were supposed to say following such an awful crime but I'm pretty sure it wasn't, "Everything is OK, keep doing what you're doing, you'll be right." Critics also chose to ignore the fact that at that particular stage, no one had yet been apprehended and charged over the killing, so not only was the advice given by police appropriate but also vital to the protection of others. I absolutely agree with the sentiment of Karen Matthews and many others in our community who have commended the police. I will finish by saying I'm incredibly proud of the Turnbull government's commitment to women's safety. In this budget we've made a range of commitments. Another $54.4 million is being committed for the 1800RESPECT line for more investment in front-line workers right across the spectrum, and we will to work very hard to keep women in our community safe. (Time expired) 12:43 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I too rise to speak on this very important motion on violence against women that is before the House and to thank the member for Lindsay for bringing this forward. I was very pleased to be able to second the motion. The death of Eurydice Dixon was tragic news across the nation. She was on her way home from a comedy gig, crossing a park, Princes Park in Melbourne, when she was raped and murdered. Her body was found the next morning by a random passer-by. I didn't know Eurydice, but from all accounts she was a bold, sassy and fabulously opinionated woman, and her life was cut tragically short by a senseless act of violence purely and simply because she was there and she was a woman. I don't think we should tiptoe around the fact that we have a problem with gendered violence in Australia. That is very clear from all the evidence before us. There is perhaps no clearer symbol of the entrenched gendered inequities than the epidemic of violence and harassment against women in Australia. Certainly, there has been a 13 per cent increase in partner violence against women since 2012. In 2016 alone, over 210,000 Australian women experienced violence at the hands of a current or former partner. Eurydice's death was not at the hands of a former or current partner, but it is very clear that her death is very much part of a much larger issue of gendered violence in Australia. One in two Australian women have been sexually harassed in their lifetimes—that's what our research now tells us. Again, last year alone, 1.6 million women reported being sexually harassed. These are not small and insignificant numbers. We need to be really clear here that it is not about women having to modify their behaviours. Women have absolutely every right to feel safe in public spaces; in their workplaces; in their homes, where most of this violence against women actually takes place; or indeed online, which is becoming an increasingly problematic area of safety for women. Last year I was part of a major consultation process across the nation that the Labor Party undertook in terms of what Australian women expected from governments, and I can tell you that, if violence against women isn't the No. 1 issue, it is always one of the top three issues. When you talk to Australian women, whether they're in cities, country towns or regional centres, regardless of their class and status in society, this is the No. 1 issue, as it should be with figures like those we've seen already. If anything is to come from the tragic loss of Eurydice's life, and the 29 other women who have been killed in acts of violence this year alone, then we need to understand that there are serious structural reforms that need to take place in Australia—reforms to ensure that our prevention agencies, like Our Watch and ANROWS, are adequately funded and supported; that things like respectful relationships in education programs are supported and undertaken in this country; that we have a national focus on the prevention of sexual harassment in workplaces, university campuses and colleges; and that we properly fund women's specialist services, homelessness and legal services, and services for women escaping violence. Nothing less will do. 12:48 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm Eurydice Dixon was 22 years old, a budding comedian and well loved in her community in Melbourne. Her life was tragically ended by the actions of another, and her death has created a shock wave throughout the community, our city of Melbourne and across the nation. Women and men from all over Melbourne, from varied backgrounds and of diverse ages, gathered at Carlton's Princes Park in a silent vigil to mourn this tragic loss of life, as we did in Parliament House in Canberra. Eurydice Dixon was the victim of a shocking crime. As has recently been reported, Victoria Police Commissioner Graham Ashton said: In society, even in the safest society, evil occurs. People will do evil things and for reasons you just can't understand. You see it in every community in the world. And we as a nation saw evil and grief for Eurydice Dixon and her family and friends. Our Australian culture does not condone violence against women, and it is wrong to attribute responsibility for such violence and attitudes to all men. When one man commits an evil act it should not be collectively attributed to all men. Men who abuse or commit violent crimes against women are held as much in contempt by Australian men as they are by Australian women. As we know, it has been reported that, shockingly, the most likely place for a woman to be killed is in her own home. Domestic homicides occur when the victim is killed by a family member or partner, and the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic homicides are women. As parents, we have a responsibility to raise our children to have and show respect for all people in their lives and, especially, to tackle entrenched cultural and societal bias against women. In the workplace and in the community, we must facilitate complex discussions about the barriers to equality and, with particular reference to this motion, about the barriers which denigrate respect to women. The Turnbull government has a zero tolerance for violence against women, and we have already committed $54.4 million to services for women affected by violence and for online safety initiatives for women. We've committed an additional $11½ million for the national sexual assault, domestic and family violence counselling service 1800RESPECT over the next two years as a frontline response service for affected survivors. We've also delivered $6.7 million to maintain funding for DV-alert to continue its domestic violence response training for community frontline workers, $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace safer for women and, importantly, $22 million over five years to address abuse of older Australians, which affects up to 20 per cent of elderly women. This builds on the more than $300 million that has been spent on women's safety. Approximately every seven minutes Victoria Police receives a call for a family violence incident. In nearly all of these cases it is a woman on other end of the line seeking police assistance, who is calling from their home or who has fled their violent partner or spouse. I disagree with the unwarranted criticism of Victoria Police in the context of the Eurydice Dixon case. Their advice was well intentioned and in the context of a horrific crime. I would like to place on record my gratitude to Victoria Police, to its frontline defenders and preventers of violence against women, such as the wonderful and too-often unsung heroes at the Family Violence Command. I would also like to thank local figures in my electorate of Chisholm, such as the Box Hill police station's Senior Sergeant Ron Sinclair and his amazing team, who work day in, day out and have played an integral role in engaging culturally and linguistically diverse leaders throughout Chisholm to drive change within our community in this regard. In closing, I would like to repeat the words which have been said before by our Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull with respect to violence against women. Those words are: Disrespecting women doesn't always result in violence against women but all violence against women begins with disrespecting women. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. International Olympiads for Science, Maths and Technology 125 12:53 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I move: That this House: (1) congratulates the six teams comprising Australia’s brightest high school students chosen to compete in the International Olympiads for science, maths and technology; (2) recognises the work and effort these students put in to win the coveted spots in the team; (3) notes that the Australian government has committed a total of $4.1 million over four years to help our best and brightest compete globally; and (4) looks forward to hearing about the performance of the teams following the olympiad. I'm extremely proud to be moving this motion today, to congratulate and acknowledge the hard work of the students who will soon be travelling overseas to represent Australia in the International Olympiads for science, maths and technology. We have lots of very talented people right across all generations, but, as the youngest member of the House of Representatives, making exciting opportunities and new horizons available and accessible for our youngest generations, not only in Dunkley but across the nation, is something close to my heart. We live in a changing world where ensuring that our students keep pace with educational opportunities and successes internationally become more important with every year. I'm very proud of our young students who have reached these incredibly high stages of their studies, and I know they're proud to represent Australia. I would like my colleagues to join me in congratulating the following students. The following students are representing Australia in biology: Sai Campbell, Shanni Chen, Luke Hemmingsen and Jessica Law. The following students are representing Australia in chemistry: Kieran Connor, Richard Huang, Raymond Li, Phillip Liang. The following students are representing Australia in earth science: Rebecca Whittle, Wayne Wong, Rose Zhang and Kim Zheng. The following students are representing Australia in informatics: Jerry Mao, Angus Ritossa, Albert Smith and Jacob Smith. The following students are representing Australia in mathematics: William Hu, Charles Li, William Steinberg, Ethan Tan, Hayden Tang and Guowen Zhang. The following students are representing Australia in physics: Stephen Catsamas, Boris Deletic, Alicia Lieng, Hugo McCahon-Boersma and Vladimir Mikho. It's great to see such a solid Victorian contingent in that list. I know they will do us in Victoria proud, and they will do the rest of Australia proud too. These six teams representing excellence in these different fields are travelling to all different locations across the world, which will be a wonderful experience for any young student. While I note that this year there wasn't a representative from my electorate of Dunkley, I have been very proud to support other students from my own electorate representing Australia internationally. Only last Friday I gave an ambassador pack to Olivia Robinson, who was travelling to Japan in July for the 30th Asian-Pacific Children's Convention. I congratulate Olivia on her wonderful success in being selected as one of only a few students across Australia to go to this convention. Going back to the topic at hand, we have lots of young people who are competing on the international stage. Australia brought home gold from the International Olympiad in Informatics last year. That's why the Australian government has committed a total of $4.1 million over four years to help our best and brightest compete in international competitions like this. Minster Cash and Minister Seselja recently met with the Australian delegation, where they received their team blazers. I think this is fantastic because it shows the absolute support and commitment to competitions like this. Just as we support people travelling overseas for major sporting competitions and the like, it is important that we promote participation in intellectual Olympic Games, and these students, soon heading off, will do us proud. These spots are extremely competitive to achieve, and the international competition is sure to exceed what these students have faced before, but just making it to the competition shows their dedication and hard work. This battle of the minds is sure to be incredibly exciting, and I look forward to hearing about our six teams' success when they return. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP Is there a seconder for the motion? 12:57 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I second the motion. 12:58 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It gives me great pleasure to speak on this, because I think these types of events are absolutely important to showcase young talent in our nation, particularly focusing on endeavours that will be important for the country in the years ahead. We know that technology will have a profound impact on the way we work and live our lives generally. The way that communities will operate will either make them more connected or less. It will either make them much better off or see jobs change in a way that will leave people negatively impacted. The challenge for the country, as it is in most parts of the world and especially in our regional neighbourhood, is to invest in human capital, to lift the skills base of people, particularly our next generation, to be able to manage the types of changes to come. Events like the Olympiad, which has been highlighted helpfully by the member, are important ways we can celebrate the achievements of that next generation. A lot of us heartily celebrate and recognise the people who have been able to secure a spot in the Olympiad that is fast approaching, particularly in terms of science, maths and technology. We do wish them all the very best. I note that hundreds of schools across the country competed and that nearly 6,000 students were involved. In a competition like this, which is trying to ensure that the best and brightest represent us, you will have a group of people who will be very successful as well as those who wish they had been able to secure better success than they did achieve. In looking at the list, I have no doubt it is a very strong group, but this debate throws up something that we need to think about more. A lot of the schools represented there are schools that pride themselves on these endeavours, but I want to see more public schools, and public schools from our outer regions, do well in this. The reason is that, if they do well, you can expect that the breadth of focus, the talent development and the investment in human capital are not being concentrated within the areas closest to the CBDs of our country but there is a wider effort and a wider endeavour. This is very important. I take nothing away from the students who have been able to secure this. I think we should be aiming higher and ensuring that our ambitions lift. I am very proud that, in our part of Western Sydney, there are a number of schools that are focused a lot on science, technology, engineering and maths. There are about 30 in the Blacktown area, some of which I have been to visit and am proud to see what they are achieving—in particular, the engagement, the enthusiasm and the preparation of young minds for a sustainable life ahead. I recently had the opportunity, with Tesla, to take one of their vehicles to two schools—Quakers Hill Public School and Plumpton High School. Plumpton High, for example, are focused on the F1 challenge and have had some success, and their students are rightfully proud of their involvement there. At Quakers Hill Public School, their young students are actively involved in STEM studies. Both those schools recently got to see a Tesla car and the technology that is in it and to realise that the things they are learning in the classroom are being practically applied in the leading, cutting-edge technology that they're seeing on our roads and that will see changes in the years ahead. Doonside Technology High School, another school in Western Sydney, last year had experiments successfully selected and included on the International Space Station. Again, these are young students in Western Sydney who are being tested and challenged in a way that will ensure they are better placed for the years ahead. We need to see more of this. I naturally welcome $4.1 million from the government, but I want to see more invested in our schools, in our TAFEs, in our universities. The depth of feeling on that point is shared across the entire opposition, which believes that, at a point when human capital needs to be invested in due to the profound changes in technology, it is not just wrong that we are cutting funds to schools, TAFEs and universities; it is reprehensible. The investment is needed for the generations that follow. We can and should do better. Events like this tell us why we should. 13:03 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I congratulate the member for Chifley on his lovely haircut! It's a pleasure to be here in the Federation Chamber, the place where good speeches go to die! I'm pleased to get up and support most of this motion from the member for Dunkley—clauses (1), (2) and (4). In doing so, I send my warmest congratulations to the six teams that will be representing Australia in the International Olympiads for science, maths and technology—the very brightest of our high school students from across the nation. It is, indeed, as the motion says, an outstanding achievement. It's taken significant effort and intense competition to be selected to represent your country internationally. In speaking to this motion, I confess that I am a complete science nerd. I've had a lifelong fascination with science. I read science fiction as a kid. I used to love the experiments at school, whether they went right or wrong, and the process of nutting out problems and mathematics and so on. I actually did a science degree, majoring in chemistry, at Monash University a thousand years ago. I think it's really important, though, that the parliament here and there does take a moment to congratulate those bright young Australians who are interested in science. Science, the arts and sport are not mutually exclusive. You can be good at all three or one or two and so on. But I did feel at times, growing up as a kid, that sport was all that mattered. It was all about sport. My primary school read me wrong in grade 6 when I sat down on the oval and said: 'That's it. I am no longer playing cricket. The ball is scary. I can't catch it. Throw it at me if you will, and I'll get my mum to sue you for grievous bodily harm.' So they suspended me and made me do maths, thinking this was a punishment. So I had a fantastic few days and eventually they gave up and I went back to the classroom. But I think it's an outstanding thing that we recognise the best and the brightest in this way, and I particularly congratulate warmly two year 12 students from Caulfield Grammar in Wheelers Hill in my electorate: Jerry Mao, who in previous years has won bronze, silver and gold at Olympiads in informatics, and also this year Shanni Chen, who's representing Australia in the International Biology Olympiad. I met them last Monday here in Canberra at the presentation in Parliament House, along with their school principal and their parents, and they were just so proud to be representing their country. I take issue with part (3) of the motion though. I think the member for Chifley is very generous to acknowledge the government's self-congratulatory prattle in spending $4.1 million over four years. I do note that the member for Dunkley was so committed to this motion he couldn't speak for even four of his five minutes, and then he left. And there are no government speakers on this motion. Not one person in the whole government thought it was worth coming into this chamber for five minutes and congratulating those young Australians who are representing their country in science and maths. Shame on you. Shame on the member for Dunkley for wandering off on his own motion. While we're thinking about recognising worthy achievements, shame on the government for cutting the Australian Student Prize. From 1991, under the Hawke government, to 2014, under Prime Minister Abbott, 500 annual prizes recognised 500 outstanding high school students across the nation for their academic achievements. They used to get $2,000. When the Abbott government came into office, they said, 'We're going to cut that to $1,000.' Fair enough—it's not about the money; it is about the recognition from your country at a national level that what you have done academically matters. The minister for education said it was about budget repair. Well, 500 times $2,000 is $1 million. If you divide $1 million into the deficit that this government has run up, it doesn't even show up on the calculator. In my remaining time, I would like to read into the Hansard a couple of quotable quotes. In 2013-14 we had government members running in here to congratulate the students in their electorate. I quote the member for Pearce: Through this award, the coalition government is supporting Olivia in her efforts … because the government is committed to giving Australian students the best possible education … The member for Pearce said they were recognising students and high achievers. My personal favourite is the hypocritical member for Higgins: I am firmly of the belief that the recognition of the pursuit of excellence is vital, as it illustrates the importance of endeavour and the transformative power of education and inspires all of us to achieve the very best in our chosen pursuits in life. And this is my favourite bit: I remember the impact that it had on me when I was a student and I received my Australian Student Prize. She is a member of the very same government that that year voted to cut these prizes forever from other Australian students. In closing, if the government is serious about recognising Australian students' achievements, how about bringing back the Australian Student Prize? You don't even have to give them cash; you can just recognise the achievements of young Australians. 13:08 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to speak on the motion of the member for Dunkley. In doing so, I wish to highlight the importance of education in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths across both the primary and the secondary years. I wish also to echo the sentiments of previous speakers in congratulating the extraordinary students who will be competing in the International Olympiads for science, maths and technology between July and September. These students are amongst the best and brightest of all our students and through this program will have the opportunity to compete against equally gifted and talented students from all across the world. These students are to be commended for having been selected to represent Australia at the Olympiads, having spent a year in preparation for the events. I wish to also acknowledge and congratulate the thousands of other students from across Australia who participated in the Australian Science Olympiads exams, which of course are the precursor to the International Olympiads. These exams are designed for students in years 10 and 11, and provide an opportunity for the students to challenge themselves beyond the teachings of the classroom. Many of these students voluntarily elected to participate in this program, which I find most encouraging. I strongly believe we should be doing all that we can to ensure that as many students as possible have access to such programs. Unfortunately, this is not always the case in Australia, as there is a significant cost per student involved in participating in the Science Olympiads. Many of the students from my electorate and their schools cannot afford the costs. It's also no secret that, of late, as a nation, Australia has been slipping behind in terms of our students' world and regional rankings in fields such as reading, maths and the sciences. I think this is a great tragedy. I strongly believe that we must do all that we can to curb this disturbing trend. It's something that will affect Australia's future, and we all should think very hard about our school funding, particularly in fields as vital as mathematics and science. It's no secret that my personal belief is that this government is anti-science. It has demonstrated this on many levels. Since coming into parliament, for example, this government has legislated to sell off the Australian cancer registry to privatise enterprise, and we still have no proper result from that sell-off. It was done surreptitiously. It would have been an opportunity for Australia to develop one of the best health information technologies in the world by enhancing our Medicare platform and by collecting our health statistical information through the Medicare platform—a perfect platform. But, no, this government, of course, sold it off to private enterprise, resulting in fragmentation of our health information, which we'll pay for in the future, no doubt. It's also no secret that this government hived off the APVMA, the agricultural Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, by closing it down in Canberra and moving it to the then Deputy Prime Minister's electorate in Armidale—a great tragedy. The destruction of what was a fantastic scientific resource—and one that will not be back on its feet in months or years, and probably not for decades—is, again, another anti-science move. It's no secret, either, that this government continues not to fund appropriate higher-level science and mathematics programs in schools, particularly the most disadvantaged schools, and that, by only partially committing to Gonski funding for our secondary education system, we are missing out on the opportunity to properly educate our best and brightest students from disadvantaged areas—again, a great tragedy. I often hear from parents, teachers and academics from my community who have great concerns about the state of education in Australia, in particular in my state of New South Wales. Some of the schools in my electorate have no proper science laboratories and have school infrastructure that's at least 50 or 60 years old and in dire need of refurbishment and replacement. This government is prepared to let the most disadvantaged schools suffer, yet it funds the most advantaged to higher levels. It's a great tragedy. So, whilst I commend the Science Olympiad program and I commend the students who are involved, it really is something that this government should be encouraging. This government should have a much better record on science and education. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 13:13 to 16:00 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 128 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Camilleri, Ms Jessica 128 16:00 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise today to congratulate my constituent Jessica Camilleri on being nominated for the Saward Dawson Community Service and Social Impact Award, under the Victorian government's Young Achiever Awards. Jessica joined the Meadows volunteers pathway at Meadows Primary School three years ago. Since working there, she has gone on to complete a diploma in children services and hopes one day to be a primary school teacher. I was fortunate to meet and have a chat with Jessica earlier this month, and to see firsthand the important work she does as a volunteer at the school's play group. Together with the staff and volunteers of the early learning program, she has been working on the development of a movement for learning program, which I also got to see that day when I visited. It's a program filled with colour, movement and learning—such a wonderful initiative, led by community hub coordinator Maureen Leahy, whose hard work in creating a meaningful, safe and inspirational learning environment in the early learning program should also be commended. I'd like to thank Jessica for all her efforts in moulding and shaping the youngest members of my Calwell community to be the best they can be. I wish her all the best for her future—hers is a very bright future in teaching. I congratulate Jessica, and I congratulate Maureen for running a wonderful program at Meadows Primary School. Our community is very fortunate to have such wonderful people living, working and volunteering among us. Calare Electorate: New South Wales Regional Technology Expo 129 16:02 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I wish to draw to the attention of the chamber that the New South Wales Regional Technology Expo was held in Orange over the weekend. It's organised by the Rotary Club of Orange Daybreak, and it's the first of its kind in Australia, bringing together the latest technologies from business, industry, agriculture and education in regional New South Wales. It aims to involve everybody in technology. The three-day event attracted over 2,500 visitors, with presentations from Microsoft and Telstra, a young entrepreneur workshop, drone presentations, robotic displays from the students at James Sheahan Catholic High School, and much more. Matthew Scott, Head Teacher, Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths at Canobolas Rural Technology High School, shared an overview of the school's STEM program, which is leading the way for other schools right across Australia. One attraction that was particularly popular with the attendees was Inland Digital's virtual reality pod. I myself had a go, and it was impressive. I'd like to congratulate the Rotary Club of Orange Daybreak, including president Alison Bennett and her hardworking group of Rotarians. I especially acknowledge Murray Paterson, Graeme Fleming and Mary Brell, who worked so hard to put this together. I also mention Lawrence Breen from Inland Digital, and Peter Meers, the principal of James Sheahan Catholic High School, who assisted in the running of this hugely successful event. There were many exhibitors, like Mitch Colton from Colton Computer Technologies—too many to name. Congratulations to everyone who supported this wonderful event, and thank you. Telecommunications 129 16:03 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports A few days ago 'Big China' were up in parliament, like big tobacco, whingeing and whining about how they'd been misunderstood. One of their particular whinges was about the 5G network and the concerns about their company Huawei, which were first raised in The Economist, in the legendary article 'Huawei: the company that spooked the world'. Some years ago, under pressure from Labor, which demanded a security briefing, the then communications minister, now Prime Minister, was forced to bar Huawei from bidding for the new core of the Australian telecommunications network, the NBN. Now we have that situation again, with 5G. Since my previous remarks, the chairman of Huawei Technologies, Admiral Lord, has denied Beijing's influence over the company, stating to the ABC: There is no ownership by the Government whatsoever— basically implying that they are a workers collective. This directly contradicts the testimony that he and his company gave to a public hearing of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on 14 September 2012. In it, Admiral Lord and his associate admitted that Huawei, like other large Beijing enterprises, has a legally mandated Communist Party committee at the top and stated that, yes, all the big organisations have a party committee. There's nothing unusual with all of these Beijing companies having to report to the Communist Party committee, but don't tell the Australian public that you don't have to. North Coast Academy of Sport Awards Night, Grafton RSL Sub-Branch Centenary 129 16:05 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Last week, the North Coast Academy of Sport held its awards night, with Matilda Elliot being named the Darrel Chapman Memorial Athlete of the Year, and netball's Most Outstanding Player. She also received a New South Wales Institute of Sport scholarship. Congratulations Tilly; we are all very proud of you. Other athletes from Page who took out awards included: Women's AFL, Most Improved, Jasmyn Hoppe; Men's Basketball, Most Improved, Dakin Mahoney; Men's Basketball, Encouragement Award, Casey Alexander; Cycling, Most Outstanding, Asher Fawle; Golf, Development Encouragement Award and the Chairman's Encouragement Award to Brayden Howlett; Netball, Encouragement Award, Jasmine Hyde; Rowing, Most Outstanding, Andrea Brushett; Rowing, Encouragement Award, Lachlan Maxwell; Rugby Sevens, Most Outstanding, Tallulah Mohammed; Rugby Sevens, Most Improved, Sierra Rolfe; Tennis, Most Outstanding, Lachlan Rook; Tennis, Most Improved, Laquisa Khan; Tennis, Encouragement Award, Blake Robertson. Congratulations to you all. The Grafton RSL Sub-Branch will celebrate its centenary on 7 July this year. The current executive Brian Bultitude OAM, Robert Gavin, Max Juett and Bob McFarlane, along with the countless committee members, do a fantastic job in the community. I thank them for their dedication to the RSL sub-branch. I'd also like to mention Vietnam veteran Denis Benfeild, who has been involved with it for two decades. I look forward to it, and happy birthday. Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce 2018 Annual Business Awards 130 16:06 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell On Saturday night, the Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce held its 2018 Annual Business Awards at Kooindah Waters. The chamber was founded in 1925 and has over 200 active members. I was delighted to attend, having been involved in the judging again this year. The Business of the Year, Oddball Marketing, scooped the pool, also taking out awards for Excellence in Innovation, and Excellence in Small Business. Its founder, Michael Sandys, was also named Outstanding Young Entrepreneur 18 to 35. Seven years ago, Mike took the plunge to start his own marketing business which aimed to make Central Coast businesses stand out from the crowd and to create local jobs. Other hardworking locals and businesses recognised on the night include: Outstanding Young Employee, Emily Miller of the Art House Wyong; Outstanding Business Leader, Laurinda Pericleous, whose business with her husband Nick, Nurses Now, was also named Outstanding Employer of Choice, which means so much to this family business that started around a kitchen table. Excellence in Social Enterprise went to the Darkinjung Aboriginal Land Council. The Start Up Superstar award went to Edward Gaughan of Australian Pest Specialists. Excellence in Business went to H&H Catering and was received by Julia Barnes. The Kevin Faulks Award, the Chamber Award for service to the community, went to Jared Hirst, Managing Director of Servers Australia. I would like to acknowledge the Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce President Ron Stevens; the board; the chamber staff, Katrina and Nicole; and the event and category sponsors: Bendigo Community Bank, Delta Electricity, Battery World Wyong, Central Coast Council, Tuggerah Business Hub, Nurses Now, Mercure Kooindah Waters and Job Centre Australia. I am pleased to be involved with the awards. Queensland Government 130 16:08 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I make no specific reference to Queensland State of Origin last night when I say: if you want to kill off cockroaches you hire a pest controller but if you want to kill jobs you hire the extreme Greens. That is exactly what the Queensland Labor government has done. They're doing it with taxpayer money. Queensland Labor is giving $840,000 to 10 conservation councils, including the Mackay Conservation Group. This group has worked overtime with fellow extremists to kill off 10,000 mining jobs in the Galilee Basin. You've got to ask: why would a Labor government, or any other government for that matter, pay to kill off jobs or undermine the economy? Maybe the CFMEU has finally understood the consequences of Labor's antimining stance and has had a word in the Premier's ear. Maybe she is placating the union by taking her own hand off the trigger and contracting out jobs assassinations now to the likes of the Mackay Conservation Group. Fellow extremists, Frontline Action on Coal, broadcast live on Facebook last Thursday about having hijacked a billboard on the Bruce Highway near Abbot Point. They encouraged other people to do likewise. Not only did they vandalise the billboard; they also put the Australian Labor Party logo underneath the message on that billboard. I've reported those actions to police and the Australian Electoral Commission. I think the Labor Party should do the same. People shouldn't be out there fraudulently purporting to be the Labor Party. But, instead of reading Labor's rebuttal to that in the paper today, I read about them funding extremists to do the dirty work of killing off the coal industry for them. It's disgraceful. Vocational Education and Training 130 16:09 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley If we want to help Australians get good jobs, it's quite simple—we need to invest more in education and skilling people up for the future. This is going to require stronger investment in TAFE, not the cuts that we've seen. That's why Labor has got a plan, because this side believes investing in TAFE is way more important than giving tax cuts to the big end of town. Labor will guarantee TAFE funding to give young people the opportunity to learn a trade and help workers reskill. We will waive up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students and make one in 10 jobs on priority government infrastructure projects go to an apprentice. Youth unemployment is now above 20 per cent in parts of the country. Thousands of older workers have lost their jobs after the coalition abandoned the automotive manufacturing industry. The government's TAFE cuts are set to hurt workers—now and into the future—who want to get their foot back in the door, especially older workers who need to reskill. Having recently celebrated National TAFE Day, we have an opportunity to remember the accomplishments of our great public TAFE system, and it's a reminder that TAFE is too good to lose. I also want to send a big shout-out to Chifley's Jessica Chironna, who has been named TAFE New South Wales Apprentice of the Year. Jessica is a Mount Druitt local and completed a certificate III in engineering, light fabrication, at TAFE New South Wales Mount Druitt. She was recently announced winner at the 2018 TAFE New South Wales Western Sydney Excellence Awards. I wish Jessica all the very best in her no doubt successful endeavours to come. Well done. Healthy Tuckshop Day 131 16:11 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Last week, Kunyung Primary School in Mount Eliza, in my electorate, hosted Healthy Tuckshop Day. Healthy Tuckshop Day is a national day which is in its second year. It's an initiative of My School Connect, who run the Tuckshop Revolution, and it is aimed at encouraging schools to get involved with the healthy tuckshop movement and celebrating those that do. My state counterpart, the Hon. David Morris, and I joined the students, Principal Kim Jackson, Julia from My School Connect, Tanya from Funch and Rosa from Aumra Yoga to discuss health and wellbeing, but, particularly, healthy eating habits. I am extremely proud of Kunyung Primary School for being a Healthy Tuckshop Day host this year and certainly saw a difference in the attitudes of the students towards eating healthily from when I was at school. For example, when I was at school all you got was Sunny Boys, lollies and all the other good things like pies and sausage rolls. What you get in canteens these days is a lot better compared to what I got at school. Mandy, from the tuckshop, signed the Healthy Tuckshop Day pledge. We know that healthy eating can make a difference with a child's education, attention span and so forth, so it's important to promote healthy eating at schools. I was very pleased to take part in Healthy Tuckshop Day with Kunyung Primary School, who are playing a leading role in promoting healthy eating initiatives, bringing an increased focus on health and wellbeing into Dunkley. Live Animal Exports 131 16:13 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The two biggest players in the northern summer live sheep export trade will not be operating over the next few months—one suspended and the other withdrawing voluntarily. It's good news that some sheep will no longer face the humidity and high temperatures that they cannot physically cope with, via these carriers. Labor would have totally banned live sheep exports during the northern summer, effective immediately, and 1,600 people in my electorate of Macquarie have emailed me to support this stand. From briefings with the Australian Veterinary Association, Animals Australia and the RSPCA, it's clear that the government has ignored the science of the long-haul sheep trade that shows it is inevitable that sheep will die in large numbers in the northern summer. There is no stocking density limit that can protect winter-acclimatised animals in temperatures of more than 40 degrees Celsius and humidity of up to 80 per cent in those May to October months. This government also completely ignores the economic opportunities created by ending cruel live sheep exports. The consequence of it taking so little action is that the industry will get no support in transitioning, and we will see industry players make decisions unilaterally that have profound implications for sheep stranded in the supply chain. Labor is committed to phasing out the balance of the live sheep export trade within five years at the outside. During the transition, there will be a regime regulating the highest animal welfare standards, and we can work with farmers, unions and industry to do more value-adding here in Australia. More processing would be good for farmers, good for animal welfare, good for the economy. Dunkley Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 131 16:14 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I want to speak about the wonderful Queens's Birthday Honours recipients in my electorate of Dunkley. Last year, I spoke about the wonderful recipients who received the award, and there were many wonderful recipients again this year. They include Mr Robert William Kilby of Frankston, for his service to youth with a disability through education initiatives, and Pauline Nelly McLaughlin from Frankston South for her service to community health, in particular, palliative care. I know she does have an interest in our commitment previously of $536,000 towards the home-based palliative care offered through Mornington. Mrs Cheryl Lynne Myers is another recipient in Frankston. She has been honoured for her service to veterans and their families. She is a key person who has put a significant amount of effort in four veterans locally. I've got to know Cheryl quite well over a number of years in working with her to help veterans. She is an inspiration, as are the other recipients. I'm very proud to talk about them today and I look forward to working with these recipients and future recipients of the Queen's Birthday Honours awards into the future. Wallan Football and Netball Club 131 16:15 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of going down to the Wallan Football and Netball Club for their Sponsors Day. It was one Magpies team I was happy to see win on the weekend. On this day of celebration, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of the club's dedicated members in recently saving the life of one of the young footballers, Liam Birch. Liam had a heart attack during the recent game against Rupertswood. We were very fortunate that there were people there like Tony Freeman, who acted on his instincts, along with members who were quick to help Liam and support his dad, Adam. This is what community spirit is all about. As a founding member of CERT, I've seen how critical those first moments of an event are in ensuring the safety of people. Sometimes, communities are not as lucky as Wallan. On a day in 2010 which I won't forget, coincidentally in Rupertswood, Stephen Buckman lost his life in a similar but more tragic set of circumstances. It was the beginning of a journey. His mum, Sue, and the first responding paramedic, Andrew White, created Defib your Club, for Life!, now known as Defib for Life, to prevent such tragedies in the future. This year, we've seen the great work of the Andrews Labor government in having a defib your sporting club grant and we've seen how many progressive clubs have taken these home. When you see these events happen and talk to families, it motivates me to convince the Department of Finance and the Special Minister of State to get defibrillators in every MP and senator's office for these crucial moments when time works against us. We are all in very high-traffic locations, so it's important that we have defibs in our offices that could help save lives when every second counts. Leichhardt Electorate: Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire 132 16:17 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rise today to pay tribute to one of Australia's smallest shires, which just happens to be located in my electorate. To say that the Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council is punching above its weight is an understatement. Wujal Wujal is about 20 square kilometres in size and is home to about 400 people. Last week, I had the privilege of witnessing this outstanding shire take home a major gong from the 2018 local government excellence awards. The council was named the national winner of the Achieving Big Things in Small Communities category for its emergency management community forum project. This is a fantastic achievement for Wujal Wujal, in recognition of their tireless work to make their community a better and safer place for residents. It is truly an outstanding achievement and everyone involved should be extremely proud. I'd like to make special mention of the Wujal Wujal mayor, Desmond Tayley, and CEO, Eileen Deemal-Hall, for their leadership, passion and unwavering dedication to their community. Eileen is truly an inspirational woman for many people in her community and in the wider field. Eileen is a proud Indigenous woman. She is one of those people who, when she says she's going to do something, you can be absolutely sure and consider it done. Through leaders like Desmond and Eileen in Indigenous communities we can really start closing the gap instead of just talking about it. Broadband 132 16:19 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Last week, I had the great pleasure of meeting with a group of young leaders from across Canberra. They were an impressive group of young Canberrans, and they had an equally impressive list of issues that they wanted to discuss with me: youth development programs, grants, heating and air conditioning for their community facilities and the NBN. In short, they want NBN in Canberra, and they want it yesterday. They want NBN connected to their community facilities so they can take part in national programs that are rolling out online. They want NBN connected to their homes so they can do their homework from their bedroom or kitchen table, not from the local library or a friend's house, as is the case for too many Canberra students. They want NBN so their large families can all use the internet at the same time, not taking it in turns through the evening, which is currently the case. They want NBN so they can realise their educational opportunities. They want NBN so they can realise their potential. Some of these leaders live in a part of Canberra where the internet connection is in the Dark Ages. I'm talking about south-east Tuggeranong, which is just 20 kilometres from Parliament House. Just 20 kilometres from Parliament House students are trying to do their homework with speeds of less than one megabit per second upload and download. And the roll out timetable for that area keeps getting kicked further and further down the road. This in our nation's capital, this in 2018—this is the Liberals' vision for Canberra. Brisbane Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 132 16:20 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane It's important sometimes that we pause and reflect in this place on the efforts of those who make our country better, so I wish to recognise some very worthy residents of Brisbane who received awards in the Queen's Birthday Honours. Dr Marie Porter has been recognised as a Member of the Order of Australia for her community work for women and children and for helping establish services for Australians with disabilities and their carers. Two other new members of the Order of Australia are Anne Cross, recognised for her work tackling issues on domestic violence, child protection and disability services, and Professor Susan Dann, recognised for her services to education in the field of marketing. The late John O'Brien has received the Medal of the Order of Australia for serving our community through social welfare organisations, such as the St Vincent de Paul Society, and as a teacher and school principal. Stephen Parle was award the Medal of the Order of Australia for his contribution to rugby league, including his work with the Brisbane Broncos. Two other local recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia are Barton Sinclair, for his service to horse racing as a life member of the Brisbane Racing Club, and Dianne Eden, for her important role in performing arts education. On behalf of the Brisbane community and all of Australia, we extend our thanks and recognition to these awardees for helping make our City of Brisbane the great place that it is today. Taxation 133 16:22 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton On Saturday I held one of my monthly community barbecues in Eight Mile Plains. They're not all in Eight Mile Plains; I go from suburb to suburb. Before the barbecue, a team of volunteers—Trent, Ashwina, Neil, Libby, Sasha, Graeme, Rowan and others—went door knocking to speak directly to Eight Mile Plains locals. On Saturday we all heard that people are very worried about the direction in which the Turnbull government is taking Australia. They're concerned that local schools, hospitals, roads and aged-care facilities, in particular, are losing out so that Prime Minister Turnbull can fund an $80 billion tax give away for the top end of town. The message to the people of Eight Mile Plains and all across Moreton is this: Labor will stand up for a fair go for all Australians regardless of your circumstances. Just last week we saw the Turnbull government, with the willing support of Senator Hanson and the One Nation political party, give themselves a huge personal tax cut, with 80 per cent of all the benefits going to the top 20 per cent of income earners. How unfair is that! How un-Australian, in fact. Labor opposed this short-sighted sop from the harbour side to the top end of town. Unlike the Turnbull government and Senator Hanson, I don't think the top end needs extra help. It makes economic sense to ensure our local schools receive the $15 million this government cut. It is common sense to make sure the QEII hospital receives the $3.2 million the Turnbull government cut. I'll tell you what I aspire to: I aspire to a fair go for all Australians, and I will so aspire until I expire! Verrills, Mr Peter 133 16:23 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Today I rise to acknowledge Peter Verrills and his decades of work in the community of Mackellar. Peter hails from one of the oldest families on the Northern Beaches and has been heavily involved in the local ferry service for a number of decades. In 1976, Peter acquired his first ferry, which he rebuilt and named Ellen Anne after his mother. Peter then started the Palm Beach Ferry Service, which filled a vital gap in local community transport needs. The Ellen Anne bought people to and from Bobbin Head on a daily basis, helping connect people and communities. That was the start of what became a booming business. Over the years Peter continued to expand his fleet. Routes to Ettalong and Sydney Harbour were added. Before long, Peter and the Palm Beach Ferry Service operated 19 ferries. In 2002, Peter helped to build a new ferry called the Aqua Spirit, which reaches a top speed of about 27 knots and carries 250 people. It was such a success that it is on stand-by for Sydney Ferries. Finally, on 30 November 2004, Peter drove his last ferry and moved into retirement, bringing to an end a remarkable career. Peter's work and contribution to the community of Mackellar serve as an ample reminder of the positive impacts that individuals can have on local life. His success shows the value of hard work and determination and should serve as an example to us all. Peter's story also highlights the positive impact and impression on the community that a well-run small business can have, with the fact that the Palm Beach ferry service has operated for a number of decades serving as a testament to this. The Palm Beach ferry service is still going strong today. (Time expired) Tasmania: Goods and Services Tax 133 16:25 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin This week in Canberra a very important decision is going to be made—a decision about the GST and the way that it is carved up. The formula for the GST is critical to my home state of Tasmania. In Tasmania, GST revenue is 40 per cent of our state budget, or $2.4 billion every year. Tasmanians need this money for the health and education services that allow us to be on an equal footing with the rest of Australia. We are very concerned that this week in Canberra the federal government will make a decision to change the formula. We are very concerned that the Treasurer has asked the Productivity Commission for a transition plan. A transition plan can only mean one thing—that is, that the formula is going to change—and that will be very, very bad for Tasmania. We have Saul Eslake, the economist, talking about his concerns for Tasmania. He says: All the Prime Minister is ‘guaranteeing’ is that the dollar amount of GST revenue, which Tasmania will receive in future years, will not fall below the dollar amount it will receive in 2018-19. He said that will actually mean: … Tasmania’s share of the GST pie would fall from 3.7 per cent to 3.2 per cent … He said that is equivalent to Tasmania getting '$367 million or 13 per cent less in 2021-22'. That is a huge impact on my home state of Tasmania. Tasmania should be very concerned about what this federal government is going to do in relation to GST. I know Tasmanians are worried about this. The federal government should come clean as soon as possible on what it is doing to Tasmania's GST. Boothby Electorate: Marino Residents Association 134 16:26 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby The Marino Residents Association has represented local residents living in and around the suburb of Marino in my electorate of Boothby for more than 70 years. Successive committee members have worked tirelessly on local issues that matter to our community. The association has been so effective they've expanded into the Seacliff area and will soon change their name to 5049 Coastal Community to reflect this expansion. Seacliff, Marino and the nearby 5049 postcode suburbs of Kingston Park, Seacliff Park and Seaview Downs are truly a beautiful part of South Australia. Overlooking the city, and the sea, the area is home to the Marino Conservation Park, the coastal walking trail and Kingston Historic House. The association plays an active role in the community to ensure residents have their say in the strategic direction and development of the area. I was delighted to attend a recent public forum, which was exceptionally well attended, where the association presented their 2018-22 strategic plan to hundreds of local residents. It has been wonderful to work with the association since becoming the member for Boothby. We have secured $8,000 for solar panels for the Marino community hall, and I assist with their quarterly newsletter. I have also secured $2½ thousand for seating along the Marino Conservation Park botanical trail. I want to acknowledge the hard work of the current committee: Ric Bierbaum, Beryl Hall, Emma Sandery, Noel Paul, and in particular president David Bagshaw and vice-president Alison Cormack. Congratulations and thank you for all you do for the community. (Time expired) Abortion 134 16:28 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner No woman makes the decision to terminate a baby lightly. It is a decision best made in consultation with a medical practitioner and one which involves significant stress. This is why safe access zones have been established in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. They reflect the history of women being harassed by anti-abortion protesters as they've sought to enter an abortion clinic. We know in 2001 that security guard Steve Rogers was shot and killed outside an abortion clinic in East Melbourne by anti-abortion zealot Peter James Knight. Yet today in the Senate we've seen Senator Anning moving a motion, which was supported by a number of coalition senators, to get rid of safe zones, to strike down safe zones. It is my understanding that among the coalition senators that voted for this were Senator McGrath, Senator Bushby, Senator Fawcett, Senator Macdonald, Senator Abetz, Senator Molan, Senator Seselja, Senator Gichuhi, Senator Canavan and Senator O'Sullivan. These senators do not understand the value of safe zones in ensuring that women have the right to choose. McMillan Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 134 16:29 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I rise to pay tribute to the McMillan-Monash locals who were recently acknowledged in the Queen's Birthday honours. These people are central to our local communities, always serving on various committees, leading organisations and volunteering their time and expertise so our region can thrive. Ian Nethercote of the Latrobe Valley was acknowledged for his service to the electricity supply sector in Victoria, education and the broader community of Gippsland. The tiny town of Outtrim was represented by Douglas Close, who was acknowledged for his service to the Outtrim community. The Hon. Alan Brown from Wattle Bank was recognised for his contribution to the vocational training and education sector, to philanthropy and to the people of the parliament of Victoria. Olive Elston—a friend of mine—of Pakenham was recognised for her service to youth and the community. Margaret Haycroft has for many years been an active contributor to the Foster and Corner Inlet community and was acknowledged for her service. It was also great to see Ray James of Trafalgar/Thorpdale RSL acknowledged for his service to veterans and their families. The late Thomas Grubb of Newborough has been recognised for his service to youths through the Scout movement. I'd like to congratulate these recipients on their recognition and thank them again for their contribution. More broadly, having knowledge of all the people that I have mentioned today, every one of them have one particular attribute: they're all people persons. I know throughout our electorates we honour these people but, because of the way they have conducted themselves over many years, it is a great honour for me to stand and respect them for their service. Childcare Package 135 16:31 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson In less than a fortnight the Turnbull government's new childcare package will kick in. When it does, many families and children in my electorate of Paterson will be worse off. This new package isn't about giving our kids a good educational start in life; it's about money. It's about getting parents and carers out the door and into the workforce and, whilst that's very important, I believe children deserve equal access to education and support no matter where they live or how much their parents earn. I was recently contacted by a constituent who was concerned about her daughter, Chelsea, and her young family. Chelsea is a stay-at-home mum to a one-year-old and a four-year-old. Her partner works as a trainee. Under the Turnbull government's new childcare measures, Chelsea cannot send her four-year-old to preschool to prepare for big school. Her options under the government's new scheme are clear: she should either care for both children full time or she should return to the workforce. This new package ignores the benefit of children regularly accessing early education services and stands to disadvantage the families who are most vulnerable. The ones who stand to lose will be our children, and particularly our children from lower-income families who so desperately need and deserve to have preschool and that fantastic start to their education. Taxation 135 16:33 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Approximately 6.9 million Australians representing 31 per cent of the adult population directly own shares in companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. Furthermore, 23.4 per cent of our national superannuation fund balances are invested in Australian shares. The government's planned reduction in the company tax rate to 25 per cent will benefit a wide range of Australians from the nearly seven million who own ASX-listed shares directly in their own name to just about every worker who has their compulsory superannuation contributions invested in Australian company shares through their super funds. Company tax cuts mean that retained profits can be reinvested in business expansion promoting further economic growth or return to shareholders. The government's plans to reduce corporate tax rates are designed to maintain Australia's international competitiveness in an increasingly competitive global marketplace as emerging nations in our region become more automated and mechanised through the adoption of new technology and the mobility of investment capital and resources across international boundaries become more fluid. Australia must reform and innovate in order to stay competitive in terms of trade and investment with our closest trading partners in the region. That is why passing the legislation for company tax cuts is so important. (Time expired) Taxation 135 16:34 Mr BUCHHOLZ ( 230531 Wright ) ( ): There used to be a time in this country where if you worked hard, you could get ahead. I believed that if I worked hard I could make something of myself. It was the Australian dream: work hard, aspire and give it everything. But not everyone in this place believes in an Australia like that. Labor doesn't believe in rewarding those people who work hard. Labor doesn't believe in Australians getting ahead. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear that he'll come after the new wealthy, those with incomes above $75,000. That's right: he'll roll back your tax cuts—the same tax cuts that the Turnbull government delivered. If you're a hardworking, experienced teacher, school principal, clinical nurse, health professional, miner or diesel fitter, he sees you as the next elite, and he is coming after your hard-earned pay. I take the case of a schoolteacher six years out of university. Just as that teacher is working hard to get ahead in their career, around the time when they're settling down to start a family and buy a home, Labor wants to come after their hard-earned wages. Make no mistake: the teacher would become part of Australia's new wealthy—the elite Australians that the Leader of the Opposition hates so much. So he'll come after you, just as he wants to come after Australian businesses and companies. In contrast, the coalition government says, 'Work hard, aim higher and aspire.' This government values hard work, and we're ensuring, through our reforms, that if you work hard, you can get ahead. Every Labor member in this room voted against our tax cuts because they hate aspirational Australians. Child Care 135 16:36 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle Australian families have had to find an extra $54 a week or $2,160 a year for child care since the Liberals came to power, but it's about to get worse. Next Monday, the government's changes kick in, making 279,000 families worse off. In my electorate of Newcastle, 1,400 families will get a rude shock when those changes kick in, and low-income families are likely to be amongst the worst hit. The new system, which replaces both the childcare rebate and the childcare benefit, sets up a complex web of rules with a strict new activity test. Under these changes, families where both parents aren't working or don't meet the activity test will have their childcare access cut in half. Families earning over $65,710, where only one parent is in work, will have no access to subsidies, and families where one parent doesn't work sufficient hours will lose access to 24 hours of childcare benefit and childcare rebate. These are very likely to be families with parents working irregular hours or doing seasonal or contract work. While the government refuses to act on the massive growth in casual and insecure work, it further penalises these same families by cutting their childcare support. How is it that the government can afford $80 billion for tax cuts for big business and multinationals, but it won't invest in supporting Australian families to access critical early learning for their children? Petrie Electorate: Roads 136 16:37 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie One of the best things about being a federal member is being able to deliver vital infrastructure for our local community. Of course, vital infrastructure is what we're providing. In 2013, we promised a Gateway Upgrade North project, which is really important for Petrie residents, and I'm really pleased to say that this week the Deagon Deviation overpass opened. This will solve a lot of problems locally, because the new overpass will ease traffic congestion, making it easier for people who work in the city to get home. The overpass will also simplify the merge lanes. Previously people heading to Redcliffe were battling with people heading to North Lakes going further into Bracken Ridge. So this new overpass for Redcliffe residents heading north on the Gateway Motorway will make it simpler for them to get straight on the overpass and straight through to Redcliffe. This will improve safety and traffic flow. As with everything new, there have been you a few teething issues, with some better signage needed. I had a few people comment on the Facebook page, saying that better signage is needed. I'm talking to the state Department of Transport and Main Roads to make sure that that happens. This project has been years in the making, and it's taken a lot of hard work, but it will make life much easier for those using the Gateway. Of course, the Gateway Upgrade North project will be completed by the end of 2018, and that's great for local people. Northern Territory: Coasts and Seas 136 16:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Northern Territory's coastline is a tourist mecca, an anglers paradise and where Indigenous communities maintain a continuing connection with saltwater country. A report released recently by the Keep Top End Coasts Healthy alliance highlighted the fact that NT coasts and seas contribute $2 billion every year to the NT economy and support more than 6,000 jobs. Fishing is a way of life in the Northern Territory, and the total economic contribution of the fishing tourism industry alone is estimated at $26 million per year. Without healthy coasts and seas, the NT's culture, lifestyle and economy will suffer. We need a plan that will properly protect our coasts so that future generations can enjoy them and reap their economic benefits. The Turnbull government have been hopeless in this space. Thanks to the government's marine park cuts, large-scale industrial fishing and supertrawlers have now received a standing invitation from this coalition government to exploit Australia's marine life. I'm pleased to be speaking in support of protecting our coastlines at the Deckchair Cinema on Friday, 3 August, where there will be the Australian Marine Conservation Society screening of the Australian documentary Blue. I look forward to seeing you down there for an evening under the stars to learn more about our oceans and how we can protect them. Corangamite Electorate: Home Insurance 136 16:41 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I am very pleased that the treatment of Wye River bushfire victims insured with AAMI insurance, owned by Suncorp, has been selected as a case study to be examined by the Hayne royal commission. This was a devastating bushfire which claimed 116 homes in Wye River and Separation Creek. It is a miracle that no lives were lost. These homes were covered by a complete replacement cover insurance policy. AAMI guaranteed that any home destroyed would be rebuilt no matter the cost, alleviating the risk of a policyholder being underinsured, but AAMI failed to provide sufficient funds to rebuild the homes destroyed in the 2015 Christmas Day bushfire, undercutting the cost of a rebuild by as much as half a million dollars per home. The policy was fundamentally flawed, and I believe that AAMI deliberately short-changed homeowners, which was unjust and heartbreaking. I'm very pleased that this case will be brought before the royal commission. I am disappointed that when this case was referred to ASIC by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, after I spoke out very strongly, ASIC did not appropriately investigate and make proper recommendations. ASIC's conduct was very disappointing. It is incumbent upon ASIC to take the strongest possible action as soon as possible, including speaking out in order to ensure insurance companies treat customers properly. Moreton Electorate: Constituents 137 16:42 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton In the last week or so we've been hearing a lot about the major political parties fighting for hardworking Australians. I just want to go on the record. In Moreton I represent a marginal seat, and I want to show my support for those Moreton residents who are not quite hard working. Maybe they're just phoning it in. Maybe they're turning up for work but their heart's not in it. They're not quite hardworking Australians. I just want to let them know: 'I support you, even if you'd really rather go down to the Gold Coast and go to the beach, rather than be at work. You might rather read a good book or do a bit of bushwalking or maybe even just sit on the couch.' I just want to let those people in Moreton know that I support them. Maybe they're working hard at home with the kids and perhaps they'd rather be at the cinema without the kids, away from the kids, without the kids—having a break from the kids. I'm just doing my bit to make sure that people in Moreton understand that Labor will support you. We hear this term 'hardworking Australians' thrown around like a sword by some politicians. I just want to let everyone know that I am particularly supportive. I saw it on the weekend when I had a barbecue with people coming along to talk about how some of Labor's proposals would be of benefit to them, particularly in terms of investing in education, health and aged care. Those were three areas we came up on the weekend. So I give a shout-out to those people in Moreton who are not quite hardworking. (Time expired) Canning Electorate: Mobile Black Spot Program 137 16:44 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning I am pleased to report to the Chamber that another mobile base station has opened in the shire of Waroona thanks to this government's Mobile Black Spot Program. Mobile towers are critical infrastructure of regional Australia. Our regional communities, particularly people working in the agriculture industry, need reliable phone and mobile broadband access. This is vital to ensure Australia remains competitive in the modern global economy. I know this tower in the north of Waroona is already making a big difference for local families and businesses. I should also note the importance of the Mobile Black Spot Program from the perspective of bushfire management and prevention. The Waroona-Yarloop fires of 2016 were devastating for the local community, and improved telecommunications infrastructure like this tower will ensure we are better prepared for the next bushfire season. That is why I commend the government for its recently announced round 4 of the Mobile Black Spot Program. The coalition has already invested over $220 million into building 867 mobile towers across Australia. Round 4 will see an additional $25 million put into the program—money well spent. This contrasts with Labor who, when in government, failed to allocate a single dollar to addressing mobile coverage in regional Australia. Only the coalition can be relied upon to deliver better mobile telecommunications to regional Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 It being 4.45 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 137 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Car Manufacturers Sharing Technical Information 137 16:46 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move: I was recently in Bongaree on Bribie Island with Labor's terrific candidate Susan Lamb. We were visiting Island Auto Repairs, an independent mechanic on Bribie Island. Kelly from Island Auto Repairs was telling us about the problem that many residents face. Bribie Island is an older community, and many residents don't feel comfortable driving off the island. They just drive their cars on the island itself. Yet Bribie Island doesn't contain a single authorised dealer, so as a result of authorised dealers not sharing technical information with independent mechanics, residents of Bribie Island face an invidious choice: either they don't get their car fixed or they take a journey that they regard as dangerous. This is a problem replicated in independent mechanics' dealerships across Australia. Independent mechanics make up at least four-fifths of Australian mechanics and yet, because our modern cars are computers on wheels containing some 20 to 50 computers, increasingly our independent mechanics are struggling to fix modern cars. That's why over a year ago I called on the government to do something about the fact that the voluntary code just isn't working for independent mechanics. Since then the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has backed in Labor's call for mandatory data-sharing and, with Bill Shorten, I was pleased to stand up and announce that a Shorten government would put in place a mandatory code. Such a measure is supported by independent mechanics and auto clubs, by insurance firms and consumer groups. It's the approach that's taken in the United States and the European Union. It has benefits in regions such as Bribie Island, but also in rural and regional parts of Australia. No-one tells you what car to buy, and no-one should tell you where to get it fixed. Labor's mandatory data-sharing policy is good for consumers, good for apprentices, good for jobs. It ensures that independent mechanics don't go to the wall as our cars become more computerised, and it gives consumers greater choice. I'd would like to commend my many colleagues who have worked and spoken with independent mechanics in their electorates about this critical issue. Speaking on the motion itself, Anne Stanley and Milton Dick, but also Murray Watt, Lisa Chesters, Shayne Neumann, Matt Keogh, Susan Templeman, Catherine King, Cathy O'Toole, Ged Kearney, Jenny Macklin, Joanne Ryan, Josh Wilson and Peter Khalil are among Labor members who have spoken with their independent mechanics about Labor's support for this critical part of our small business sector. And we know that it can be done. The critiques that were made originally by the car manufacturers over potential threats to safety, security or emissions are carefully addressed in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's report. That report lays down how it is possible to deal with these concerns while allowing mandatory data-sharing. The independent mechanics aren't asking for the data for free. They're simply saying: 'We'd like to have the data that the authorised dealers get. If the authorised dealers get the reinitialisation codes, we'd like to get them, on commercially fair and reasonable terms.' Many Australians will get their car fixed at a Kmart, a JAX, an Ultra Tune, a Bridgestone or a Pedders—or, indeed, at a non-chain mechanic such as Island Auto Repairs in Bongaree. This is why so many Australians are supporting Labor's policy. The question is why the coalition can't get out and get this done, why they've been so slow, since the ACCC's report came down in December, to act on behalf of Australian consumers and Australian mechanics. It's an existential threat for our mechanics. They will increasingly find themselves going to the wall, as our cars get more technical, if they don't get the data they need to fix modern cars. Labor backs independent mechanics. Labor backs the needs of drivers and the needs of workers in the industry. Labor will ensure that drivers get a better deal—your car, your choice. Labor will make sure that independent mechanics have the data they need to fix modern cars. Labor is standing on the side of consumers, as we've so often done. We say to the coalition: it's time you got in the car. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Is the motion seconded? Ms Stanley 265990 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 16:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on this motion today and to welcome, yet again, the member for Fenner's very late conversion to what has already been Turnbull government policy since well before he came to the party. I am very happy on this occasion to explain to him that his motion calls on the government, belatedly, to enact a policy which the Turnbull government announced explicitly, and first, more than eight weeks ago and which was developed by the Turnbull government based on a report which we supported into just this issue. I would suggest, however, that the member for Fenner think carefully before taking up any more of the Chamber's time in the future highlighting how slow he has been in recognising the report's implications and how little he achieved in this space during his six years as a member of the last Labor government. Like the Turnbull government, I know how hard our independent car repairers work. My dad has been a mechanic for more than 70 years. Incredibly, after seven decades he is still working—albeit to escape mum, he says, but that's beside the point! His best customers wouldn't let him retire even if he wanted to. They know that, once you have found a great mechanic, who treats you fairly and does the job how you like it done, you never want to let them go. Whatever car you are driving at the time, you want the ability to choose the mechanic that is right for you. Not only is that ability to choose good for the individual, but it's good for everyone in that it promotes competition, encourages innovation and rewards high-quality service delivery. Unfortunately, as technology advances and proprietary software and electronic information become an ever more important part of repairing modern cars, the scales have been dramatically tipped against independent mechanics. The information needed is generally owned and controlled by the manufacturers, allowing them to deny or delay access and make an independent repairer's job far more difficult. That's why on 16 June 2016, more than two years ago, Minister O'Dwyer communicated a commitment to industry stakeholders that the government would announce an independent review of the voluntary industry agreement on information sharing within three months of the re-election of the government. In October 2016, to avoid doubling up, we met the commitment by endorsing the ACCC's ongoing new car retailing market study as that independent review. The ACCC's market study was released on 14 December 2017, after 18 months of investigation, 130 public submissions, site visits and a stakeholder forum. The government considered the report carefully, and—though it appears the member for Fenner was not paying attention—on 4 May 2018 the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer announced in front of an audience of hundreds at the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association Conference that the government was consulting with industry and stakeholders in considering the design of a mandatory scheme for the sharing of technical information with independent repairers. They've gone awfully quiet on the other side of the fence! It was only on 13 May that the opposition, with inexplicable fanfare, announced that they would follow the government in supporting such a mandatory scheme. As the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer told the House last week, the opposition's announcement was perplexing to the hundreds of stakeholders who'd watched the assistant minister announce the same policy weeks before. Members opposite will understand that it is necessary for us to consult widely with industry and stakeholders to ensure that this mandatory scheme is well designed, with real industry knowledge, and achieves the best outcomes. However, I'm confident that the final measures will do the job, while ensuring that the sharing of technical information with independent repairers will be on commercially fair and reasonable terms and subject to appropriate safety and environmental safeguards. Let me recap for the member for Fenner and his colleagues opposite so we can clear this up once and for all. Don't leave, Member for Fenner; listen. As far back as June 2016, the Turnbull government publicly recognised that this issue needed to be examined and addressed. We endorsed an independent review into the issue by the ACCC. We've had a working group working towards this mandatory scheme for some time. I look forward to Labor supporting the government's scheme. 16:56 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Cars are no longer the purely mechanical and electronic machines they were in the past. Increasingly, cars have become more computerised. In the past, when you took your car for a service by a mechanic—possibly the member for Fisher's dad—they'd pop the bonnet and slide underneath the vehicle to tinker with, inspect and check various bits and pieces, and it was fairly obvious what was wrong. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for the mechanic to spend just as much time in front of a computer screen, looking at diagnostic and other technical details. The vast majority of Australian mechanics are independent operators. Car manufacturers are generally the owners and controllers of the code that provides this technical information. They are also the only source of software upgrades. Since most car manufacturers do not supply the same information to independent mechanics that they provide to authorised dealers, these mostly small businesses are at an obvious competitive disadvantage. These effects are particularly pronounced in regional and outer metro areas such as my electorate. The computerisation of cars will continue to increase as autonomous vehicles become more mainstream. In response to the arrival of automated vehicles, transport ministers in conjunction with the National Transport Commission agreed earlier this year to review and update relevant legislation. This acknowledgement that legislation must keep pace with the increasingly technological nature of vehicles is welcome, but, obviously, it doesn't go far enough. Legislation also needs to change with regard to car servicing and repairs. The current situation, a voluntary code, is simply not working. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's market study report released late last year concluded as much, saying: The ACCC recommends regulatory intervention to mandate the sharing of technical information with independent repairers on 'commercially fair and reasonable terms', subject to appropriate safeguards to enable the sharing of environmental, safety and security-related technical information. In addition to the ACCC, the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, who represent automotive parts accessories retailers and wholesalers, are pushing for reform. Stuart Charity, Executive Director of the AAAA, said in December, after the release of the ACCC's report: Australia's 17 million car owners and more than 20,000 independent automotive repairers deserve better than the current situation that finds the car manufacturers routinely and deliberately preventing consumers from exercising choice and their consumer legal rights … This is why Labor is proposing a mandatory obligation to provide the technical information at a fair cost. This mandatory code will have no cost impact on the Australian taxpayer. The fair and reasonable fees mechanics will need to pay to access the information will be covered by the administrative costs. The ACCC will act as an independent umpire to ensure access to information, as well as costs, is fair and reasonable. We also asked the ACCC to conduct a postimplementation review to ensure the policy operates as intended. Similar reforms have already been enacted in the United States and the European Union. More competition means downward pressure on prices, which means more money in the pockets of Australian car owners. This is just another example of where we, Labor, are addressing cost-of-living pressures for hard-working Australians. In addition to these changes, Labor will also protect penalty rates, cap private health insurance rises and address the housing affordability crisis. We will do this because we know that $20 a week or more is being paid for private health insurance by families, that there's $40 extra a week in childcare fees and that the Medicare freeze continues to hit people in their pockets. These changes will also increase the demand for aftermarket parts, a sector that's been struggling since this government effectively ran the car-making industry out of the country. We've been calling on the government to take action for a year now, but it would appear the government's only priority is tax cuts for big business. They don't care about the small businesses, and they don't care about cost-of-living pressures. If need be, we will again hold the government to account and make sure that small businesses are able to compete on a fair playing field, and that consumers get the right to choose where their car is serviced and get the value for money they deserve. 17:01 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore In contributing to this debate, I've listened to the contributions of other members and wish to point out that the coalition government has already taken measures to address this issue. Advances of automotive technology, particularly in the era of electronics, have revolutionised the performance and capability of vehicles on Australian roads today, delivering greater fuel efficiencies, power, driver assistance and safety systems. Onboard computer systems and proprietary software are now features of most modern vehicles. Mechanics and vehicle technicians now use handheld computers plugged into a vehicle's communication port under the dashboard, via a data cable, to read diagnostic trouble codes and make tuning adjustments to the vehicle. These devices are relatively easy to operate and vehicle enthusiasts routinely use these programmers to diagnose and improve the performance of vehicles. I personally use a handheld Superchips tuner for my Ford F-250 pickup. It plugs into the data porta and provides a diagnostic digital read-out of the vehicle's sensors, allowing me to tune the engine and transmission to optimally suit various conditions. Vehicle manufacturers generally own and control the intellectual property and technical information required to repair and service new cars. Access by independent mechanics and repairers to technical information, equipment and electronic codes required to effectively compete in the vehicle servicing and maintenance market can be denied or delayed by vehicle manufacturers. By restricting access to proprietary software or through data encryption on the part of the vehicle manufacturers, consumers are forced to have their vehicles serviced and maintained by the original vehicle manufacturer or authorised dealerships, often at premium prices, preventing other competent and suitably qualified mechanics from competing in the servicing market. It is similar to other electronic devices, which can be electronically locked to restrict use in particular regions or countries, such as mobile phones, subscriber boxes or gaming consoles. Consumer protection laws have been amended to allow accredited third party service providers to service and repair automotive vehicles without voiding the manufacturer's warranty. This issue is very similar in facilitating access by independent service providers to the technology and software required to service and maintain vehicles. The coalition government has acted upon a commitment made before the last federal election to protect the interests of consumers by opening the vehicle servicing and maintenance market up to fair competition. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission completed a market study which was released on 14 December 2017 after 18 months of investigation and consultation. It has focused on competition and consumer protection issues in the sale, regular maintenance and repair of new cars. The ACCC received 130 public submissions, conducted site visits, held a stakeholder forum and a round table, and directly consulted with a wide variety of stakeholders. The government is now considering the design of a mandatory scheme and how it might operate. In considering the design of the scheme, the government is actively seeking to offer consumers greater choice for getting their vehicles serviced or repaired, especially in remote and regional areas; setting out clear expectations for manufacturers with respect to information sharing on fair and reasonable commercial terms to allow independent repairers to compete on a fair and equal playing field; protect vehicle security, environmental and safety information; and facilitate adequate dispute resolution where the independent mechanics and repairers may be experiencing difficulties accessing information. The coalition seeks to introduce legislation that maintains high standards of vehicle maintenance and protects intellectual property rights for vehicle manufacturers yet opens up the servicing and maintenance market for fair competition by third-party service providers for the benefit of Australian consumers. 17:06 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Let's cut to the chase after all that gobbledegook we've heard from the government, all the excuses about round tables on round tables, committees on committees and reports into reports—I don't want to stand in this parliament one minute longer; I want to get to the real issue of what mechanics and the small businesses in Australia want. They want the government to take action. It's all very well to have lectures from the government saying: 'We've looked into this for a couple of years. We're going to make a determination. We're going to take a review.' Five years into government and they've done nothing. Go and talk to local mechanics in their electorates. They'll tell you what you've got to do. They know. So, instead of making excuses and trying to come up with some way to not make the decision, you need to go and listen to what the industry is saying: listen to the peak body, listen to the small businesses and actually listen to the mum-and-dad operators. That's what I've done as a local federal member. I start today's debate by congratulating and acknowledging the member for Fenner and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, for their advocacy and leadership in this area because we believe, Labor believes, that consumers should have choice about where they get their car serviced, and that's what they will get under Labor's Your Car, Your Choice policy. As the cars, utes and vans of the 21st century become more sophisticated, particularly with motoring technology, we know that the role of a local mechanic and service centre is not what it once was. We know that this information is getting harder and harder to access—you don't have to be Einstein to work that out. Instead, more and more car and vehicle manufacturers are holding back the information from local service centres. Presently, car manufacturers generally own and control technical information, and in many cases are the only sources of re-initialisation codes and software upgrades. This means independent car repairers, who comprise the majority of Australian mechanics, are at a competitive disadvantage. I know this because I've met and spoken to them in my own electorate. I also invited the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Treasurer to meet with small businesses in my own community. I was really proud that they both took up that opportunity and sat down with businesses and asked: 'What do you want government to do? How can we fix this problem?' That is what real leadership is about—not hiding behind reports, not hiding behind round tables and not hiding time and time again, which is just delaying. I speak about people like Ian from Mr Spanner's Automotive in my own electorate at Sumner Park and Scott from Future Auto Sumner Park. I know how much this would mean for local businesses like them. Scott told me that not only would it allow his local business to better service local residents but it would also be a huge win for our local economy as he could employ more mechanics and more apprentices to apply their trade. I'd also like to particularly acknowledge the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association for their leadership in this area. I know that they’ve been talking to members of the government. I know that they have been dragging them kicking and screaming. They just want to see some action. For all the talk about jobs and growth, we're not seeing any movement whatsoever in this sector. They’ve been at the forefront of this push, and I would like to thank particularly their executive director, Stuart Charity, and his colleagues, Lesley Yates and Nigel Bishop, who have been 100 per cent supportive of this change to look after our local mechanics, their employees and, perhaps most importantly, the local residents who have their cars serviced locally. We know that the current system just isn't working. Motorists and local service centres are getting ripped off by the big players. This was clear from the ACCC inquiry into the car retailing industry, whose final report was released in December last year. It concluded that the industry's voluntary code has failed. It has failed to address the problem and as a result it is hurting small businesses. There are increases in prices for consumers, providing less choice, with the impact, interestingly, being felt most in regional areas. So there has been a comprehensive review of the industry and recommendations which would result in fairer competition and benefits for every Australian household and, more importantly, for every independent repairer. They argue that this is already a voluntary code and it needs more time. However, the voluntary code is three years old, and the ACCC report found that many manufacturers refused outright to conform to the code, while others used loopholes to withhold information from independent repairers. So, today, I call on the government to adopt Labor's Your Choice, Your Car policy of mandatory information sharing, which could require car manufacturers to share technical information with independent mechanics, so the independent mechanics and mum-and-dad operators in my community will get a fair go and so that consumers will get a fair go, because they deserve choice and they simply aren't getting it from the Turnbull government. 17:11 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby There are so many wonderful small and family businesses in my electorate of Boothby, including cafes, retailers, hairdressers, florists, newsagents and so many more. These businesses are owned and run by hardworking individuals and families, and they are contributing to our community and to our local economy. I am proud to be part of the Turnbull government that supports small businesses to be more competitive, to grow and to employ hardworking Australians. Under the Turnbull government, company tax has been cut to its lowest rate in 50 years for small businesses, at a rate of 27.5 per cent for businesses with a turnover of up to $25 million this financial year, extended to businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million in 2018-19. The Turnbull government has also provided an instant asset write-off for businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million. But, despite all this, there are still some small businesses in my electorate and across Australia that are subject to anticompetitive market behaviours, particularly in the automotive repair and servicing industries. I recently visited local automotive repairer Blackwood Dyno Tune & Service in my electorate, where I met owners Ricky and Michelle Monserrat. They explained to me how a lack of data-sharing by the car industry is impacting their business and reducing competition in the sector. New car retailing is a significant part of the Australian economy. In 2016-17, approximately 1.1 million new vehicles were sold across the nation, at more than 1,500 new-car dealers. Data indicates that buying a car and its ongoing maintenance accounts for around five per cent of average annual household expenditure. Car manufacturers generally own and control the technical information required to repair and service new cars—and so they should. They have invested the money and the effort in developing and building their vehicles at great cost; it is, therefore, only fair that they control their intellectual property. However, it is not fair that they deny access to this intellectual property if they're provided with fair and reasonable remuneration for the information. In December 2017, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission report into the car retailing industry concluded that independent repairers in the Australian market had 'limited access to service and repair information from vehicle manufacturers'. The ACCC concluded that this had resulted in reduced competition and an artificial monopoly in the market. The ACCC also found that consumers were confused about warranty and servicing requirements and that this was compounded by statements made in manufacturers' logbooks and service manuals. This can result in consumers choosing not to use independent repairers to repair or service their cars due to the perception they'll be voiding the manufacturer's warranty. Ricky and Michelle from Blackwood Dyno Tune and Service, together with the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, have expressed to me their support for the ACCC recommendations that Australia introduce a mandatory code for repair data and information sharing, similar to schemes adopted in the United States and Europe. As part of a government that supports small businesses, competition and consumer choice, we have listened to these concerns, and we have acted. In early May, the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, the Hon. Michael Sukkar, announced that the government is considering the design of a mandatory scheme and how it might operate here in Australia. I'd like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the assistant minister for his commitment to business owners like Ricky and Michelle in my electorate, whose livelihood is affected by these policy decisions. I'm delighted that the government is seeking to implement a scheme that sets clear expectations of industry and allows independent repairers to compete on a fair and equal playing field. At the same time, though, we must get the balance right. Due consideration must be given to ensuring that commercially fair and reasonable terms for car manufacturers are included in the scheme. These terms should recognise the investment made by these companies in developing the technical information and the vehicles in the first place. We must also seek to protect vehicle security, environmental and safety information. That's why the Turnbull government is undertaking extensive consultation with industry and stakeholders and looking to the international experience to ensure that we get the scheme right. That's responsible government. Those opposite don't seem to understand the meaning of that term. And it appears we are on the right track. Our proposed policy on access to service and repair information is so popular that it seems that those opposite are now seeking to introduce it for themselves. I just want to congratulate the assistant minister again on all the work he has done. (Time expired) 17:16 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm really pleased to speak in support of this motion moved by the member for Fenner, and I wholeheartedly congratulate him on the excellent work that he's done in consulting with the independent repair industry and coming up with what is a credible policy and a clear alternative to the government position that does clearly support those small to medium-sized businesses that operate in the mechanical repair industry in Australia that are finding it difficult to access information from the larger repairers in repairing cars for the average Australian. Really, it comes down to: whose side are you on? Whose side are you going to support? Are you going to support those smaller businesses that are struggling to make ends meet, that exist on shoestring budgets and really are in it for the love of the industry and the trade and that are trying to access that information on behalf of their customers to repair their cars and are being given the run-around by some of the larger dealerships that withhold this information simply because they can, to make life difficult and draw people back to the dealerships to get their cars serviced? We all know that modern cars are computers on wheels. They contain many different digital files and codes, which vary from car to car. Car manufacturers generally own and control that technical information and are the only source of that information when it comes to either updating the software or repairing the car and making sure that it's roadworthy into the future. Unfortunately, in the consultations that we've had with those who work in the industry—and I've consulted with a number of them in my local community—the independent repairers and mechanics working in the smaller workshops believe that the larger repairers and dealerships are unreasonably withholding information, making it more difficult, more time-consuming and, ultimately, more costly for individuals and families to service their cars and pushing up the cost of the average car service. Most people get their cars repaired and regularly serviced through independent mechanics, of course. We all know that we want to go to our local mechanic. When you need to get your car serviced, you want to go to someone that you know and trust, someone that you can build up a relationship with, particularly when you're talking about something that the average Australian wouldn't have a clue about. I know that most Australians looking under the bonnet of a car and talking about detailed technical information wouldn't have a clue about how to repair some of the difficulties that we have with cars. With the computer information that's contained in most cars these days, it's become harder and harder. So those independent mechanics should be able to access that information on commercial terms to ensure that they can efficiently and effectively repair cars for their customers. I've consulted many of those independent mechanics in Kingsford Smith, who have been calling for greater government action on this issue. I want to particularly thank Silvio from Alex's Auto Services in Botany and Angelo from Torrisi Automotive in Matraville, who have done a wonderful job in supplying me with the necessary information and background to make an informed decision about this and, indeed, to question the ACCC when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Economics on this issue. The ACCC conducted an inquiry and handed down a report in December last year. The report indicated that the voluntary code that the government have implemented simply isn't working. Many of the large dealerships simply ignore it or make it difficult for some of the independent smaller repairers to access that important information. Labor has listened to those independent repairers who repair so many family cars and small business cars throughout the country, and we say to them: we will act on your behalf. The government aren't acting. They're refusing to listen to your concerns and do something about it. But Labor will act if we are elected. We will require car manufacturers to share with independent mechanics technical information on commercially fair and reasonable terms. But, at the same time, we will ensure that we are protecting the environment and safety features of that information. A thorough consultation has been undertaken in respect of this. We've acted on the advice of ACCC, and the member for Fenner, as the shadow minister with responsibility for this issue, has travelled around the country hearing the advice of those mechanics and has put this policy in place. It's a policy that Labor is proud to take to the next election. 17:22 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I wasn't going to speak, but because of Milton's address and yours, I just want to say a couple— Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 I'm glad I moved you! Mr BROADBENT MT4 I'm glad you spoke, because it's obviously a win-win-win situation. We want to protect the intellectual information of major car companies—we understand that—but we also are a population that's been very used to having our local mechanic, and the world has changed. I wondered why the battery in my Territory went flat. They said to me: 'Russell, the situation is that there are so many technical features drawing off that battery that they only last a couple of years now. They don't last 10 years like your last battery. They just don't last anymore.' I accept that there have been massive changes in the automotive industry, and Australia is changing accordingly. We want the best of both worlds: we want wonderful cars and at the same time we'd like to still have that tradition of going to our local service centre, dealing with our local small business, which is part of the community, and giving them our business, as has been described today. The debate has been one that I've listened to, and what they're saying is: it doesn't matter who you elect at the next election, your local mechanic's going to get a fair go. I think I've summed up what I've heard pretty well, and we can now close this debate down. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMN There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Farm Household Allowance 144 17:23 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I move: (1) notes that a significant part of rural Australia is currently drought declared; (2) further notes that farming families and the agriculture sector more widely are a vital part of the Australian economy as well as the Australian psyche; (3) recognises the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources for their efforts in touring drought declared areas in NSW and Queensland; (4) congratulates the Government for deciding to extend the Farm Household Allowance from three years to four years; and (5) acknowledges that this assistance will help the nation's farmers. This is a vitally important issue to discuss in this chamber and in our national parliament, because it concerns our agricultural sector. Our agricultural sector is extraordinarily resilient. It is one of the foundation stones of our national economy and our national wealth. Farm exports, for example, are expected to reach $47 billion in 2018-19. Cotton exports are forecast to rise by a huge 18 per cent, to $2 billion, thanks to world consumption outpacing world production, lifting prices. Wool exports are expected to increase by nine per cent, to $4.7 billion, as limited growth in the world supply of fine and superfine wool lifts prices. Lamb exports are also forecast to rise, by 10 per cent, to $2.3 billion. The value of beef and veal exports is forecast to increase by two per cent, to $7.8 billion. I note that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics is forecasting a rise in 2018-19 in the total value of farm production, to $61 billion—well above the 10-year average. The point is that agriculture and primary production are fundamental to our economy. Those figures that I've just recounted are made even more extraordinary given the very difficult times that many of our farmers are facing at the moment. So this is an extraordinary story of resilience. Many farmers in my area are hurting badly because of the drought that is biting across the region. Whilst some areas have had some rain in recent times, many areas, including those regarded as traditionally safe, have simply missed out and they've only had a few mils, even just over the past month. There are heartbreaking stories out there of how our proud farmers are struggling under these awful conditions. As the drought has bitten harder, we, as a nation and also as MPs, need to be ramping up this drought support to support them. If you look at what's happening and the outlook, it's very grim. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources recently visited Calare and we stood in a field, a paddock, which had a crop in the ground, but the germination was only about 30 per cent; it was very poor. And that's one of the better stories in the area! We met with farmers. We heard their concerns. They asked him to act and to help, and that's what we should be doing—helping the farming sector. It's not just crops. It's those running livestock. All of them have difficult times. As I said, some of the stories are really heartbreaking, simply because it hasn't rained. A number of us here have been trying to get the drought support ramped up, and that's why I was very pleased to see that the farm household allowance has been extended for another year to support our farmers when they don't have money for food on the table, the day-to-day necessities of life, diesel. When they can't afford it, the farm household allowance is there. It provides around $530 to $580 per fortnight for singles and just under $1,000 a fortnight for couples, but it can help get people through. It comes with counselling as well. You can't underestimate the importance of it. The period in which you can get the allowance has been extended from three years to four years, and that reflects the fact that this drought is really biting. The drought has been going on for seven years in some parts of Queensland, and many people have already accessed the farm household allowance. So that is positive. I noted also that the coalition government recently boosted funding for the Rural Financial Counselling Service to more than $70 million from 1 April 2016 to 30 June 2020. That's an extra $20.4 million. Again, it is really important to support them. Of course, as the season worsens, and it is worsening, there will be a need to ramp up support again, because the reality is that many farmers haven't sown anything. There's nothing in the ground. They haven't turned a wheel. As I mentioned at the outset of this address, those that have put a crop in the ground are seeing some very poor germination—you're seeing some very stressed crops, as we saw with the minister for agriculture. It's vitally important that we get this assistance to farmers and that we ramp it up, because you just get the feeling that things are going to get a whole lot worse. That's why I was pleased also to see the announcement of the Regional Investment Corporation, or RIC as it's known to its many friends. I note the presence in the chamber of the member for New England. He's the father of the Regional Investment Corporation. That organisation exists to provide support through concessional loans for farmers in drought, and it has a $2 billion loan book. It's really important to have an organisation like that be decentralised to an area like the Central West, where the farmers are, so it can get out amongst the farmers, find out what they need and get the help to where it's needed most. It is disappointing that it was delayed in the Senate for so long by those opposite and by people like the Liberal Democrats and the Australian Conservatives. An honourable member interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 They opposed it. They didn't want this important organisation that supports our farmers to come into existence. It's not just going to support concessional loans—there's $2 billion for that—but there's another $2 billion for federal water infrastructure. It is really important if you're going to have a facility like this that it's run and administered properly and that it's actually out where the farmers are, where they need the help. Our farmers are doing an extraordinary job in really difficult circumstances. Some are buying fodder in. Some are agisting. Each have their own different strategies to cope with it. One of my constituents, Philip Blowes from Yeoval, for example, has taken a different approach. He's actually growing barley sprouts in a shed not too far away from his house. He grows them on a cycle. They take a few days to mature, and once they get to 10 or 15 centimetres high he takes the sprouts out and feeds the sheep. I've been out with him feeding the sheep. It's a great source of nutrition, it's very effective and it's cheaper than getting fodder in. That's just one example of a resilient farmer, a farmer who has found an innovative way to deal with the drought situation. It's not a new concept, but he's taken it and refined it. When you look at farmers like that you know that the future of agriculture is bright, but they're still going to need help. We still need to help them get through this so that this sector is vibrant and continues to be the bedrock of the Australian economy. We can't do without agriculture. Once this drought passes we're going to have to rebuild, but, for the moment, it's a question of getting through and helping our farmers get through, and they need all the help that they can get. These measures that have been announced recently are a really good start but, as I have said, this situation looks grim. The season is worsening and, as it worsens, we need to ramp up drought support. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Is there a seconder for this motion? Mr Joyce E5D I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17:34 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Australia's farmers are facing a shocking, terrible and protracted drought, and I join with all members contributing to this debate in expressing my sympathy and support for them, many of whom are now going into their eighth year of drought. These are very difficult times for our farmers and our farming families. But what farmers and farming families need much more than our sympathy or even our empathy, as those in this place who are involved in primary production themselves know, is a coherent, long-term drought policy—a strategy from government which recognises the fact that drought can no longer be treated as an abnormal event which comes along from time to time. The climate is changing—tonight is not the time to have a debate about what's causing the change. Every primary producer I speak to believes that it is changing, and it's changing in a way which will continue to make farming more difficult for both our producers and our growers, and that includes my vignerons, who talk to me about the changing conditions all the time. This motion does a few things. It tells us that Australia is in drought. I think we knew that. It tells us that farming families make a significant contribution to the economy. I think we knew that. It tells us that the Prime Minister went on a drought tour. We knew that, too, because it met its objectives. It got a pretty good run on the news for a few nights in a row—there were a few selfies and a few smiles for the camera. The drought tour didn't include the Hunter, but the Prime Minister did travel to his ranch in the Upper Hunter to feed his cattle with very expensive and high-quality cottonseed before flying out, at taxpayers' expense, to face the real drought-stricken farmers in western New South Wales and Queensland. But we knew about the tour. We don't think that, after five years, the Prime Minister needed a drought tour to learn that farmers are struggling in drought and that the government needs to do more. The motion, of course, talks about the extension of the farm household allowance. We don't have a problem with that. We'll be supporting it, but we'll be asking some important questions. The member for Calare says that this motion acknowledges that this assistance will help the nation's farmers. Well, it can do no harm. But the really interesting thing about this motion is that it highlights division—division between, for example, the new Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and other members of the Nationals. I welcome the fact that, during the drought tour, at least the minister for agriculture was prepared to talk about the changing climate, the need to build resilience, the need to encourage adaptation and the need to ensure that farmers have a business model that is sustainable in a changing climate. But when you have a look at the member for Calare's motion, there's nothing about climate, nothing about resilience, nothing about adaptation and nothing about changing business models. Next we'll hear from the member for New England. We're waiting and wondering whether the member for New England is going to be on the minister's side and talk about resilience, adaptation and climate or whether he's going to back in the member for Calare, who did anything but talk about climate, adaptation and resilience. I'll be sticking around to have a bit of a listen. If I was a betting man I'd reckon he'd be with the member for Calare. I don't know whether the minister can count, but this is becoming a very, very interesting dynamic within the coalition. Back in 2012, something very historic happened. The states and the Commonwealth agreed, with the support of the National Farmers' Federation, the coalition in this parliament and other farm groups, that we needed to revisit the way we treat drought. We entered into an intergovernmental agreement, which started from scratch. The agreement comes to an end on 1 July, which is this week, and in those intervening five years we were supposed to have developed together a coherent drought policy together which recognised changing circumstances. We have not done that; this government has not done that. That is a great disappointment, and it will be an ongoing disappointment to farmers right around the country. Extending the farm household allowance won't be a bad thing, but it won't change much, and the Regional Investment Corporation is a joke. It's got no site, it's got no CEO, it's got no staff and it's a waste of money—a terrible waste. (Time expired) 17:39 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I think it's really important, having just heard from the Labor Party, that we summarise what they had to say. What they had to say to the people on the land was: 'Tough luck. We've got nothing for you. Tough luck.' They talk about their belief that there's ongoing resilience, that there is something anathema about trying to help people out in a tough situation. Every day the commuters in Sydney are helped out to the extent that we cover about 30 per cent of their costs from the tickets that we sell them, but we believe we should do that to keep cars off the road because we believe it is a public good. Well, it's also a public good to keep farmers on the land. It is definitely a public good to keep farmers on the land. I'm proud of what our government has done with the Regional Investment Corporation, a multibillion dollar organisation set up to assist people on the land. I think that shows that we actually do have a vision for people on the land—like when we changed the criteria for farm household allowance. When I got the portfolio, there was only, I think, about 350 people who got farm household allowance. By the time we had finished, it was around about 6,000 people that had access to it. That's because we changed the criteria. It's like why the concessional loans were hardly ever given out by the Labor Party. I looked at the figures today and it's getting to about $850 million that we've given out in concessional loans. Yes, there is always more we can do. I commend the government for extending farm household allowance, because it basically keeps dignity in the house, and it keeps the wolves from the door, by allowing them the money to keep up with the chemist bill, keep up with basic grocery items, and keep dignity in that house. That is what we are supposed to do. I don't quite know what the Labor Party was offering. I've never heard them go to the dispatch box and offer what they are going to give people in a time of drought. I listen to their budget speeches and I can never hear them talk about people on the land. I can never hear what their vision is for people on the land. What I can say is that the extension—and it's an uncapped scheme—to farm household allowance allows further dignity. But there is more that not only the federal government can do—we should always be driving for what they can do—but also state governments. Freight subsidies have overwhelmingly been something the state governments have been supposed to cover. Freight subsidies are supposed to be covered by state governments. I noted what the New South Wales state government has done. I commend them for their $50,000 seven-year interest-free loan. I did look at the criteria. I do think it's going to be very hard for some people to get eligibility for it. But really their role is in freight subsidies. Of course, the only thing that fixes droughts in the end is rain. If we say that what we are going to do is devise policies that somehow make it rain in Australia, then I'm going to be the first one to vote for that. By God, I will vote for that one. But I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think there is a policy that makes it rain. I think there is a policy that assists people in drought. And drought deals with the vagaries of the climate, and that's why farming businesses are different. If you had other businesses in town and said, 'This corner shop will work very well when it rains and not very well when it doesn't', I think people would say that is a pretty precarious business. But we need people on the land, because people on the land produce the primary source of wealth, which from that point goes forward and becomes a secondary source of wealth, and then a tertiary form of wealth. We are a nation that makes so much of our wealth from what goes on the ground and what comes out of the ground. We don’t have Toyotas and we don't have people manufacturing televisions. Overwhelmingly, our primary source of wealth and the big export earners come from what is going on the ground and what comes out of the ground. Therefore, it is in our national interest to keep those people on the land. I want to make sure that we have a nation where farming families, Australian farming families, are the overwhelming owners of the Australian asset. I don't want to live in a world where it is one big corporate farm owned by somebody overseas. I don't. I want to make sure we keep that national goal. I don't know what economic theorem that says I ascribe to, but I think it ascribes to a theorem and a belief in our country. Just like we need Australian families, mums and dads, who are the overwhelming owners of the suburban house on the suburban street, we must always be prescribing policy that keeps mums and dads as the overwhelming owners of the Australian rural asset. That is probably what drove me into politics, what drove the member for Mallee into politics and what drove the member for McMillan into politics. I don't think that vision is old-fashioned. I think that issue will reside with the coalition as long as we have people who have come from the land. 17:44 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson In parts of my electorate of Paterson, people are struggling. They are struggling to recover from what was, by many accounts, one of the harshest summers in living memory. Vegetable farmers were unable to grow crops due to hot and arid conditions, tanks were bone dry, and salinity levels in the depleted Hunter River and others made irrigation impossible. Beef farmers were forced to handfeed and spend exorbitant amounts of time and money on water cartage to prevent stock deaths due to dehydration. The livelihood of our milk producers was further threatened by the unavailability of water, which made sanitation in their dairies incredibly difficult and, in some instances, impossible. Carefully crafted bloodlines of prize beasts were unceremoniously sent to the slaughterhouses because it was financially impossible for farmers to keep them alive. In Paterson, we may have had some decent rain since the soaring mercury in the summer months, yet we still have many thousands of animals relying on handfeeding, as we know that the winter grass doesn't have the sugar content of the summer grass. The situation is ongoing. In other parts of the country, there is no respite in sight. In fact, we've seen properties and communities in New South Wales and Queensland that have been paralysed by drought for seven years. Even if this drought breaks tomorrow, we live in an age of uncertainty. The ever-evolving challenge of climate change and the volatility of our weather patterns will ensure many unknowns remain. Even farmers that have seen the vagaries of the weather over many decades have said to me, 'I've never seen it like this, Meryl; I've never seen it like this.' This government hasn't lifted its finger in five years to give them a hand—and the former agriculture minister skulks out of this chamber. I place on the parliamentary record my anger at the inaction by prime ministers Turnbull and Abbott, and ministers for agriculture and water resources Joyce and now Littleproud, for the unacceptable and indeed unforgiveable amount of time it has taken to act. It really is not good enough. The Turnbull government could have eased the suffering of many, many farming families across our nation years ago, and instead it has stood by and ceremoniously hand-wrung, and not much else. They went on this tour, this selfie tour, of parts of drought affected Australia. They didn't come to my electorate of Paterson. I congratulate them on extending the farm household assistance for another 12 months, but it is a small sticking plaster on a gaping wound that is our farming community, who need something much better. The scenes the Prime Minister and his entourage witnessed were not new. These aren't new scenes. As my esteemed colleague the member for Hunter pointed out, a listening tour at that point in the drought cycle was just ridiculous. There was nothing new left to learn. We've learnt the lessons. We've known for decades what goes on in drought, but what we don't know is how it has changed and accelerated the way it has. This government has had five years, through the SCoPI process, to supposedly put in place things that will help farmers decide if they can make a living off the land, if they need to be doing other things and retraining, if they can drought-proof their properties over the long term. This government has decided: 'No, no, we haven't done any of that in five years. The big-ticket item is extending the farm household assistance measures for an extra 12 months.' It will be welcome, as the member for New England said, to keep the wolves from the door for another 12 months, but it certainly doesn't help the fact that the wolves have been killing the herd for many years and we've just stood by and let it happen. It is nothing more than an eleventh hour photo opportunity, and really this government should be hanging its head in shame. The Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform expires on 18 July. I ask you: did this government need to wait until this agreement was expiring to do something? No, it should have been doing something over the last five years. And this mob hold themselves up to our rural and regional communities as some beacon of understanding of farming. I tell you what: my family goes back generations in farming as well, and they can absolutely see that this government has not done the right thing by farmers. You're all talk and no action on farming, and that is the great disgrace. You've had five years to do something meaningful and instead you've stood around and done nothing. You haven't even put the architecture in place to set people up for the next five years. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Before I call the next speaker, I issue a general reminder to members, firstly, to address all remarks through the chair and, secondly, to refer to members by their correct titles. 17:49 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I actually believe in the agricultural industry, and I'm not going to talk it down. I actually see farmers out there making a lot of money. Profit is actually not a 'bad word' in the agricultural sector. I've farmed through droughts. I bought my farm after shearing, having saved a deposit at 22 and borrowed $400,000. It took a bit of convincing for the bank to lend me the money. Can I also point out that I'd saved a heap of money, and, when I bought my first farm, all that money that I saved went in stamp duty to the Victorian government. So, when people talk about farming, it's very easy to be abstract and claim family heritage, but it's a very different thing to live it. It's a very different thing to actually go through a drought. I do want to say that the first thing you can do to help the farming sector is keep out of their way. Let them run their businesses. Let them expand. Let them do the best they can. Most farmers I talk to would rather the government does very little except build decent roads and create better market opportunities. Do you know that the one thing that has helped our agriculture more than anything is the market opportunities? I'll explain that. Whilst those on the other side might scoff, it would be interesting for them to listen to this. In 1992 we were exporting to 12 countries with sheepmeat. When we couldn't find a market, when things were difficult, we finished up having to shoot sheep. I've done it, and it's very, very disheartening. All through the 'hat-trick drought' years, in 2006, 2007 and 2008, we were still able to sell sheep for very good money, and the reason was that we had opened the market opportunities to 96 countries with sheepmeat. And it is a combination of strong governments on both sides who pushed very hard to try and keep market access open. I want to touch on this, because this leads into a bit of the discussion going on in Western Australia at the moment, where there are 60,000 sheep sitting in a port. There are some who would seek to ban live exports. In contrast, when I was in Ethiopia three weeks ago, we met with the Ethiopian foreign minister, and we were trying to get airfreight links between the capital of Ethiopia and Perth. People ask, 'How are these two issues related?' I want to run through it because it's very, very relevant. The reason live exports have dropped significantly in Victoria and the other east coast states is that, when you slaughter a sheep now, there is greater utilisation of the carcass. The hearts, the livers and those sorts of things are airfreighted, usually in the body of an Emirates airlines plane, to the Middle East, and, because of that, we're able to get a better market. In contrast, I have been trying to open up market opportunities so we have better airfreight links out of Perth, which could develop the domestic market in Perth. The Labor Party, under Joel, is pushing to put in a complete ban and shut that down. That is the contrast: opening up those market opportunities made the difference. That is the one thing that helped. More than farm household support, more than any rate subsidy, what helped farmers throughout that dry time was the market opportunities. If I look at the prosperity that is currently being experienced across the Wimmera Mallee, it is because of the free trade agreements with China, with Korea— An honourable member: It's because we got rain. Mr BROAD 30379 Well, it hasn't rained in my patch yet; it's rained in the southern part. But we got Korea, China, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Japan, and those free trade agreements have opened up greater opportunities. So to say the government has done nothing in this space is a very short-term view of what the role of the federal government is, which is to ensure our biosecurity, ensure we minimise the cost of getting our products to the market and ensure we open up market opportunities. In doing those things, you ultimately create wealth for rural communities and wealth for farmers. There are times when you have difficult seasonal conditions, and I think it is fair and reasonable that there should be farm household support. Essentially, a person would normally receive some Centrelink benefits if they were unemployed. In this case, a person has a land asset, but that land asset hasn't earned anything. Even though they've got an asset, they haven't earned anything, so they too are entitled to a Centrelink benefit to keep the groceries on table. It's a very logical thing. There are things that government should do. We should simmer down a little bit, stop talking down the agricultural industry, stop yelling abuse at one another and think about what actually worked in the droughts and what helped us, which was opening up market opportunities, removing inhibitors of freight and saying that we believed agriculture had a strong future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Before I call on the next speaker, I once again remind the chamber to refer to members by their correct titles. I indicate that, if it does happen in a future contribution, I will need to ask you to restate it. 17:55 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I thank the members who have preceded me—the member for Hunter and the member for Paterson—who highlighted exactly what this motion is all about: drought conditions. I fully accept what the member for Mallee has said about market improvements for agriculture. I don't disagree with any of that, but we are talking about drought. When I look at drought policy, I see a landscape of five years of waste and abandonment by the coalition government. We conducted a Productivity Commission study that went to the heart of the problem with the exceptional circumstances regime: the efficiency of providing drought support. This is not something we can turn our back on and say, 'The market will see us through this,' because drought conditions are becoming more severe and more frequent. It's not only that; it's the unpredictability of weather systems. My family has been dairy farming in my region for 170 years. My great-great-grandfather founded the Bega Cheese co-op and was its first chairman. The Dairy Industry Association was absolutely livid about the decentralisation policy under which the APVMA moved to New England, destroying the agency's capability. We've heard Senate evidence that it has been hindered for at least another seven years while it tries to recover from the loss of 30 per cent of its scientists and most of its staff. It was completely unnecessary sabotage of agriculture in an area where we need research to help adapt to drought conditions and climate change. That's where the effort has to be—in the science and assistance that we apply to this issue—and that is exactly what the Productivity Commission highlighted. They said that exceptional circumstances 'do not help farmers improve their self-reliance, preparedness and climate change management'. We put in place a COAG process involving the setting up of primary industry standing committees and standing councils. They were dismantled by the coalition, so no progress was made on developing a federation-wide approach to drought policy. It was really unfortunate. We've lost so much time—nearly six years now. This adaptation is the real issue. We've heard talk about the Regional Investment Corporation. We're looking at loans to farmers, which they have to pay back. Building on what the member for Mallee's comments underline, what farmers need is self-sufficiency. We need policy platforms that support that. We talked about export. Another area the coalition destroyed was our regimes around supporting and getting live export on a more sound footing. Our inspector-general regime was one of those matters that were going to give certainty to the supply chain. That has been dismantled by the member for New England. That has put us back to square one. Every time one of these incidents happens with live exports, butchers tell me that the meat market goes through the floor. People stop eating meat when they see these terrible images. They react terribly to these shocking circumstances. That was another mistake. We've also seen what has been happening with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. There are issues there around water efficiency and how that improves the situation of farmers in drought. There are so many issues that our farmers need to start adopting because of drought conditions, such as drip irrigation and the like. When we're talking about dealing with this challenge of drought and climate change, one of the most important policy initiatives of the previous government was the carbon farming initiative. This was going to allow farmers to diversify their income base and adopt strategies that address climate change. It was also going to help sequester carbon in the landscape and improve the health of soils. We saw what was possible out of that: the long-term answer to some of the techniques of no-till farming, stubble management and the like; improving hydration of the landscape through some of the natural sequence farming theories; and also the wave of regenerative farming options that we're seeing farmers adopt. In my region, we had a fantastic meeting of farmers at Yass recently. In particular, a wonderful farmer down in the Cooma region, Charles Massey, who has a PhD, presented so many great suggestions for regenerative farming. That's what we need to do: have policy that gets behind our farmers to help them adapt. My Monaro Farming Systems crew worked with CSIRO to have a modelling tool for their properties that gives them the ability to plan over a 50-year cycle, using their grass-grow modelling technique. Sound policy on dealing with climate change and sound policy to make farmers more efficient will see them through droughts of the future. What we're seeing is this government absolutely turning its back on those critical policy areas. 18:00 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, I can understand why you got a little bit confused in calling me—there's no government speaker left to speak on this motion, which they put forward. I want to note that, again, it is the members of the Labor Party who are standing up to speak up for agriculture and for our farmers, particularly on the very important topic of drought declared parts of rural Australia. I reiterate the comments that my colleagues have made and say how disappointed I am that all the government have done is extend the farm household allowance from three years to four years. That's all the government have done. For all of their whirlwind tours, for all of their listening and for all of their media ops, all they've done is extend the farm household allowance from three years to four years! In some ways, you kind of expected the government to extend it, because it was so diabolical in the first year. It was such a struggle for farmers who were affected by drought to get access to the allowance that it's really not a surprise. In some ways, maybe the government are making up for the damage they did early on. Why were there problems? The government, on coming to office, cut funding to financial counsellors in the regions. I lost the financial counselling office in my electorate of Bendigo. They did a review and amalgamated, and people lost their jobs—people who had helped farmers access this allowance. We've also seen the government scrap an intergovernmental agreement to look at long-term drought reform, which was created by the Labor government through the COAG process. All the government do is put a bandaid on the problem. Labor sits down with the states, through a coordinated process and says, 'Let's talk about long-term drought reform. Let's work out a plan that has milestones, funding and arrangements in it.' As I've travelled around the country, I've met lots of farmers in rural and regional Australia. Farmer after farmer has told me that the climate is changing. They've told me they believe in climate change and that they want to work with policymakers, with local, state and federal government representatives on a proper program of reform. We know our farmers are innovative. Many have jumped in; they are trying to diversify their industries. They're looking at online businesses—if they can get access to the NBN. They are looking at how they can grow and diversify their market so if they don't put a crop into the ground, because of drought, they do have another income. I've met with farmers who've leased part of their land for solar parks or for wind parks—another way in which they're trying to offset the income they will lose as a result of drought. But what we've seen from the government, for all their talking, is just another bandaid—an extension of the farm household allowance from three years to four years. Of course Labor's going to support that, because it's the very least the government could do. There's no long-term plan on how we're going to transition. There's no commitment whatsoever to restoring the COAG intergovernmental agreement on drought reform. That is something that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources and the Prime Minister could do: reverse the mistakes of their predecessors and restore that process so our farmers and our farming communities can engage with scientists, can engage with the funding and can work on ways to droughtproof for the future. A couple of speakers have mentioned the Regional Investment Corporation and commented that the previous agriculture minister was its father. Well, he is a very disappointing father when it comes to the Regional Investment Corporation. Many of you will know that last week the Regional Investment Corporation met in a park. They don't even have an office! They didn't even get to meet in a McDonald's, like staff from another diabolical decentralisation project of this government did. They met in a park on a park bench, because they don't have a location. This is an organisation that is supposed to be responsible for funding. It is a corporation. It is taking jobs and money and business from the Bendigo Bank, which is responsible for rural finance in my electorate, and, rather than it happening in Bendigo Bank—an accredited financial institution in this country—it's occurring on a park bench. To the father of RIC: well done! To this government: well done for again putting at risk our farmers, the farming industry and farm finance! This government needs to do more for our farmers, and it need to do more to tackle the effects of drought and look at long-term drought reform. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 As there are no further speakers. the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. National Disability Insurance Scheme 150 18:05 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I rise to support the motion put forward by the member for Lindsay and to strongly support the importance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It was in fact the Labor Party who, in government, devised the NDIS. It was designed and funded to better meet the long-term needs of the hundreds of thousands of Australians with a disability. The aim was to ensure that these people, their families and their carers would have the support they need and deserve. We now have the NDIS being fully implemented and rolled out right across the nation. It means that nearly a quarter of a million of Australians under the age of 65, including thousands of children, should be benefiting from access to housing, health services, care, support, early intervention services and advocacy. Whilst, for many, the rollout is meeting their needs and working effectively, there is still substantial work required to urgently address delays and inadequacies in the NDIS operations and rollout. These are issues the government must address, including things such as providers being able to access important transition funding. I do want to acknowledge all those people who deliver significant services to people with a disability, their families and their carers in my electorate who are providing that care and support in a timely, effective and efficient way. But I'm constantly being contacted by people who are desperate to make a smooth transition into this scheme. The questions and issues are varied and numerous, and often include matters like inadequate funding and resourcing. Some particular concerns relate to appropriate housing arrangements and care. Indeed, many people with disabilities are facing homelessness or displacement because service providers are not able to deliver the care that is required and the housing required. I have seen instances of providers selling a building that was being used for specialised accommodation, leaving clients without the option of other available housing arrangements. There are also issues about the provision of governance, oversight and accountability in regard to providers; who determines the effectiveness of providers in delivering what they've actually been contracted for; and who can advocate on behalf of clients to those providers. Many others have discovered that services they used to receive have tripled in price. The pricing structure must be addressed so that everyone can access the services they need, including group activities, which are also unfortunately under threat in the current model. There are discrepancies in the approval of services which see clients with similar or equivalent needs being approved very different hours of assistance. Further, it's unclear what parameters are used to define the terms 'reasonable' and 'necessary' in relation to a client's needs, because there are such variations. There have also been a number of concerns raised by constituents in relation to the ongoing funding for children with level 1 and level 2 autism spectrum disorder. The uncertainty for these young people and their families has at times been quite frightening and unsettling, and the government needs to be very clear about its intentions and what it will be providing for these people. One of the most significant issues is the timeliness of plans being drawn up, as well as, often, the lengthy delays in the delivery of the plan itself. Most recently, some of those who had their plans finalised then experienced problems with plan activation codes, with some receiving up to four separate codes in order to actually activate their plan. There are also concerns for those waiting for reviews of their plans, with some being told the waiting time is up to one year. That is just way too long. Many people say they are quite hesitant about coming forward and asking for a review, for fear of being penalised. These people need security and assurances. They cannot wait up to a year to get the support and assistance they need and deserve, simply because the government is unwilling or unable to fix these problems. The Turnbull government must start listening and must address these many widespread concerns about the rollout of the NDIS. I wrote to the minister urgently last Friday to raise my concerns about the very sudden collapse of a local NDIS service provider. FSG, which stands for Freedom, Social Justice and Growth, went into voluntary administration just last week. Although FSG is based on the Gold Coast, just over the border in Queensland, they do provide extensive services throughout the Northern Rivers. I am seeking reassurances that all those affected will be offered immediate solutions to transition to other providers, because no-one should be falling through the cracks. We need the NDIA on the North Coast soon, on the ground, to ensure continuity of services to all those affected. They should be there today, right now, providing assistance. So I call on the Turnbull government to provide guarantees to affected participants and to provide extra resources on the ground to support participants and workers, face to face—not remotely, but actually on the ground, providing that support. So, in conclusion, the Turnbull government needs to focus on fixing the problems with the NDIS. I am urging the government on behalf of all the people in my electorate, and indeed right across Australia, who have these problems, to provide adequate funding and adequate resources for the NDIS, because we keep hearing stories about people who can't access those services in a timely way. The fact is the NDIS must be successful to be able to effectively provide the support, care and dignity that people in our communities need and deserve. 18:10 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I have spoken in this place on many occasions about the NDIS and disabilities in general. I hope that when I do I'm reflecting the views of my community, which regrettably is overrepresented when it comes to people that live with disabilities. My family is one of the many that is all too familiar with the financial and emotional toll that is involved in caring for somebody living with a disability. I know this because my grandson Nathaniel is on the autism spectrum. I know that these families don't want lectures and they don't want our sympathy; they just want to know that they will get supported when they need it. I want my grandson and all Australians to grow up in a community that cares, a community that values them and a community that is committed to their inclusion so that they can achieve their full potential in life. It was under this belief that the National Disability Insurance Scheme was made a reality under the Gillard Labor government. It is an initiative that we are all proud of, as we should be. It is a scheme that will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability with reasonable and necessary support they will need to live an ordinary life. For the first time in history we have a scheme that is needs based and affords individuals living with a disability choice and dignity over their lives. The NDIS, as of September last year, had approximately 133,000 participants registered with an approved plan, with 9,500 children receiving support through the early intervention approach. All these statistics are certainly pleasing, but there is definitely more work that needs to be done. The government must urgently address some of the significant delays and inadequacies in the NDIS operation and rollout, which is occurring under their watch. Families have approached my office on a regular basis desperate for help. It is clear that we are reaching a tipping point when it comes to providing support to people with disabilities. People with disabilities and their families are simply not receiving the services and support they need—and it is something that was promised to them. Recently, I had a forum, which the member for Werriwa also attended, in partnership with 'united recovery'. The forum was attended by more than 150 people with disabilities, their family members, carers, local service providers and representatives from the NDIA itself. A number of issues were raised during the forum, with the main areas of concern revolving around accessibility, continuity of services, administrative errors, inadequate training of staff, misuse of funding, and the need for greater choice and control by participants. Lucy Reggio, the program manager for Catena Programs and Services, provided some insight into the realities of the NDIS both as a mother of a son with a disability and as a professional working in the sector. She captured the heart of the problem faced by many families in my community when she said, 'The local area coordinators lack the time and capacity to adequately address the needs of participants and to coordinate, particularly in times of crisis'. She goes on to say that there is 'clearly no communication between health systems and the disability system'. She put it in perspective by citing an example of an individual who through an accident became a paraplegic and, on being discharged from hospital, was left with no information at all about the workings of the NDIS. These are just some of the alarming issues arising out of the government's mismanagement of the system, causing individuals and families much frustration and anxiety. The NDIS was designed by Labor to introduce choice and control into the disability system. It was about implementing independence, autonomy and tailored solutions, and this is what must be reflected by the planners of NDIA. The government must address the issue of poor delivery, and provide choice and control that people with disabilities need and were rightly promised. The challenge of our generation is not just about the care that we afford people with disabilities; it is about their genuine inclusion in our modern society. They deserve better, and we can do better. 18:15 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I thank the member for Lindsay for proposing this motion about the NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is the biggest reform in this space and something which is really making a difference to the lives of Australians living with a disability. It's incumbent on us as lawmakers to make the scheme as user-friendly and cost-effective as possible. I genuinely acknowledge the staff of the NDIA and Assistant Minister Prentice for help with issues that my office raises every day. We field calls from concerned caregivers, participants and providers, and their assistance allows us to find solutions. However, after over two years of NDIS packages in my part of south-west Sydney, we need to look at ways of improving the interaction and outcomes for people who are supported by the NDIS. Both providers and participants are raising issues about the bureaucratic nature of the plans. Those waiting for reviews of their plans are currently waiting up to six months or more without feedback or information about what is happening or the process being undertaken. Information would help them deal with the stress of waiting and not knowing what will happen next. One of my constituents, Duncan, emailed last week with feedback about the NDIS. Duncan is an advocate for his son and has contacted my electorate office on many occasions for advice and support. Last year's package was too low. Although this has been remedied with an increase in his son's package this year, he is still finding navigation of the process difficult, especially around the way funding is allocated to subcategories without taking on the feedback of the recipient or their carer. He recently contacted me again to provide feedback about experiences with two service providers. For the first service provider, the family used the NDIS website to obtain the details. After visiting them, it became obvious they had no experience with or insight into mentally disabled people like his son. When it became apparent they were not the right fit for Duncan's son, the service agreement was discontinued. However, the provider had already quarantined a large portion of his son's funds and it took months of negotiation to have it released. The next service provider had an hour meeting with Duncan and provided a report but used 11 hours of the sessions in the service agreement to write and research this report rather than seeing his son. As a consequence, all funds are now exhausted and nothing has helped his son. More importantly, this wasn't discussed with Duncan when the agreement was made. He wrote: I doubt that I am alone in these types of incidents. I have a university degree and over 30 years in the education sector. I find it very difficult to understand the procedures rules and classifications of the NDIS. I have read many pages of information, rung many times, gone into the office and asked questions and still make mistakes with the NDIS. I can only try not to repeat them. Duncan is certainly not alone in these types of incidents. I'm aware of another recipient who's been provided services, even though the service provider was well aware that the child had not been approved, and now has a $15,000 debt. Duncan has asked me to give the following suggestions to the minister responsible to improve the NDIS: employ more qualified staff; provide useful and accessible plain English information; remove categories; revisit service agreements—both business and clients should be protected. These are not only concerns from recipients and their caregivers about the operation of the NDIS. I've also had representations from many of the service providers in my electorate, especially Macarthur Disability Services, who are finding the system difficult to navigate plus it does not support advocacy or ways to help people, particularly those with mental illness, access their plans. They've raised concerns about realistic funding and transport costs and also about other issues too numerous for me to mention here. The NDIS is a great reform and is certainly a bipartisan reform for our country, but now is the time to listen to the feedback and improve on the foundations that have been made. We have to ensure that we provide choice and support to those who are most vulnerable in our society—when and how they need it. 18:20 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to support the motion put by the member for Lindsay in regard to the NDIS. We heard a lot about aspiration last week, and today I want to speak about the aspirations of some 460,000 Australians who will be assisted by the National Disability Insurance Scheme. What could be a more important aspiration than to aspire to live life to the full? This is the aspiration that the Labor Party embraced when we launched the NDIS in 2013. The NDIS is expected to transform the lives of Australians under the age of 65 living with a permanent and significant disability by providing the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live an ordinary life, the kind of life that many of us can take for granted. The NDIS became available on the Central Coast of New South Wales from July 2016. My electorate of Dobell spans roughly half the rollout area. According to the 2016 census, in my electorate there were just over 5,000 people aged under 65 who required assistance in one or more of the three core activity areas of self-care, mobility and communication. The NDIS is bipartisan and overwhelmingly a positive change for our whole community, but for some the NDIS isn't working as well as it could. As a local member, you sometimes here more bad news stories than good. Even allowing for this, I have considerable concerns about the rollout locally. In just over 18 months, my office has received more than 180 individual complaints about the NDIS. I am told of delays in accessing the scheme or services, of excessive or lengthy reviews, of plans being developed with little or no input from participants, of proposals that aren't good value for money, of unnecessary and distressing review processes and of inconsistency in advice between agency planners and local area coordinators. I would like to cite just a few examples of how these problems affect the day-to-day lives of my constituents and their families. Tom received funding for a new wheelchair in his NDIS plan and provided quotes and reports, as required. More than seven months passed before his request was processed. In the meantime, his wheelchair was being held together by tape and cable ties. The wheels were held on by cable ties. Taylah has multiple disabilities and was granted access based on her autism. However, when she reached the age of seven her level of funding was reduced. As a result, Taylah sees her psychologist less often, skips OT sessions and is being treated exclusively by student speech pathologists because it is cheaper. Her review is ongoing after five months. Martha is vision impaired. During her planning meeting she told her local area coordinator she relies on an iPad and an iPhone to photograph and enlarge images or objects for viewing and uses apps such as the bus timetable to stay independent. She had borrowed the iPad from a family member, and her iPhone battery was faulty and needed to be replaced. Her LAC suggested the equipment be included in her NDIS plan. Vision Australia supported the request with an OT's report—however, it was rejected as not meeting the 'reasonable' and 'necessary' criteria. Martha's request to self-fund a portion of the cost was also rejected. To make matters worse, the agency suggested funding could be provided for a magnifier at a cost nearly seven times that of the iPad. Martha said that she was made to feel like she was greedy and that she would not have lodged a request had it not been suggested by the LAC. Daniel is an NDIS participant who has recently completed his first annual review. He requested to self-manage his plan, but this was rejected based on the agency's risk assessment after his request for a new scooter last year. Daniel tells me that his LAC incorrectly listed funding as repairs instead of replacement, and it had also been incorrectly allocated as core supports. Fixing the mistakes caused delays and distress, and, because of his experience, he requested to self-manage. He was astonished that it's also because of his experience that this request was denied. These poor experiences mean that many of my constituents have continued to struggle to get the support they need, when they hoped that the NDIS would put these struggles behind them. In conclusion, I call on the Turnbull government to urgently address delays and problems with the NDIS rollout and its operations. I urge the government to reaffirm its strong commitment to making sure all Australians with a disability get the support they need when they need it, to ensure a smooth transition for people with disability and support providers, and to ensure a properly funded and resourced NDIS. The NDIS was introduced by Labor to provide choice and control for people living with disability. The government needs to do better. Let's get it right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Local Government 154 18:25 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I move: (1) recognises the important role that local government plays in Australia; (2) notes the continuing support that the Australian Government provides to local governments around Australia including: (a) Black Spot Program funding; (b) the Bridges Renewal Program; and (c) the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative; and (3) recognises that strong local government is important for strong and healthy communities. Many of us in this place, including me, have served our local community by representing them on council. In my case, I was a councillor on the former Warringah Council from 2008 to 2012, and what fond memories those four years hold. Our first tier of government is instrumental to communities right across Australia. As I saw and learnt during my time in local government, you are on the ground; you are in and amongst the people you serve. It teaches you to listen and it teaches you to bring everything that we do in this place back to a local level. In fact, I often muse that when I was a local councillor the thing that everyone wanted to talk to me about was Julia Gillard's carbon tax, and now that I'm a federal member everyone wants to talk to me about footpaths. Local government is often considered the closest to the community. Councils focus on the basics: roads, rates and rubbish. As outlined in this year's budget, the Turnbull government will continue to support local councils in doing just this. Thanks to the economic management of this government, we have committed to $2.4 billion in untied funds to over 500 local councils—councils from Tasmania to the Northern Territory, from Perth to Sydney—$4.8 billion to our Roads to Recovery Program; $744 million for the Black Spot Program, a program that has saved countless lives; $480 million for our Bridges Renewal Program, with over 160 bridges having already been updated, and the economic benefits that this has provided to rural and regional areas, where farmers can now get their product to ports to export and sell overseas has not been fully calculated; and $3½ billion for our Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. The Roads to Recovery Program is a program that has significantly improved local roads in the Northern Beaches. We have been able to secure almost a million dollars for our local roads. This includes upgrades to Darius Avenue in North Narrabeen, Darley Street in Forestville, Government Road in Beacon Hill, Jacksons Road in Mona Vale, Matthews Street in Davidson, Old Barrenjoey Road in Avalon, Victor Road in Dee Why, Wheeler Parade in Dee Why, Charleroi Road in Belrose, Bower Street in Manly, Clontarf Street in Seaforth, Cross Street in Brookvale, Ernest Street in Balgowlah Heights, Kirra Road in Allambie Heights, Manning Street in North Balgowlah, Morgan Road, where I grew up, in Oxford Falls in Belrose, Oxford Falls Road, also in Oxford Falls, Victoria Parade in Manly, Wyndora Avenue in Freshwater and Clearview Street in Brookvale. These are all significant and important projects to members of my local community. Recently, the New South Wales government amalgamated 45 councils to 20 new councils, in which my former council of Warringah merged with Manly and Pittwater to create the Northern Beaches Council. That is unlike a previous New South Wales Labor government—truly the most inept and corrupt government in the history of our Federation—which, in 2003, forcibly merged and sacked over 30 councils through a Friday afternoon fax, with no support and no funding, just a 'thanks but no thanks'. We on this side know that this is not a surprise. Those opposite do not support the aspirations of local communities. The same former Labor government forced councils in my electorate to prepare for an influx of 100,000 people, all the while closing two schools and a TAFE and with no investment in infrastructure—nothing like the investment this government is making, as I have mentioned. It seems nothing has changed since those times, as those opposite and their counterparts in New South Wales continue to push for the axing of much-needed infrastructure, like the Beaches Link tunnel. So sick and tired are they of cancelling their own projects, they're now beginning to cancel ours. The difference cannot be starker. My local council was provided with $15 million for infrastructure and investment in community projects and $10 million to help with the set up and formation of the council. At this point I should congratulate great councillors like Rory Amon, Kylie Ferguson, David Walton, Pat Daley and, of course, Stuart Sprott. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Is the motion seconded? Mr Drum 56430 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 18:31 Mr ROB MITCHELL M3E McEwen Once again, we see the government trying to sugar-coat the massive cuts while hiding the truth behind more and more of their misleading rhetoric. Last year I gave those opposite a lesson in basic mathematics, because they failed that with their so-called school-funding increase, and now it looks like we've got to do the same, because clearly it didn't sink in. So for the member for Mackellar I'll speak slowly in the hope that you can keep up. This is basic mathematics: if you remove $1 billion over three years with a freeze on indexation of financial assistance grants and then put half of that back, that's still a cut; that's still a negative for our councils, and that's exactly what this government has done nationwide. In Liberal terms, if you have $2, take $1 out and put back 50c, you're still 50c short. And that's the bit they don't understand. They seem to think you can put a little bit of money in and say, 'Oh, look how great we are.' But they're not. Local governments in our region play a critical role in regional development, improving many streets, towns and suburbs, but something that the member for Mackellar, who is pushing this motion today, doesn't understand is that local governments can't build strong and healthy communities while the Liberal Party and the National Party are diving their hand into local governments' pockets and taking all their cash. Labor has been a proud partner of local government, and we have been since the beginning. We've shown our support through various programs, such as the financial assistance grants under the Whitlam government. When we were last in government, we worked tirelessly alongside local governments to keep our economy moving and keep tradies in work. We substantially boosted funding to the Roads to Recovery Program, and we listened to the needs of communities. Through the GFC, we partnered with local governments to keep economies moving, keep jobs going and build much needed infrastructure. This Liberal-National government has put our local governments through brutal cuts and freezes to funding. While the recent budget brought forward half of the funding cut for this year, it's simply not enough. I represent one of the fastest growing regions, the city of Whittlesea, which is amongst the top 10 fastest growing local governments in the whole of Australia, yet somehow this government is pumping money into its own electorates rather than addressing the hard-hitting issues within municipalities like Whittlesea. Last week I met with representatives from some of the local governments in and around the seat of McEwen. Chatting to representatives from the Murrindindi Shire and the Macedon Ranges, I saw the hard work being undertaken to deliver on infrastructure priorities to keep up with the rapid growth in our region. Wherever we look across McEwen, whether it be Panton Hill, Macedon Ranges, Sunbury to Mernda and all points in between, the roads are not up to scratch with the increased demand being put on them with more and more development and more and more people wanting to move in. While our councils work day in, day out to enhance liveability, sustainability and efficiency in our region through key infrastructure projects, this government continues to rip much needed funding out of their budgets, and they can't always rely on the Victorian government to fill that void. This federal government has an obligation, and it should meet it. It should meet its commitments and do the right thing. As I said, we have hardworking local governments that are trying to do more and more in trying to keep up with growth while getting less and less in resources through this government. Some of our smaller councils are doing it really tough, servicing huge geographical areas with disproportionately low resources. Some of our local councils have to fund 80 metres of road per residential property, servicing some of the largest road networks in the country while working with smaller rate bases to spread this cost around. The extra funding pressure on road networks and council services is not sustainable, and the government has to step up and do its job instead of pork-barrelling its own electorates. We're waiting on black-spot funding programs for Stotts Road and Clonbinane Road in Wandong. There have been six crashes due to dangerous curves in the road. Now more than ever we need equitable Black Spot Program funding not only in Wandong but at Hurstbridge and Panton Hill as well. Meanwhile, this government has committed nothing to Doreen, Mernda, Hurstbridge, St Andrews, Wallan or Kilmore. There isn't one Black Spot Program road or Road of Strategic Importance—nothing. This government has left Victorians high and dry. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 18:3 6 to 18:41 Mr DRUM 56430 I want to applaud Mr Falinski's motives for bringing this motion forward. It's a very important role that local governments play in all of our electorates. I have five in my electorate but, in a previous life as a state member, I had a very strong connection to 48 regional councils around the state of Victoria. We were able to work with each of those councils to assist them at a state level with programs that included a Regional Growth Fund. Inside that $500 million, we allocated $100 million for a fund where local governments could leverage their own projects and take up to $2 million each for the 48 regional councils. They were able to then leverage up it themselves and use that $100 million to build a whole range of infrastructure projects. The local government infrastructure fund was another $100 million shelled out to the 48 regional councils. We had a local Country Roads and Bridges Program where we gave each of our regional councils $4 million, so it was a $160 million program in that regard. Again, we were helping these councils with the funding that they need so they can provide the services that they're expected to provide to their people. All of those programs were immediately taken off the table when the Labor Party came to govern in Victoria in 2014, saving the then government $360 million in that instance. So it was very, very disappointing. But the Andrews government in Victoria at least positioned itself where it was happy to spend money in Melbourne but it was totally disinterested in spending money for infrastructure projects with local governments or partnering up with local government in regional Victoria. What we have now is one of the best programs that has operated across all federal parties and governments, and that is the Black Spot Program. It is something that every local government that we talk to praises, whichever side of politics is in government at the federal level. It gives our local councils the opportunity to fix up those roads that are in desperate need of attention. In my electorate alone in the last few years, the Shire of Campaspe has had over $18 million allocated through the Roads to Recovery Program. The City of Greater Shepparton has had $13.5 million allocated, the Shire of Loddon has had $15.5 million, the Moira Shire Council has had $16.3 million and the Shire of Strathbogie has had $9.4 million over the last four to five years, so it's a really important program. It gives the councils the autonomy to make the decisions themselves. It provides the money but lets the councils choose where that money can be best spent. I applaud the City of Greater Shepparton, which was able to keep pushing forward for additional funding for a significant bypass for the city that needed to be funded. Again, they are waiting for the state to do the work that it needs to do in the feasibility studies and in the preworks phase that have to happen before we can actually start building stage 1 of the bypass. That's going to be a very important project in the next few years. The first stage of the Shepparton bypass is going to cost in the vicinity of $260 million. That's going to be a very, very significant project, and it will require some very serious funding from the federal government to proceed. I'm expecting to have the mayor, Kim O'Keeffe, and the CEO, Peter Harriott, in the parliament this week. We all know that we had a lot of local governments in the parliament last week as they came together for their conference, which they do every year. Whether the funding comes from the federal government or the state government, one way or another, we need to ensure that we fund local councils properly. Certainly, the big city councils can make a lot of money from their parking fines and so forth. However, in the regions, it's very difficult for councils to actually become financially viable. We need to make sure, between the states and the feds, that we fund local government adequately. 18:46 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Given the set-up that we have here in the ACT, I imagine that some would question why the member for Canberra is talking about this private member's bill. The reason I do so is that Norfolk Island is part of my electorate. It is a great honour and a pleasure to have Norfolk Island as part of my electorate, and I get up there at least twice a year to talk to the community and hear about their issues. I commend the role that local governments play and the hard work they undertake to ensure programs, facilities and infrastructure can be delivered to their communities. As the member for Canberra, I have, as I said, the proud honour of representing a community that does actually have a local council, and that is the Norfolk Island community and the Norfolk Island Regional Council. My involvement in Norfolk Island deepened in 2016. Prior to 2016, Norfolk was part of my electoral division, but it wasn't compulsory for those on Norfolk Island to vote and it wasn't compulsory for them to vote in Canberra. Canberra was the default electorate for them to vote in, but they could choose where to vote. But, since 2016, we've made significant changes, which were supported on a bipartisan basis, to integrate Norfolk Island into the Australian system. Up until these changes, no-one on Norfolk paid tax under the Australian system, but they also didn't get Medicare, the age pension and the PBS. They had their own separate system for a community of 1,500 or 1,600 people. With bipartisan support, and as a result of a bipartisan effort, significant reforms have been introduced to Norfolk Island since 2016 to integrate them into the Australian system. As part of that, it is now compulsory for them to vote in federal elections and to vote in the seat of Canberra. As part of the reform process, a new local government body was established: the Norfolk Island Regional Council. The council is led by Mayor Adams with the support of her four councillors, General Manager Jackson and her executive team. It's great to work with two strong women fighting for the island's future. I had the pleasure of hosting the mayor and the general manager last week, when they were in Canberra for the local government convention. Unlike local governments across the mainland that have the support of state governments, Norfolk Island's funding model is unique and relies solely on the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, supplemented by federal grant funding. This, needless to say, creates a good deal of uncertainty for the council when it comes to planning projects, because when you're reliant on grants funding can fluctuate. The council is currently trying to secure funding from the Building Better Regions Fund grants for four projects that, if implemented, will bring significant benefits to the island. The first is an upgrade to the airport runway. At the moment it's uneven. There's a dip which means that, when the planes need to push back for take-off, they need extra power to get the plane over the rut. For an island reliant on tourism, this is very important; this matters. The second project or request for funding is to assist with waste management and sewerage management, which are essential upgrades to essential infrastructure. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Hogan, waste management on an island in the middle of the Pacific is challenging, and Norfolk has a number of challenges on the waste management front. That's why I am very keen for the government to announce, as quickly as possible, this latest round of BBRF funding. Norfolk is desperate to hear the news, particularly in regards to the waste management. The third is an application to fund a communications infrastructure upgrade. There is currently 2G mobile coverage, and the community wants 3G to 4G. These are just a number of the issues that the island is pushing and advocating for. I do encourage the government, if it is serious about ensuring that Norfolk Island has the opportunity to grow and prosper, as we all do, through this reform process, to please announce these BBRF grants as soon as possible. I know that the people of Norfolk Island are on the edge of their seats in anticipation. 18:51 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher It's no secret that there are issues on which the Sunshine Coast Council and I disagree. In particular, I'm strongly opposed to the council's efforts to encourage the construction of a casino in the SunCentral Maroochydore CBD. I've campaigned strongly and publicly against this proposed development on behalf of local residents, and I will continue do so until my last breath. While I appreciate the council's desire to encourage investment in our region, the evidence suggests a casino would hollow out our local economy and bring with it disastrous social consequences. It's also no secret that I also disagree strongly with the Sunshine Coast Council on their approach to the federal government's grant of $140,000 to the Caloundra Chamber of Commerce to install CCTV cameras on Bulcock Street. The Turnbull government provided the chamber with this grant under the Safer Communities Fund last year to construct 23 CCTV cameras around Caloundra. While council have approved the chamber's application to construct these cameras, they've done so with many onerous conditions. Despite their previous support for the project, this puts the completion of this camera project under direct threat. However, despite these differences of opinion that I have with some, but by no means all, of the current elected representatives of the Sunshine Coast Council, I acknowledge the vital day-to-day role that council plays in our community, and the value of the projects that we have collaborated on during my time as the federal member for Fisher. Despite our occasional disagreements, I know that, like me, they as a council have grand ambitions for our region and, like me, they want to see the coast get the infrastructure that it needs. In Fisher, the Turnbull government has provided a great deal of support for the work of the Sunshine Coast Council over the past two years. In last year's federal budget, for example, we allocated $3 million under the Building Better Regions Fund for upgrades to the council's Events Centre Caloundra. The events centre is getting improved acoustics and upgraded foyer, bar, cafe and box office facilities, as well as new air conditioning throughout the building. Importantly, the grant is also allowing the centre to increase accessibility at the main entrance and install facilities for patrons with a disability, which is extremely important. I was actively involved in supporting this application from the beginning, and its success remains a testament to the hard work of council staff in maintaining such a valued community facility. Sunshine Coast Council also benefited to the tune of $2½ million from the Turnbull government's Roads to Recovery Program. In Fisher, this has led to the Commonwealth government paying for upgrade works for Currimundi Road between Buderim and Farlow streets, as well as the resurfacing of a stretch of Coonowrin Street in Battery Hill. Under our Black Spot Program, the Turnbull government have delivered a further $17,000 in funding to improve safety for motorists and pedestrians by installing a fully controlled right-hand turn with arrows at the intersection of University Way and Chancellor Village Boulevard. We also delivered a $205,000 federal grant under the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program for a collaboration between the Sunshine Coast Council, the University of Queensland, QUT and Stockland to install cutting-edge bioacoustic monitors in the new Aura development. This project will help engage local community groups and schools to assess if threatened frogs can be preserved through restored and newly created habitat. I'm grateful to the then Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation and the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security for coming to Fisher to launch this initiative. Just this month, the Sunshine Coast Council handed down their draft integrated transport strategy. This draft strategy lists projects which are, by a very great deal, not the responsibility of council, but which are widely accepted to be important to providing an efficient transport system on the coast. The Turnbull government has delivered unprecedented funding for many of these projects. We've delivered $390 million towards the duplication of the north coast railway line and millions of dollars in funding towards a business case for the North Coast Connect faster rail project. Of course we've also contributed more than $3.2 billion to upgrades to the Bruce Highway between Sunshine Coast and Brisbane. The Turnbull government appreciates the value of local government, and in the electorate of Fisher we are delivering record Commonwealth funding to support that work. I look forward to continuing to work with council, with its elected representatives, to continue to provide good outcomes for the Sunshine Coast people. I'm sure we can work past these differences of opinion we have on some issues. 18:56 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Indeed, the week after we had the Australian Local Government Association here in Canberra, it is somewhat ironic that the member for Mackellar has brought forward a motion to this parliament supporting the role of local government. What used to happen when the Australian Local Government Association gathered here, when I was the minister for local government, was that we would have them meet with the entire cabinet, as well as members of parliament, and we would have discussions with the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister, as well as the local government minister and people directly involved. They would meet for two days, with a function in the evening which would involve every single mayor and shire president around the country, regardless of what their politics were. This was an initiative that was welcomed by local government, and in spite of some reticence, it must be said, from some of my colleagues when it was proposed. They recognised that it was extremely valuable to get that direct input here in Canberra over that period of time. We also created the Centre of Excellence for Local Government to drive best practice. We created the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, whereby every single council in the country benefited, including—in the council which the member for Mackellar spoke about—the upgrade around Narrabeen Lakes, the upgrade around the Manly foreshores, and the upgrade of the cricket pavilion at Manly in the electorate of Warringah. We actually delivered infrastructure funding for communities, not just in marginal electorates as electoral fodder, but in every electorate around the country. We treated local government with respect. That's why we wanted to recognise local government in the Australian Constitution. To give credit where its due, Barnaby Joyce strongly supported that, as the then federal shadow minister for local government. But the Liberals we couldn't get across the line to recognise and enshrine respect for local government so that they didn't exist solely at the whim of state governments, who now can cut their funding and can amalgamate councils without any reference to the actual constituents. That's what happened to my council, the Inner West Council. Three effective local governments in Marrickville, Leichhardt and Ashfield were amalgamated without any reference to the voters whatsoever. Indeed, we had an appointed administrator of that council, elected by nobody—no previous involvement in local government—who was effectively a dictator for the Inner West for 18 months before elections were held. That was of course under the New South Wales Liberal government, of which Mr Falinski, the member for Mackellar, is of course a great supporter. This motion also supports the Black Spot Program, which we support, but there's a 33 per cent underspend in that program. It mentions the Bridges Renewal Program but doesn't mention that there's a 53 per cent underspend in that program. It also mentions the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. What it doesn't mention though is that 85 per cent of that funding flows after 2023. So it will be this term, the next term and really even most of the term after that before all but 15 per cent of that funding flows. I am a genuine supporter of local government. I think that local government, as an area of government that is closest to local communities, can play a great role in determining what the priorities of those local communities are. That's why, under our program, the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, projects had to be nominated by local government. Under this government's regional program, a few cabinet ministers sitting in a corner—three cabinet ministers—get to determine where all the funding went. There is no reference to the community whatsoever. Local government deserve proper respect. They deserve the sentiments in this motion, but they deserve much better from this government. 19:01 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari I want to thank my colleague for his contribution in highlighting the absurdity of this particular motion, whilst recognising and supporting local government and saying that we wanted to have it constitutionally recognised. I'll just refer to local government in my own electorate for a moment. We have nine regional councils, three shire councils and three municipal councils, covering 1.34 million square kilometres. That's a heck of a slice of Australia. There are also 63 local authorities, 135 elected members and over 3,200 employees. These organisations are crucial to communities across the north and are the primary employers in the majority of remote communities. Local government employs and trains over 1,500 Aboriginal people throughout the Northern Territory. One of the things that they're obviously concerned about and participate in is a major component of their work—the maintenance of roads, culverts and drains. They do this well, but they need more resources to adequately provide for the immense roadworks that exist, with a road network around, I think, 35,000 kilometres across the seat of Lingiari. When you contemplate that, along with more than 220 bridges, and thousands of rivers and creek crossings, the sort of money that we're talking about here from the federal government is mystifying, to say the least. The black spot funding has been referred to, with an underspend of 33 per cent, and, for the Bridges Renewal Program, an underspend of 53 per cent. How do we expect to address the needs of communities like mine and to help those regional councils, who have the distinct challenge of making sure that people drive safely and arrive safely? The Australian government committed $744½ million to the Black Spot Program from 2013-14 to 2021-22 to improve road safety across the nation. In the case of the Northern Territory, it's $1.87 million for the whole of the Northern Territory for 2018-19—how bizarre is that? Of this, 33 per cent was allocated to the City of Darwin. This left only three projects to be funded in my electorate of Lingiari. This is simply not good enough. We've heard about the underspends and the commitments being made. In this recent budget, the Treasurer announced funding for the Central Arnhem and Buntine highways totalling $280 million. You would have thought, given that announcement, that that work would be imminent. But of course the great majority of it, 70 per cent or thereabouts, won't be seen until 2022 or 2023. The people of my electorate and the people across Australia have been conned into believing—at least the government has tried to con them—that somehow or other they'll get some immediate reprieve in terms of investment in their roads by this government as a result of that budget announcement. We clearly know that's false. There's no funding for the years 2018-19 for either of these road projects—nothing; not a jot; not a cent. What sort of world do they think we're living in? This funding, if we're to get it, is very important because those roads need work to be done. When we contemplate these roads, we know that in the national road productivity package, there's $3 million for the Roper Highway but, in the south, there's no money to continue work on the sealing of roads to Santa Teresa to the east of Alice Springs. The beef roads package is just a joke in terms of providing opportunities for increasing investment in the roads of the Northern Territory. Territorians who use the Plenty Highway and the Titjikala road will have wait to until the 2020 to receive any significant work upgrading. The federal government has failed Territorians by not partnering properly with them on their vital needs. It's given the local government communities in my own electorate, which I've described and which cover 1.34 million square kilometres, a very raw deal indeed. It's about time the Commonwealth fronted up to their responsibility to fund local government for their roads obligations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers the debate is adjourned and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. ADJOURNMENT 160 ADJOURNMENT 19:06 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:06