2018-06-28 45 1 0 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 28 June 2018

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

DELEGATION REPORTS 1 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Korea and Japan 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Korea and Japan from 11 to 21 April this year. The delegation consisted of the Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Sue Lines; the members for Cunningham, Capricornia, and Mayo; and me. Senator Lines led the visit to the Republic of Korea, and I was privileged to lead the delegation to Japan. The Republic of Korea delegation formed part of the official 2018 bilateral parliamentary visits, and the delegation to Japan was on the invitation of the presiding officers of the Japanese diet. Senator Lines will speak to the Republic of Korea portion of the delegation in the Senate. I would like to speak to the visit to Japan. I'd like to thank the presiding officers of the Japanese diet for inviting an Australian parliamentary delegation to their country. The delegation visited Tokyo, Kyoto and Osaka, where members undertook a mix of formal and cultural activities. The delegation provided opportunities for strengthening existing relationships with parliamentary counterparts, gaining a practical insight into Australia's growing economic and social relationship with Japan and discussing existing and potential areas for intergovernmental and interparliamentary cooperation and exchange. In this sphere, discussions focused on strengthening parliament-to-parliament links; the similarities and differences between parliamentary office positions and member services; and strengthening the Australia-Japan bilateral relationship, including trade, energy, policy and improving regional stability. The delegation discussed the issue of empowering women in politics, with reference to the Japanese parliament's initiative of establishing a parliamentary league to promote female participation in politics. The delegation also met with Australian business representatives in Japan and Colombo Plan scholars who are Australians studying and living in Japan and saw firsthand at Japan's National Museum of Emerging Science and Innovation some impressive glimpses into how robotics will assist humans into the future. The delegation was briefed on a number of important regional matters, which included maintaining regional stability and the issues surrounding the abduction of Japanese citizens by North Korea in the 1970s and 1980s, which Japan is still pursuing. The delegation acknowledges the difficulty faced by the Japanese government in negotiating on this matter over an extended period and the immeasurable loss to the victims and their families. In addition to the presiding officers, on behalf of the delegation I wish to thank members of the Japanese diet that met and hosted members on their visit to Japan. I thank the mayor and deputy mayor of Kyoto for welcoming us to their beautiful and historic city. A particular note of gratitude and appreciation is extended to His Imperial Majesty Emperor Akihito of Japan for granting a special audience with me as Speaker. The bilateral relationship is strong. In Japan we have a friend firmly committed to democracy and the rule of law, as we are. The delegation was warmly received wherever we went. At the conclusion of our meetings I was pleased to extend a reciprocal invitation to the Speaker and President of the Japanese diet to visit the Australian parliament in the near future. I'd like to thank the Australian ambassador to Japan, His Excellency Mr Richard Court AC, and the embassy staff for welcoming and assisting the delegation throughout the visit. In particular, I thank Ms Melanie Calvert, who accompanied the delegation whilst we were in Japan. Members appreciate the time, effort and logistical coordination required to arrange visits programs such as this. On behalf of the delegation, I thank the Australian International and Parliamentary Relations Office and the Japanese international affairs department for arranging and facilitating the program and for making it the success that it was. Thanks also to the delegation secretary, Stephanie Mikac, for her very able assistance throughout both visits. In closing, I would like to extend delegation members' appreciation to the Japanese ambassador to Australia, Mr Sumio Kusaka, who's here on the floor this morning. Thank you and thank you to your embassy staff for briefing the delegation and for ensuring that our visit was a success on behalf of both houses of the parliament. I again thank you and I commend the report to the House. 09:35 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I seek leave from the House to speak on the report of the parliamentary delegation to the Republic of Korea and Japan, particularly about the Republic of Korea. Leave granted. Ms LANDRY 249764 As one of the delegates, I can confirm this was an educational experience and one that, in the range of small ways, I hope may have helped bring our great nations closer together. The purpose of the visit was to sustain and strengthen social ties and discuss issues of mutual benefit and importance to Australia and Korea. By chance, our delegates to Korea were all women, which provided a unique opportunity to discuss female representation at both parliamentary and business levels in each country. While 31 per cent of Australia's parliamentary representatives are women, female representation in the Korean parliament sits at just 18 per cent. While this is slowly improving, women were not historically involved in hard-hitting political and economic issues but tended to be overrepresented in soft social issues relating to health and education. We met with business representatives from both Australia and Korea and heard a lot about the challenges with business in both countries. The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement has assisted to increase and normalise trade between both countries. A tour of a popular Korean supermarket revealed the sales of fresh Australian fruit, vegetables, wine and beef. Coming from the undisputed beef capital of Australia, I was interested to see that they sold beef by the 100 grams as it is classed as a luxury item. We also visited the Hanwha Q CELLS facility, which manufactures solar panels. It was a real eye-opener to learn about the 16-step process, which is nearly totally automated. Hanwha have recently grown by establishing an operation in Sydney, further strengthening our trade bonds with South Korea. The delegation had the opportunity to visit Sejong City, the smart, safe and happy city. Sejong is an innovative, high-technology city of the future located approximately 113 kilometres from Seoul. Construction of this city began in 2012 and expects to be completed by 2030 at a cost of AU$156 billion. The city is expected to reach a population of 500,000 on completion. Everything about this new city is about technology, from in-home waste recycling to an extensive safety- and traffic-monitoring system. The idea of Sejong City is to decrease the population in Seoul by providing an exciting and legitimate alternative community for thousands of young Koreans. The geopolitical stability of the Korean Peninsula was, of course, a major topic of conversation during our visit. Visiting the Korean Demilitarized Zone, or the DMZ, provided a stark reminder of the tension and weight of prolonged antagonism. Walking the tunnel between North and South Korea—originally a North Korean tool of invasion—one could hardly be more thankful to live in a free and peaceful society. The area is a tourism hotspot for Korea, with thousands visiting each year. I was particularly intrigued to hear about the tax-exempt lives of residents near the border, a special incentive to keep the area populated. Families on each side of this political boundary are unfortunate victims of this ongoing state of the war. Great sadness occupies a large section of the community's psyche. Some families have been separated from loved ones for decades, some since the 1950s. Apart from a few brief reunions, these families remain separated and sorrowful—a sad and constant reminder of the silent victims of conflict. To travel with this delegation has been a thoroughly engaging and enjoyable opportunity. To increase my understanding of the trade, culture and politics of these two unique and important partners to Australia is truly valuable. I wish to thank the secretariat, my colleagues and all the wonderful people in South Korea and Japan who helped make this experience possible. BILLS 2 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018 2

Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:40 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Over the life of this government, we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to building a financial sector that is unquestionably strong, unquestionably accountable, and unquestionably competitive. This bill takes the next step on this path and delivers on the promises that we made in the 2017-18 budget to ensure that our regulatory architecture keeps pace with changes that are occurring in the financial environment. It includes two measures relating to financial sector ownership restrictions and bank licensing that will work together to make this critically important sector of our economy more contestable, more innovative, and improve overall choices and outcomes for customers in the banking and financial system. We are building on the changes that we've already made: the major bank levy, which is already ensuring that our largest banks pay their fair share. This is a measure brought in by the Turnbull government. No previous government who has talked about or even hinted at issues regarding the major banks did this. This was done by the Turnbull government to make sure that those major banks paid their fair share. That is already law. It is already occurring; relaxing restrictions on the use of the term 'bank'; the introduction of crowdsourced equity funding—along with other aspects of the government's innovation strategy—that are already increasing entrepreneurs' access to finance; and the announcement in the 2018-19 budget of the introduction of open banking which will have the potential to transform—and, indeed, I believe will—the competitive landscape in financial services and the way in which Australians interact with the banking system. Today's bill significantly reduces barriers to entry that are preventing the innovation that our financial system needs, while still prioritising the safety of customers and the broader financial system. In particular, and consistent with the draft recommendations of the Productivity Commission's review into competition in the financial sector: Schedule 1 to this bill relaxes ownership restrictions in the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998for all financial sector companies—banks as well as life and general insurance providers—and creates a new simplified approval path for new and recent entrants with concentrated ownership; and Schedule 2 amends the Banking Act 1959 to support the operation of APRA's restricted authorised deposit institution licensing framework. I will now provide some detail on these reforms. Under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act, no individual can hold greater than 15 per cent of a financial sector company without being subject to approval under a national interest test. This is an important mechanism to ensure, among other factors, that prudentially regulated institutions have access to sufficient financial resources during times of stress and that their owners have the capabilities necessary to fulfil their responsibilities. However, as identified by the House of Representatives Economics Committee in its first review of the four major banks—and I commend the member for Banks, the chair of the committee at that time and now the assistant minister, for his leadership on these issues—the criteria against which a national interest determination is made are not transparent, they found, and this can have unintended consequences, particularly for start-ups. The government believes the broadness of a national interest test is warranted when assessing significant transactions under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act. However, the government agrees with the view that it is less justifiable when considering ownership of small institutions when they are just starting out, given that due to their size they pose limited risks to financial stability or a large numbers of customers. This is particularly true given that: start-ups are more likely to have a concentrated ownership structure as a normal part of the business life cycle and thereby require Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval; and uncertainty about obtaining Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval is limiting start-ups access to the finance they need to grow, given the perceived risk of an investment becoming 'stranded' should approval against 'national interest' not be granted. This is unacceptable as an outcome, and this bill will now seek to fix it in two ways. Firstly, the ownership threshold beyond which Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval will be required for all financial sector companies will be increased from 15 to 20 per cent, in line with the threshold that exists in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. There is no policy rationale for this discrepancy. Making the two acts consistent will simplify investment in the financial sector and remove a significant regulatory hurdle for institutions where owners are seeking to hold 15 to 20 per cent of available shares. Secondly, we will introduce a streamlined Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval path for small domestically incorporated financial sector companies—that is, banks and life insurance companies with less than $200 million in assets and general insurance companies with less than $50 million in assets—that are seeking a prudential licence for the first time or have been licenced for fewer than five years. Under this model, qualifying institutions will not be assessed against the national interest framework. Instead, as long as the firms' owners are 'fit and proper' and the firm itself undergoes regular reviews of its ownership structure and provides relevant information to APRA each year, Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Actapproval will be granted. To ensure, however, that new entrants receiving approval under this framework do not receive a competitive advantage relative to existing firms, or grow so large that their ownership structure begins to pose risks to consumers, once such firms grow beyond the relevant asset threshold their owners will be required to either: divest their holdings such that no one holds more than 20 per cent of the institution within two years; or apply for regular Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval subject to the existing national interest test within three months. Together, these two elements of the bill will ensure: that the perceived risk of an investment getting stranded in a start-up is dramatically reduced, stimulating investment; and that start-ups have a number of years to test their business in a lighter-touch regulatory environment, before having to comply with the same rules as everyone else, preserving competitive neutrality and system resilience. While schedule 1 to this bill makes significant inroads to cut red tape in relation to new businesses' ownership structure, the government recognises that the power of this change on its own is limited. Even with a Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval in hand, start-ups need to obtain an APRA licence and be ready to comply with a range of prudential requirements covering everything from financial resources to corporate governance and remuneration policies from the day that they start operations. Meeting these requirements is a central part of Australia's regulatory architecture, and APRA's prudent approach to managing financial sector risks was key to Australia's relative success during the global financial crisis. As such, this is not a structure that any government would want to undermine. However, where there are opportunities to reduce barriers to entry without increasing risks, we support them being investigated. That is why the government fully endorses APRA's new restricted authorised deposit institution licensing framework. This will be similar to the United Kingdom's model, which, since 2014, has seen more than 10 new banks commence operations—compared to only one start-up bank in Australia in the last decade. Under APRA's approach, start-up banks will be able to obtain a restricted licence for up to two-years, or a time specified by APRA. During this time they will be subject to a limited suite of prudential requirements and strict caps on the size of their business, granting them the opportunity to prove their business model and attract the funding they need to successfully compete in the longer term. After two years, successful licences will transition to meet the full framework. Building on our reforms in the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act, schedule 2 to this bill therefore makes a number of technical amendments to the Banking Act to support this new licensing approach. In particular, the bill grants APRA the power to: impose a 'time limited' condition on banking licences where institutions are seeking a restricted authorised deposit institution licence; and remove such licences—without a merits review—when the licence holder is found to be noncompliant with their regulatory requirements or not able to develop sufficient resources to acquire a full unrestricted banking licence. While the revocation of a licence without the possibility of a merits review is a significant step, it is a necessary protection when banks are being allowed to operate at lower regulatory requirements and a bank's continued operations during an appeal process would pose unacceptable risks to customers. It is also necessary, more broadly, to protect the reputation of all 'restricted authorised deposit institutions' at a time when they are trying to build their businesses and attract customers. Under this approach, natural justice would still be provided to time-limited licensees, with APRA required to provide notice of its intent to revoke a licence in writing and allow the licensee to make submissions in its defence. This adequately balances the need for licenced institutions to have their rights protected against those protections required by the broader community. It will also have no impact on existing banks or new banks that acquire a full banking licence. To conclude, this bill is yet another example of the government's commitment to creating more competition in the financial sector, which ultimately leads to better outcomes for customers and a stronger economy. This two-pronged approach to simplifying the process of setting up a new financial institution—relaxing both ownership restrictions and licensing rules for new entrants—will support investment and drive the kind of robust competition necessary to create better, cheaper products for all Australians that rely on our banking and financial system. This is another example of the Turnbull government getting on with doing what is needed in our banking and financial system to ensure that it is unquestionably strong, unquestionably accountable and robustly and unquestionably uncompetitive. These are the changes that need to be made to ensure that Australians can rely on a banking and financial system that underpins the strength of our economy. This goes again to the government's plan for a stronger economy, upon which all other things rely—jobs, wages, investment, essential services, keeping Australians safe, bringing the budget back into balance, the government living within its means. All of this depends on a stronger economy, and the banking and financial system that we continue to build and strengthen, to these ends, is what underpins the Turnbull government's commitments, whether on Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or keeping Australians safe and ensuring the protection of Australians all around the country. Debate adjourned. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 5

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

First Reading 5 Second Reading 5 09:52 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No.1) Bill 2018, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This bill enables the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to implement a mandatory reporting scheme for medicine shortages in order to better address the public health implications associated with medicine shortages in Australia. There are also a small number of minor, unrelated measures outlined in the bill, some of which support the implementation in 2017 of the government response to the Expert Panel Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation. Medicine shortages have become an increasing problem in recent years not just in Australia but around the world. A shortage of a critical medicine places patients' lives at risk. This bill responds to concerns raised by patients, their carers and health professionals as well as many representations from members of parliament on behalf of often-distressed patients seeking information about a shortage of a critical medicine. The recent shortage of EpiPen auto-injectors, which are critical in the response to severe allergic reactions in many people, including children whose lives can depend on having rapid access to this life-saving medicine, is a case in point. The current voluntary scheme for reporting medicine shortages by medicine sponsors, which has been in place since 2014, has, unfortunately, proven to be ineffective. A significant number of medicine shortages of critical patient impact have not been reported to the TGA or not reported in a timely manner. As these voluntary arrangements do not oblige sponsors to report, the TGA is not always able to alert the Australian public to a shortage, give them timely advice about steps for alleviating its effects or, significantly, inform health practitioners so they can work with patients to minimise a shortage's impact. In response to these concerns a medicine shortages working group comprised of the Medicines Partnership of Australia, the Australian Medical Association and the Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Australia, chaired by the Department of Health, developed a revised approach to deal with medicine shortages. In particular it will be mandatory for companies to report all shortages to the TGA. The TGA will principally publish information about those shortages that are of particular impact on patients, so that prompt action can be taken to address the needs of affected patients. I would like to thank these groups in particular—Medicines Australia, the wholesalers and the Pharmacy Guild, as well as the AMA and the Society of Hospital Pharmacists—for their input into this new regime and for their support and advocacy for this bill. The bill would ensure that the new mandatory reporting scheme is properly targeted to higher risk medicines—principally prescription medicines, but other non-prescription medicines that are registered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods may also come within the scheme. Examples of products that may be included in this way may be EpiPens and Ventolin inhalers. The bill stipulates time frames by which sponsors must report. For shortages of critical patient impact, a sponsor will be required to report the shortage to the secretary as soon as possible but no later than two working days after they first know, or ought to have reasonably known, about the shortage. For shortages that are not of critical impact, sponsors must notify the secretary no later than 10 working days after knowing of the shortage. Under the bill, a 'shortage' will exist if its supply in Australia will not, or will not likely, meet the demand for it at any time in the next six months, for all the patients in Australia who take it or who may need to take it. This takes a balanced approach by focussing on the overall situation for a medicine's availability in Australia, meaning instances of short supply that only occur at particular locations would not be shortages under the bill—avoiding the over-reporting of events that may turn out not to be widespread shortages. To allow for forward planning of patient care, the bill will also require sponsors to notify the secretary of a decision to permanently discontinue the supply of a medicine in Australia. For such discontinuations of critical impact the sponsor must notify the secretary at least 12 months before the proposed discontinuation or, if this is not possible, as soon as practicable after the decision is made. For all other discontinuations, the secretary must be told at least six months before the proposed discontinuation or as soon as practicable after the decision. For the sake of clarity, a Medicines Watch List will be established as a legislative instrument. This list will set out those medicines that, if in shortage, would have a critical impact on patient care. A shortage or permanent discontinuation of a medicine not in the Medicines Watch List may still be of critical patient impact if certain criteria in the bill are met—for example, if the shortage could have a life-threatening or serious impact on affected patients. Meeting these criteria will trigger the mandatory reporting obligations for critical impact shortages or discontinuations. The bill introduces civil penalties for sponsors who do not comply with the requirements to notify the secretary of a shortage or permanent discontinuation of a reportable medicine within the applicable time frame, with maximum penalties of 100 penalty units for an individual or 1,000 penalty units for a body corporate. The details of such action, and names of non-compliant sponsors and affected products, will also be published on the TGA's website. It is important to note, however, that the TGA would, in practice, work with sponsors to ensure awareness of the scheme and an understanding of how to comply with it, and take a graduated approach to instances of noncompliance. The bill also includes a small number of minor measures not connected to medicine shortages, mainly to remove inefficiencies or make minor improvements to the regulation of therapeutic goods under the legislation. In particular, again, I wish to thank Medicines Australia, the Pharmacy Guild and the wholesalers, the AMA, for their very important work in the preparation of the bill, the Society of Hospital Pharmacists, the department and Mr Sam Develin. We have been very well served and I wish to thank both Sam and Jarryd Williamson for their work in advancing the legislative agenda. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 6

Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 10:00 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018 brings into play one of the government's objectives in terms of national security, which can be stated fairly simply, and that is that we want to keep Australians safe, to maintain our way of life, our values and our freedoms. It is important that all Australians can feel secure in their own country. We also want Australia to be a prosperous nation with strong and resilient relationships. Our intelligence and security agencies are a crucial part of government working to achieve these goals. That is because these agencies are not just keeping us safe. They ensure that the government knows what it needs to know to make informed and strategically sound decisions that balance the many overlapping equities of security, budget, civil liberties and our international relations, to name but a few. While our intelligence and security agencies are performing strongly, their resources and capabilities are constantly challenged. As our Foreign policy white paper emphasised, and developments globally—including in our own region—confirm, we live in an increasingly complex, contested and competitive world. We face imposing challenges, challenges which will only intensify over coming decades, whether from great power rivalries, global extremism and its local reach, or the threats and opportunities posed by accelerating technological change. To meet these challenges, we need to take a holistic and systemic look at our intelligence and security communities. As the Prime Minister has emphasised many times, this government was never going to simply 'set and forget' our approach to security and intelligence. On 7 November 2016, the Prime Minister announced an Independent Intelligence Review, to be conducted by Mr Michael L'Estrange, Mr Steve Merchant and their UK adviser Sir Iain Lobban. On 18 July 2017, the government released the unclassified version of the review's report. The reviewers made 23 overarching recommendations relating to the Intelligence Community's structural, legislative and oversight architecture. At the time we released the report, the Prime Minister announced that the government recognised the review's recommendations as a sound basis to reform Australia's intelligence arrangements, and at that time, and based on this government's clear-eyed assessment of the challenges ahead, the Prime Minister announced the most significant changes to Australia's intelligence and security landscape in more than 40 years. This included establishing an Office of National Intelligence (ONI), transforming the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory authority within the Defence portfolio, and restructuring the nation's cybersecurity architecture and boosting its capabilities. At the same time, the Prime Minister also announced the establishment of the Department of Home Affairs, along with a variety of measures to consolidate and strengthen the oversight of our intelligence and security agencies through the department and my office of the Attorney-General. This approach, as Alan Dupont most elegantly put it, represented 'best practice risk management, which is to anticipate threats, structure for them and build resilience'. The Prime Minister has also agreed to the review's recommendations that our six-agency Australian Intelligence Community [which was made up of the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation (AGO), the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) and the Office of National Assessments (ONA)] formally be expanded to become the National Intelligence Community (the NIC). The NIC will now incorporate the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Defence. The NIC reflects the review's very important judgement, and the reality, that the lines between international, domestic and criminal security issues are becoming increasingly blurred. As the review recommended, ONI will be headed by a secretary-level director-general who will be the Prime Minister's key adviser on matters relating to intelligence and the Intelligence Community. ONI will lead the NIC with an 'enterprise management' approach, creating—as Mr L'Estrange described—a 'whole greater than the sum of its parts' which will leverage the strengths of each agency and enable government to consider the NIC's efforts in their entirety. ONI's job will be to make our intelligence agencies more integrated, better coordinated, and more accountable to the government and, through it, to the Australian people. These reforms continue Australia's well established tradition of periodically testing our intelligence and security architecture to make sure it is fit for purpose. Indeed, it was through this very same process that the Office of National Assessments (ONA) originated. Australia's first royal commission into its intelligence and security agencies was conducted by Justice Robert Hope between 1974 and 1977. Justice Hope went on to conduct a second royal commission in 1983-84 and it's fair to say that, through those two royal commissions, he played a seminal role in shaping our intelligence and security community. One of his key recommendations in 1977 was that Australia establish an independent agency that stood apart from policy departments to provide the Prime Minister with intelligence assessments on political, strategic and economic issues. Hope also intended that this agency would 'assume responsibilities for the leadership and coordination of the Australian intelligence community as a whole'. ONA was established by the Office of National Assessments Act in 1977 and began its work in February 1978. As part of its establishment, ONA also assumed most of the foreign intelligence assessment functions of Defence's then Joint Intelligence Organisation (JIO). In his second royal commission, Justice Hope recognised ONA had proven itself to be a 'valuable source of independent assessment for the government'. However, while ONA produced quality assessments focused on Australia's key interests, it never filled the leadership and coordination role that Hope had envisioned it would. Successive intelligence reviews recognised, and tried to correct, two important shortcomings in relation to the operation of the ONA. First, the ONA never had the analytical resources it needed to cover its ever-broadening assessment remit; and, second, it never had the authority or resources, despite its legislated mandate, to coordinate Australia's intelligence community, set national intelligence requirements and evaluate agencies' efforts against them. Justice Hope's second commission acknowledged ONA's need for more resources and stronger structures to carry out its coordination function, recommending that a National Intelligence Committee be set up to discuss intelligence priorities and requirements. Philip Flood's 2004 intelligence review recommended ONA be doubled in size from 70 to 140 people and that its coordination and evaluation mandate be strengthened. These recommendations have incrementally enhanced ONA's capabilities and taken it closer to where Hope had, from the very beginning, always envisaged it should be. But the enhancements in ONA's capabilities have not been enough to achieve Hope's full vision. Given the rapidly evolving threat environment, incremental changes are no longer sufficient. With the findings of the Independent Intelligence Review confirming yet again the shortcomings in ONA's resourcing and remit, this government is determined that Hope's vision will finally be realised. On 1 December 2017, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Mr Nick Warner as the new Director-General of ONA and Director-General designate of ONI. Mr Warner took up his appointment on 18 December 2017. Mr Warner is one of Australia's most experienced public servants, with a distinguished career that has spanned DFAT, Defence and intelligence agencies. He has served as the Director-General of ASIS and the Secretary of Defence. The government is very confident that he will ensure that Australia's intelligence agencies remain among the most capable, agile and effective in the world. With this bill, we will establish the ONI. While ONI is an idea born out of the Hope royal commissions, we have refined the Hope vision based on the models successfully adopted by our closest intelligence partners, the Five Eyes. They all have, or are all moving towards having, what Mr L'Estrange referred to as 'a stronger centre'. We have borrowed from their examples, but this bill establishes a model particularly for the Australian context, consistent with our system of ministerial responsibility and the statutory independence of our intelligence agencies. Specifically, the ONI Bill implements the recommendations of the 2017 review and builds on the foundations of the ONA Act by: enshrining the role of ONI's Director-General (DGNI) in providing advice directly to the Prime Minister on intelligence community priorities, requirements and capabilities, as well as on the appointment of senior NIC office holders; establishing DGNI and ONI's leadership roles in relation to the NIC, with ONI leading the NIC's integration, strategic planning and coordination, setting requirements to meet Australia's national intelligence priorities, and developing structured and appropriate responses to technological change; giving the director-general—in the context of his leadership role—the authority to issue directions and guidelines to the national intelligence community or its agencies to ensure the national intelligence effort is more integrated, more coherent, maximising capability investment and better focused on government priorities; providing for an expanded role in assembling, correlating and analysing information, recognising that security challenges ignore national boundaries; including detailed requirements on both ONI's authority to access information and its obligations to protect it, through secrecy provisions and stipulating the need for privacy rules to protect Australians; reinforcing ONI's mandate to evaluate the activities of individual NIC agencies and the NIC as a whole; establishing that ONI is accountable for their performance to the Prime Minister; retaining the role and functions of the National Assessments Board in considering national assessments, whilst expanding its membership to include representatives from the Department of Home Affairs and Treasury; and enhancing ONI's Open Source Centre as a centre of expertise for open source collection, analysis, tradecraft and training, in line with the review's recommendations. I want to emphasise that, while the Director-General of National Intelligence and ONI will have prominent roles in coordinating and guiding Australia's overall intelligence effort, including the shared development of capability, the ONI Bill makes it clear that DGNI and ONI will not be directing the operations of other agencies or controlling their budgets. We are not creating an agency which will interfere with the good work of other intelligence agencies that is already underway. In fact, the bill specifies that ONI may not do this. This also reflects the necessity of clear accountability for each of the agencies. Recognising that Australia's safety and security are bipartisan priorities, the ONI Bill states that DGNI must keep the Leader of the Opposition informed on significant intelligence matters. The creation of ONI and the reshaping of our intelligence community into an enterprise mark a milestone in this government's work to keep Australia safe, secure and prosperous. Our efforts to do so will continue with our comprehensive review of security legislation and our broadening of oversight mechanisms, ensuring consistency and strengthening the 'ecosystem of safeguards' that Justice Hope established. This is a further demonstration that this government knows the best ways in which to balance the priority of the community and its safety with individual freedoms. Part of achieving that balance is having the right kind of accountable leadership for our national intelligence community, and the establishment of the ONI will put that in place. Debate adjourned. Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 9

Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 10:12 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Office of National Intelligence (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 will make amendments to 19 acts to support the proposed operation of the Office of National Intelligence Bill 2018. In addition to repealing the Office of National Assessments Act 1977 in its entirety, the bill will make substantive amendments to other legislation relating to the establishment of ONI, including to facilitate the following: Office of National Intelligence access to information; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security oversight of ONI's activities; access to the assumed identities regime in the Crimes Act 1914; and enabling the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate to cooperate with and assist ONI in the performance of ONI's functions. The bill also includes transitional provisions and arrangements which will facilitate the seamless transition when the Office of National Assessments becomes the Office of National Intelligence. On those bases, I commend this bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 10

Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:14 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Defence Amendment (Call Out of the Australian Defence Force) Bill 2018 will enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to support state and territory police to respond to domestic security incidents, including and, most specifically, terrorism. The bill implements the key recommendations of the review of Defence support to national counterterrorism arrangements, announced by the Prime Minister on 17 July last year. In broad terms, the bill will amend part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903 by streamlining the legal procedures for the call-out of the ADF and enhancing its ability to protect states, territories, and Commonwealth interests, onshore and offshore, against terrorism. These amendments complement practical measures already being rolled out by the government to enhance Defence's support to national counterterrorism arrangements. The bill represents the most significant reform of the ADF call-out powers since part IIIAAA was enacted in 2000 in the lead-up to the Sydney Olympics. The threat we face today is, unfortunately, greater and more complex than that which we faced when these laws were introduced almost 20 years ago. The government continuously monitors changes in the security environment and reviews legislative, policy and operational arrangements to ensure we remain ahead of the challenges we face. Nationally, we must have the best laws and capabilities to respond to terrorism, terrorist attacks, whether they are simple, complex, brief or protracted. Despite the robust arrangements we already have in place, we must remain agile and flexible in the face of the evolving terrorist threat. Today, it is most likely that domestic terrorist attacks will be carried out by individuals or small groups inspired by violent ideology using simple methodologies—knives, edge weapons, guns, cars—and could be over in minutes. These types of attacks require immediate response to save lives and to neutralise the threat. Australia's law enforcement, security agencies, and military, are among the best in the world. Australia has a broad continuum of operational response to terrorist attacks spanning from general duties police to the specialist members of the ADF. The police and other emergency services are, and will remain, our first responders to such terrible events. It is the immediate actions of these first responders that can have the greatest impact in terms of saving lives, protecting people and neutralising any threat. Each state and territory police force has specially trained personnel who have expert capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks, but they sometimes need additional support to respond in the most effective manner. While the ADF's primary counterterrorism role is offshore, the ADF has personnel, resources, specialist skills and assets that can assist our emergency services to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. This support includes specialist capabilities such as tactical assault forces, and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear response and recovery. For this reason, it is essential that the defence forces are able to contribute effectively to domestic counterterrorism efforts in every environment. The legislation The bill will re-enact part IIIAAA of the Defence Act, with modernised provisions that are better adapted to the current threat environment. There are a number of key underlying principles that inform the operation of the amended call-out provisions. The ADF should only be called out to assist civilian authorities. If the ADF is called out, civilian authorities remain paramount, but ADF members remain under military command. When called out, ADF members can only use force that is reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances. ADF personnel remain subject to the law and are accountable for their actions. I will now summarise the key changes in the bill. Lowering the threshold for call - out One of the key purposes of the bill is to make it simpler for states and territories to request ADF support. The present legislative threshold prevents the ADF being called out until states and territories 'are not, or are unlikely to be, able to protect themselves or Commonwealth interests against domestic violence'. This is not optimal for facilitating ADF involvement to assist a police response to a terrorist incident. For instance, it could limit the ADF's ability to provide relevant specialist or niche capabilities to support a state or territory in instances where the jurisdiction's capacity to respond has not been exhausted. These amendments will require that, in deciding whether to call out the ADF, Commonwealth authorising ministers consider the nature of the violence and whether specifically ADF support would be likely to enhance the state or territory's ability to protect itself or Commonwealth interests. Importantly, these factors would not limit the range of matters that authorising ministers could take into account. These amendments will permit states and territories to request that the Commonwealth call out the ADF in a broader range of circumstances. The amendments will make the threshold more flexible and responsive to the needs of states and territories while recognising and respecting each state and territory's different requirements. This threshold also respects the position of states and territories as first responders, by requiring an assessment of the potential benefit of ADF assistance. The amendments to the threshold do not mean that the ADF will or should be called out to respond to every threat. However, they will give greater flexibility to respond to the wide range of threats that may arise and the range of response capabilities of every jurisdiction. Expanding contingent call- out Fig. 1 Recent terrorist attacks in cities such as Paris and London have prompted a reassessment of the scope of the ability to pre-authorise call-outs of the ADF. This is known traditionally as the contingent call-out. Contingent call-out allows Commonwealth ministers to pre-authorise the ADF to respond if specified circumstances arise. This removes any potential delay in seeking ministerial authorisation to act once an incident has taken place, and enables the ADF to already be on the scene, ready to assist the police response. Contingent call-out is presently limited only to aviation and the protection of Commonwealth interests. These amendments will extend contingent call-out to be available to protect state and territory interests, whether in the land, air, or in the maritime domain. In light of the current threat environment where terrorist incidents can be over in a matter of minutes, these amendments provide additional options when planning for anticipated terrorist threats. Multi jurisdictional call- out It's the case that terrorist threats can be highly mobile and can occur in multiple locations simultaneously. It's more than conceivable that a threat may arise in one jurisdiction and rapidly move to another. It is therefore critical that legislative arrangements do not hinder an ADF response in this context. These amendments will enhance the ability of the ADF to respond to incidents which cross state or territory borders by allowing for call-out orders to authorise the ADF to operate in multiple jurisdictions, as well as an offshore area. Increased Consultation with State and Territory Police The bill recognises the importance of the ADF working cooperatively alongside first responders, by increasing the requirements to consult with state and territory police. As a matter of course, the ADF would work closely alongside state and territory first responders if called out. Under these amendments, the ADF will be required to consult with every state and territory affected by a call-out order, to the extent possible in the circumstances. The amendments also require that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the ADF be utilised only in accordance with the written requests of the police force of the jurisdiction in which the ADF is operating. Simplify , Expand and Clarify ADF Powers Under the current legislative framework presently in play the powers of the ADF are spread across multiple divisions, and differ depending on whether the powers are being exercised on or offshore. This has the potential to create confusion about which powers apply at a given time. Therefore, the bill clarifies the powers the ADF members may exercise by organising the ADF's powers into three distinct divisions. These new divisions will apply to both the onshore and offshore areas to facilitate the ADF's ability to respond to multijurisdictional incidents and to streamline the legislation. The bill expands the powers to prevent, put an end to, and protect people from acts of violence to also cover threats to a person's life or safety, or to public health or public safety. This will make clear that the ADF can act in relation to generalised threats which may not be directed toward any specific person, but towards the community in general. The amendments will also simplify, expand and clarify the powers of the ADF to search and seize, and to control movement during an incident. For instance, the search powers currently available in specified areas focus predominantly on 'dangerous things'. The amendments will allow the ADF to also search for people who pose a threat to a person's life, health or safety or public health or public safety. These amendments have been carefully calibrated to ensure an appropriate balance between rights and powers in an emergency situation. General Security Area and Designated Area Harmonisation The existing legislation also sets out a complicated scheme relating to on and offshore general security areas and designated areas, with different powers available in each area. Operationally, this requires ADF members to be continually aware of the respective area boundaries to ensure they exercise the powers available within that area only. This may prove challenging in a time-compressed and dynamic environment with a rapidly changing threat. To reduce complexity and uncertainty, the amendments will remove the distinction between the general security area and designated area provisions and allow for the complete suite of powers to be exercised within a single specified area, subject, of course, to appropriate safeguards. Inclusion of the Minister for Home Affairs as a named 'alternative' minister It is the case that, under the existing legislation, in a sudden and extraordinary emergency an expedited call-out made by the Prime Minister acting alone or, if the Prime Minister is unable to be contacted, the Minister for Defence and the Attorney-General acting together. If only one of the authorising ministers can be contacted, an expedited call-out order can be made by either the Minister for Defence or the Attorney-General, together with an alternative minister, including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs or the Treasurer. In recognition of the key role that the Minister for Home Affairs plays in counterterrorism coordination, and as a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, the amendments will add the Minister for Home Affairs as a named alternative minister for the purposes of expedited call out. Conclusion The measures in this bill will ensure that Defence's specialist counterterrorism capabilities are readily available to states and territories if and when they are appropriate and needed. Significantly, the amendments will enable the ADF to respond to a threat spanning jurisdictional borders and be pre-authorised to respond to threats on land, at sea or in the air. This will ensure the most rapid response possible, which is critical given the current threat environment. This bill represents a substantial improvement to the Commonwealth's ability to support national counterterrorism arrangements and to save Australian lives when a domestic terrorist threat arises. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 13

Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018

First Reading 13 Second Reading 13 10:26 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 sees the government committed to addressing family violence and improving the protections offered through the family law system to those affected by violence and abuse. I will just add that I am joined in the chamber by the Minister for Women, who has been of great assistance in the drafting of this legislation. The Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill 2018 will ensure that protections are in place for victims of family violence during cross-examination in all family law proceedings. Family violence is very unfortunately a very serious problem that profoundly affects individuals, families and the communities in which they live. According to a report released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in February, one in six Australian women and one in 16 Australian men have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by a current or previous partner, and one in four women and one in six men have experienced emotional abuse by a current or previous partner. Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies found that, over two years between 2015 and 2017, direct cross-examination in final hearings occurred in 173 matters where there were allegations of family violence and one or both parties were self-represented. This bill implements the October 2016 recommendation of the Council of Australian Governments that perpetrators of family violence should be banned from directly cross-examining their victims in any family law or family violence proceedings. The bill also responds directly to recommendations in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 2017 report A better family law system to support and protect those affected by family violence by introducing legislative amendments to ensure that victims of family violence are protected from being directly cross-examined by their alleged perpetrators. These amendments apply equally to parenting and property proceedings, thereby ensuring that appropriate safeguards for victims of family violence are in place in all types of family law proceedings. The direct cross-examination of a victim of family violence by their alleged perpetrator can expose the victim to significant re-traumatisation and affect their ability, importantly, to give clear and cogent evidence. The power dynamics underlying family violence can also make it difficult for victims to effectively cross-examine their alleged perpetrator. Victims of family violence also cite the fear of being cross-examined directly by their alleged perpetrator as a significant factor in deciding to settle a matter, often on terms they consider to be unfavourable. This can place victims and children at increased risk of harm. This bill will amend the Family Law Act to prohibit direct cross-examination where there is an allegation of family violence between the parties to proceedings in certain limited circumstances: first, where either party has been convicted of, or is charged with, an offence involving violence, or a threat of violence, to the other party, second, where a family violence order (other than an interim order) applies to both parties, third, where an injunction under section 68B or 114 of the Family Law Act for the personal protection of either party is directed against the other party, and otherwise, where those circumstances do not apply, but where the court retains a discretion to make an order that direct cross-examination be prohibited in any proceeding where an allegation of family violence has been made. In circumstances where allegations of family violence have been raised, but direct cross-examination is not prohibited, the bill requires that the court apply other appropriate protections. For example, the victim might appear via video link from a safe room, or support persons or screens could be utilised. Where direct cross-examination is prohibited, the bill requires that cross-examination must be conducted by a legal representative. Parties would be able to obtain their own legal representation where possible and, where a party is unable to obtain private representation, would be able to access legal aid according to the usual rules and standards. The government is working closely with the family law courts and National Legal Aid to determine appropriate processes, fully consider anticipated impacts and ensure adequate funding is available to ensure the bill is effectively implemented. These will be in place well prior to the provisions being applied to matters before the courts. It is important to note that the measures in the bill apply to both parties. That is, where the prohibition applies, a party's legal representatives must undertake the cross-examination on their behalf, regardless of whether the party is the perpetrator or the victim. This ensures that the victim is given appropriate protection and support both when cross-examining the alleged perpetrator and when being cross-examined by the alleged perpetrator. This will help to ensure the provision of more reliable evidence to the court. It will strengthen the court's ability to protect victims of family violence and make decisions in the best interests of their children. The government does of course understand the need to ensure procedural fairness for all parties in family law proceedings. Cross-examination is a critical part of family law proceedings, allowing the evidence of each party to be tested, and so assisting the court to make evidence based findings. The government considers that this bill provides protection while continuing to provide appropriate procedural fairness to all parties. Given the aim of the amendments is to reduce trauma to victims of family violence in family law proceedings, and given the important role that cross-examination plays in testing evidence, the government proposes to comprehensively review the operation of the proposed amendments after the second anniversary of the legislation's commencement. The bill includes a maximum three-month commencement delay, to ensure the family law courts can put appropriate procedural mechanisms in place. The amendments will then apply to cross-examinations that occur six months after commencement, to ensure parties can obtain legal representation in an appropriate time period, and prevent any unnecessary delays to their court proceedings. This bill will improve the justice system's ability to support vulnerable witnesses by requiring the use of appropriate protections in all family law proceedings where there is family violence. It is another demonstration of the government's continuing commitment to addressing domestic violence in Australia and to ensuring that the family law system protects victims of family violence. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 14

Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 14 Second Reading 14 10:33 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 seeks to improve and streamline the operation of legislative frameworks for Commonwealth acts and instruments by making amendments to various acts, primarily the Legislation Act 2003 and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The key purpose of the bill is to implement those recommendations of the Report on the operation of the sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act 2003 that can only be addressed by legislative action. Last year, a review of the sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act was conducted by a committee comprised of three senior Commonwealth public servants. The sunsetting provisions provide that a legislative instrument is automatically repealed approximately 10 years after commencement. Sunsetting ensures that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for so long as they are needed. The committee did find that the sunsetting framework is, in general, fulfilling its stated purpose. As at 1 October 2017, over 2,000 legislative instruments have appeared on sunsetting lists tabled in parliament under section 52 of the Legislation Act. Of those instruments, approximately 20 per cent were allowed to sunset, 19 per cent were actively repealed, and 24 per cent were replaced (comprising approximately 63 per cent of the listed instruments in total). These statistics indicate that the sunsetting framework has substantially contributed to keeping the statute book up to date. The sunsetting of older legislative instruments is also an important mechanism for the Australian government to reduce red tape, deliver clearer laws and align existing legislation with current government policy. The Attorney-General's Department has made enhancements to administrative processes and internal guidance to assist Commonwealth rule-makers and agencies to manage the sunsetting of their legislative instruments efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the law. However, some legislative action was necessary to further streamline and improve the operation of the scheme. This bill seeks to include more flexibility in the sunsetting framework by broadening the scope of the Attorney-General's power to issue certificates of deferral of sunsetting and declarations of alignment of sunsetting. It also provides for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these powers. The time restriction on the parliament's power to roll over the sunsetting date of a legislative instrument will also be removed. The bill will provide that rules made by each of the federal courts are not subject to the sunsetting framework, as there are already numerous mechanisms in place to ensure that rules of court remain fit for purpose, relevant and required. Further, this bill provides a definition of 'sitting day' as it applies to the disallowance provisions of the Legislation Act. This definition is consistent with current practice, but will provide greater legal clarity about the status of legislative instruments in circumstances where the parliament has sat on an unscheduled sitting day. This bill will also make minor changes to a number of provisions to clarify their operation, in particular the interaction between the disallowance, tabling and automatic repeal provisions of the Legislation Act. In addition to the amendments resulting from the recommendations of the committee, this bill will make other minor and technical amendments to the Legislation Act and the Acts Interpretation Act to clarify their operation, resolve inconsistencies between provisions and simplify language. In particular, it will clarify that a provision in the Legislation Act allowing a legislative or notifiable instrument to commence before the instrument is registered operates despite any rule or principle of common law. Any retrospective commencement of a legislative or notifiable instrument, however, is displaced to the extent that the retrospective commencement adversely affects the rights or liabilities of a person other than the Commonwealth. This provides a protection against retrospectivity for adversely affected individuals without rendering an entire instrument or provision of an instrument ineffective in relation to all people both prospectively and retrospectively. It will also clarify the limits of the First Parliamentary Counsel's power to rectify an error on the Federal Register of Legislation. This error correction power ensures that administrative errors, such as lodgement of the incorrect version of an instrument or compilation for publication on the Register, can be rectified without requiring the rule-maker to repeal and remake the instrument. Finally, this bill will clarify that, where an act refers to a provision of another act or state or territory law, and that provision is repealed and re-enacted, a reference to the repealed provision extends to the re-enacted provision even if it is differently numbered. This bill provides an opportunity to improve and streamline the legislative frameworks for Commonwealth acts and delegated legislation that ensure Commonwealth laws are up-to-date, clear and align existing legislation with current government policy. For those reasons, I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Modern Slavery Bill 2018 15

Modern Slavery Bill 2018

First Reading 15 Second Reading 15 10:38 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Background Almost two centuries after William Wilberforce legislated for the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom, the UN estimates that up to 25 million modern slavery victims are exploited in global supply chains. This includes over 4,000 people in Australia estimated to be enduring slavery or slave-like conditions. These victims are enslaved in mines, in factories, in brothels, in brick kilns, and on construction sites, fishing boats and farms around the world. Their exploitation involves serious crimes and grave human rights abuses and taints the goods and services that we use every day. Modern slavery in supply chains also distorts global markets, undercuts responsible businesses, and poses significant legal and reputational risks for companies. However, our current legislative framework does not directly target modern slavery within supply chains or support the business community to take action. This bill will address modern slavery risks in the supply chains of our goods and services by establishing a flexible, risk based reporting framework. This will transform the way the Australian business community responds to modern slavery. For the first time, large businesses will be required to identify how their operations and supply chains may contribute to modern slavery and explain what they are doing to address these risks. This increased transparency will create a level playing field for large businesses to disclose their modern slavery risks. Critically, it will also drive a 'race to the top' as reporting entities compete for market funding and investor and consumer support. Businesses that fail to take action will be penalised by the market and consumers and severely tarnish their reputations. Purpose This bill will strengthen Australia's response to modern slavery by establishing a modern slavery reporting requirement. This significant initiative will shine a light into the shadows of global supply chains where modern slavery thrives. It will require large businesses to be transparent about their modern slavery risks and how they are being addressed. The government will also lead by example by considering possible modern slavery risks in our own procurement. This bill will send a clear message that modern slavery is unacceptable in the supply chains of all of our goods and services. It is a key milestone in Australia's response to this heinous crime and sets an important foundation for further government action. The government is carefully considering the need for additional steps based on the recommendations of the 2017 parliamentary inquiry into an Australian modern slavery act. I thank committee members for their important work, particularly Foreign Affairs and Aid Sub-Committee Chair Chris Crewther, the member for Dunkley, for his leadership in the conduct of the inquiry and the outstanding work he did in putting together such a substantial report that will have a lasting impact. I would also like to make special mention of Senator Linda Reynolds for her genuine passion and dedication to making a positive change in the lives of exploited and trafficked children in for-profit orphanages around the world. The committee report provides a detailed assessment of the possible next steps for Australia, and I expect to be in a position to table the government response to the report during the next sitting period. With the International Labour Organization estimating that 11.7 million forced labourers, or 56 per cent of the global total, are in the Asia-Pacific region, Australia has a very important role to play on the global stage in the elimination of this practice. The development of this bill has been guided by one central objective: to combat modern slavery in the supply chains of our goods and services. Key features of the bill The government has worked hard to ensure this bill is effective, practical to implement for business and consistent with community expectations. Under the reporting requirement over 3,000 corporations, trusts, partnerships and other entities will need to publish annual modern slavery statements. The bill sets a $100 million consolidated revenue threshold for reporting. This ensures that it focuses on entities that have the capacity to meaningfully comply and the market influence to clean up and address their global supply chains. Statements will need to address mandatory criteria set out in the bill, including identifying the entity's key modern slavery risks and describing their actions to address these risks. These criteria will provide certainty for business about how to report and ensure statements can be easily compared. The bill also makes senior management accountable for the entity's modern slavery risks by requiring statements to be approved by the entity's principal governing body. The government will make all statements freely available online through a central, transparent, government-run register. The world-leading initiative will promote transparency and ensure that the community can easily access and compare statements. The government also recognises that our own procurement is not immune from modern slavery risks. That is why the government will publish an annual consolidated modern slavery statement for all non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Commonwealth corporations and companies will publish separate statements if they meet the revenue threshold. This world-first step demonstrates the government's commitment to taking real and serious action to combat modern slavery. The government also recognises the importance of supporting the business community to implement the reporting requirement. The government will work with business and civil society to develop detailed guidance about the reporting requirement. The guidance will be finalised before the reporting requirement comes into force. The government has also committed $3.6 million through the 2018 budget to establish a dedicated Modern Slavery Business Engagement Unit within the Department of Home Affairs to advise and support business. Development of the bill This bill will now form part of a growing international regulatory regime and builds on the lessons learned from other jurisdictions. It improves on similar legislation overseas by including mandatory reporting criteria covering the Commonwealth government, and establishing a government-run register for statements. The government has also developed and tested this bill through an extensive public consultation process. These consultations involved: releasing a detailed public discussion paper in August 2017 12 consultation roundtables with over 130 business and civil society participants in September and October 2017 over 50 additional direct meetings with stakeholders almost 100 written submissions, and targeted exposure draft bill consultations with over 40 expert stakeholders in May of this year. These consultations shaped key features of the bill, including the definition of modern slavery, wording of the mandatory criteria and the deadline for reporting. They have also highlighted strong support from business and civil society for this bill. The government will now work with the states and territories to ensure a nationally consistent approach to modern slavery reporting requirements. This will ensure we avoid multiple compliance frameworks which is critically important in providing business with certainty regarding their reporting obligations and minimising regulatory burden. Conclusion 2018 is a landmark year in terms of tackling modern slavery within Australia. We have a moral imperative to eradicate this practice from our supply chains and our businesses. This bill is an important next step in Australia's fight against this heinous practice. It is a sensible and practical step. But above all the government believes it will be a powerful and effective catalyst for change. We will continue to build on the strong foundation of government collaboration with business and civil society. We owe the 25 million victims of modern slavery exploited in global supply chains worldwide nothing less. I look forward to working with those opposite and those in the other place, to ensure that this bill is passed before the end of the year. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 18 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 18 Approval of Work 18 10:46 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Facilities to support naval operations in the north project, Darwin. As advised when this project was referred to the public works committee on 28 March 2018, the Department of Defence is proposing to construct a new wharf at HMAS Coonawarra in Darwin, Northern Territory, to support the Navy's activities and the Australian Defence Force more broadly. This project aligns with the 2016 Defence white paper's advice on the importance of key enabling capabilities at defence bases. The paper foreshadowed the upgrading of Coonawarra to support the new offshore patrol vessels. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants and contractors, a maximum workforce of 240 personnel and an average construction workforce of around 130 personnel. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $272.6 million, excluding GST. The committee has conducted an inquiry and considers the project to be value for money for the Commonwealth, fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to start in early 2019 and be completed by mid-2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 18 10:48 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Larrakeyah Barracks redevelopment project, Darwin. As advised when this project was referred to the public works committee on 28 March this year, the Department of Defence is proposing to redevelop the Larrakeyah Defence Precinct in Darwin, which encompasses HMAS Coonawarra and the Larrakeyah Barracks. The redevelopment includes upgrades to engineering services, base entrance and working accommodation. The 2016 Defence white paper recognises the importance of key defence base capabilities and foreshadowed the upgrading of Larrakeyah Barracks and Coonawarra to support more offshore patrol vessels and Australian Defence Force operations and exercises. The project will employ a diverse range of skilled consultants and contractors, a maximum workforce of 290 personnel and an average construction workforce of around 130 personnel. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $223 million, excluding GST. The committee has conducted an inquiry and considers the project to be value for money for the Commonwealth, fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government, I thank the committee for once again undertaking a timely inquiry. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is expected to commence in September 2018 and be completed by June 2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Approval of Work 18 10:50 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Stage two of the Garden Island (East) Critical Infrastructure Recovery Program, Sydney. As advised when this project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 28 March this year, the Department of Defence is proposing to undertake repairs, installation and replacement works to wharves and engineering services at Garden Island in Sydney. The 2016 Defence white paper identified the importance of Defence's key enabling capabilities, including wharves, and foreshadowed the upgrading of Garden Island to support an expanded fleet. The capital investment in infrastructure at Garden Island will bring economic benefits to the New South Wales economy, with employment opportunities in the building, construction and labour markets. The works will also provide opportunities for suppliers of construction materials and equipment. The estimated cost to deliver the project is $286.5 million, excluding GST. The committee has conducted an inquiry and considers the project to be value for money for the Commonwealth, fit for purpose and expedient to carry out. On behalf of the government I thank the committee for undertaking the timely inquiry into this matter. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction is scheduled from late 2018 through to late 2023. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Reference 19 10:52 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Point Wilson waterside infrastructure remediation project, Point Wilson, Victoria. The Department of Defence is proposing to undertake adaptive reuse and refurbishment of existing waterside infrastructure, the demolition of redundant and deteriorated infrastructure, and the construction of new infrastructure at the Point Wilson explosives area in Victoria. The 2016 Defence white paper identified the importance of key enabling capabilities of the defence estate, including logistic systems, such as explosive ordnance facilities, and foreshadowed the upgrading of the Point Wilson explosives area to conduct and sustain explosive ordnance operations in Australia. This capital investment in infrastructure at the Point Wilson explosives area will bring economic benefits to the local economy, with the employment of a diverse range of skilled consultants and contractors during the construction phase to deliver and manage the works. The estimated cost of the project is $218.92 million, excluding GST. This includes the construction costs, the management and design fees, furniture, fittings, equipment, contingencies and escalation provisions. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project is planned to commence construction from late-July 2018 and be completed by mid-2021. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. Privileges and Members' Interests Committee 19 Report 19 10:54 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 28 February 2018 to 26 June 2018. Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation 19 Report 19 10:55 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray On behalf of the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation, I present the committee's report entitled Regions at the ready: Investing in Australia's future, together with the minutes of proceedings. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr DRUM 56430 by leave—As Australia battles to deal with its centralised population and congestion caused by having over 40 per cent of its population living in its two biggest cities, the realisation is stark that we have to take a different approach to growing our regions if we want to achieve a different outcome. For many decades, Melbourne and Sydney have dominated Australia's population. As these cities and our other capitals have grown and prospered, the demand for further infrastructure investment continues to grow. These endless demands from our capital cities for more lanes on freeways, more trains running more often, bigger hospitals, more universities, bigger airports and new airports put the nation in a continuous need for more resources. Once these infrastructure projects are completed, these capital cities continue to thrive and become more liveable and then more and more people make the decision to live in this capitals, and the congestion cycle starts all over again. Until we have a fundamental shift in spending priorities away from our congested capital cities and share the infrastructure spending with regional Australia, we cannot expect the current imbalance to correct itself. As a result of this cycle, more and more Australians are now growing tired of the congestion in our capital cities, despairing of their inability to enter the housing market and generally struggling to get ahead while living in these growing suburban based cities. The regions of Australia have never been in a better position to take advantage of an Australian population that is looking away from our capital cities and looking to the regions for a better all-around life. Regional Australia is ready to welcome these people with open arms, to live five to 10 minutes from work, to own your own home, to have space for your children to grow and play. These are the benefits our regions have over our capitals. We just need a greater share of the funding pie invested in regional Australia. While the quantum of spending in regional Australia is a critical factor, it is also important that our funding be more targeted. The committee continually heard that the most important issues are around making our regional cities, towns and communities more connected. Connectivity can be described as having better roads, better rail services, mobile phone coverage and access to quality broadband internet. Especially important is that those living in regional Australia have access to a reasonable base level of services such as health and education. The final piece of the puzzle that influences people's decisions to live in the regions is that of amenity. The amenity of a city, town or community can be visual aesthetics, buildings, parks, theatres, access to shops, recreational facilities, et cetera. While amenity is a broad and wide-reaching category, if we fail to invest in amenity, we will fail to entice people to live in regional Australia. The government's decentralisation agenda was warmly welcomed by every regional city that the committee visited. At every regional hearing, witnesses espoused the advantages of relocating government agencies or parts thereof from capital cities out to regional cities, where their performance and outcomes would be improved due to either a natural geographical advantage or advantages gained by creating a cluster and critical mass of agencies or businesses. While it is undeniably the preference of government to move more government agencies to regions where there will be a natural advantage, the committee also saw a number of successful examples of relocated government agencies where there was no natural advantage to speak of, other than the benefit of having well-paid government employees living and working in regional towns and cities. In these instances, I believe that there should never be any disadvantage to the efficiency of a government agency when a potential relocation is being considered. We also heard evidence that, even when the positives associated with moving an agency far outweigh the perceived negatives, there will always be an element of pushback from public servants who would much prefer to stay in their current location. It must be noted that while government agencies being relocated from capital cities out to regional cities become the face of decentralisation policy, it is the private sector that has the ability to dwarf the benefits that will be delivered from relocating government sector positions. Private sector decentralisation is often dependent on the decisions of government that set the environment for private sector movements. It is also abundantly evident that we need to categorise our own investment in regional Australia into four discernible categories. First, there are what we would all acknowledge as investments that maintain the status quo. These projects are necessary as they assist in enabling regional towns and cities to provide that universal base level of service and amenity. Second, and perhaps most importantly, is catalytic investment. These investments attract further investments, and they help create and build on critical mass in a particular sector. These catalytic investments that lure other businesses into a co-location should be given greater priority within government decision-making. Third is an investment in capacity building, and, finally, there is investment in human capital. The role of identifying catalytic-type investment is one that would be well served by our regional development committees into the future. There is so much work yet to be done in this space. Regional development and decentralisation will play an increasingly important role in growing the national economy and creating a more even spread of Australia's population. The committee strongly agrees that the Australian parliament create a joint standing committee on regional decentralisation to continue this work into the future. The committee would like to thank everyone who participated in this inquiry, particularly the members of our informal expert panel, namely: Jack Archer, Professor Andrew Beer, Professor John Cole, Ms Anne Dunn, Professor Robyn Eversole, Professor Fiona Haslam McKenzie and Professor Tony Sorensen, all of whom made an outstanding contribution not just as witnesses to our public hearings but also through submissions, other written contributions and advice. I would also like to thank the members of the committee, especially the former chairs, Dr John McVeigh and the honourable Darren Chester. I would also like to thank the deputy chair, Ms Meryl Swanson MP, for her professionalism and bipartisan approach. I would like to thank all the members of the secretariat, namely: Fran Denny, Lynley Ducker, Andrew Gaczol, Danton Leary, Kelly Burt and Julia Agostino. I commend this report to the House. 11:02 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson by leave—I rise to speak on the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation's report into ways to increase the growth and prosperity of rural and regional Australia. The chair of our committee, the member for Murray, has just spoken about our findings. I would like to thank him for his remarks and for the level of cooperation and support he has extended throughout the committee's tenure. As the deputy chair of the committee, I would also like to note the substantial contributions made by the previous chairs, namely the member for Groom, Dr McVeigh, who joins us in the chamber, and also Darren Chester, the member for Gippsland, who was also a chair of the committee for a short time. We have had a very productive time on this committee. I would also like to thank the members of the secretariat, including: secretaries Julia Agostino and Lynley Ducker, inquiry secretary Fran Denny, senior research officer Andrew Gaczol, research officer Danton Leary, and administration officer Kelly Burt. Thank you so much. None of this would have been possible without your good work. Mention must also be made of the many individuals and organisations that provided essential information for this report and attended or made submissions to our hearings around the country—particularly our expert panel, whom the chair has already individually thanked. I would like to reinforce that thanks. I also make mention of the member for Indi, who has in particular applied her knowledge of rural and regional Australia and committed many hours to this. I would like to personally thank her for her assistance and cooperation in working through what were at times very complex issues across a very important part of our country. Thank you all for sharing your thoughts, your experience, your expertise and your passion for the fortunes and wellbeing of the people of regional Australia. I really share that passion about regional Australia. It is in many cases the untapped gem. My electorate of Paterson is one such gem. It spans wine producers, traditional industries, beef and dairy farmers, emerging high tech, the coalfields, booming regional and coastal areas, vegetable farmers, the Williamtown RAAF base and the glorious blue-water destinations of Port Stephens. The committee's draft report, Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future, acknowledges that our nation's economic prosperity is underwritten by investment in regional and rural communities such as my own. This is hardly surprising, considering around a third of Australia's workforce is employed outside of metropolitan areas. These people and industries really do ply some serious heft—they account for around 40 per cent of Australia's national economic output. How can we further capitalise on the marvellous opportunities presented by our fantastic regions? It is a complex issue, and there is no one-size-fits-all for the regions. There are almost as many solutions as there are regions. But the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation's report has found that decentralisation, in and of itself, isn't enough. For example, it isn't good enough to lift up a government department or other public agency and drop it into a regional community hundreds of kilometres away for short-term political gain. We need to really grasp the nettle on this. We've got to stop politicising our regional areas for short-term political benefit. To this end, the committee sought feedback from far and wide, throughout the country, over the past year, and it has drawn on this information to set out the basis of a solid Commonwealth decentralisation policy. Within it, there are some vital learnings. These include the fact that decentralised agencies or functions need to be a good fit for the location. This could mean a natural geographic advantage, existing complementary businesses or industries or a skilled workforce. Any decentralisation should be a catalyst for broader social and economic change. It should give rise to clustering opportunities—that is, attract relevant industries and businesses, encourage an expansion of services and facilitate education and training opportunities. One of the biggest items of decentralisation is efficiently and appropriately equipping agencies that are already in regional and rural areas. The draft report also highlights the fact that we face two major challenges as we work to encourage more people to embrace a life in regional Australia. One is purely a matter of perception. The second could be a matter of trend. With reference to the first challenge, our committee identified the fact that many hold a perception that our regions are somehow second-rate—not those who live in the regions but perhaps those in other, more metropolitan areas. I'm the first to dispute that perception. I'm a product of a rural and regional environment. I know firsthand what sort of wonderful people and opportunities lie in our regions, and I know that our regions themselves, such as my electorate of Paterson, are often sustainable, vibrant and enjoyable places to live and work and raise a family. An erroneous perception that life in regional Australia is a second-rate existence really often fails scrutiny. Our metropolitan areas are often congested and many are experiencing the stress of rapid population growth and housing affordability. Those stressors, combined with the high cost-of-living expenses, make it harder for people achieve the quality of they want. The second challenge the committee identified is that there is an established trend of people moving to the capital cities, to the metropolitan areas. That trend is on; it is happening. Rooted somewhere in the psyche of many Australians, I think there's a deep-seated message that lends them to believe that they could even perish if they lived more than half an hour from the coast. Maybe it's because our home is girt by sea. Maybe it's because we are a proud island nation. Maybe it's our collective pride in our beautiful coastline. Regardless, there are many of us, though, who might not clap eyes on the ocean more than once every six months, despite our relative proximity to it. So, we've got that challenge to understand. We've got to understand that trend of people moving to the capital cities and wanting to stay close to the coastal band. How do we tackle that challenge and encourage people to look beyond the big cities and the beach? For regions to thrive, they need to attract and retain people. And, yes, much of regional and rural Australia lies more than half an hour from the big city or the beach. Our committee identified four ways in which we can support this outcome, and they all boil down to investment: investment in infrastructure, such as roads, education, training, information technology, connectivity and regional facilities; investment that drives development and growth, such as in an airport, hospital, university or government department; investment in capacity building—that is, providing leadership development, education and training opportunities for people in rural communities; and, finally, investment in human capital—employing good people to deliver the services that our communities need. However, decentralisation and investment across our three tiers of government are not enough on their own. We must encourage private entities to invest in regional and rural areas and we must collaborate and work collectively with our communities. Some Australians might baulk at the idea of moving to a regional or rural area, due to the perceptions. We must actively promote the value of and the advantages of living and working in regional Australia, and we must ensure universal access to reasonable services. These points lie within the 12 principles that the select committee believes should form the basis of all regional development policy. We must also acknowledge that it is most important that the decentralisation of any Commonwealth or corporate entities meets the requirement of efficiency. We can't shift operations somewhere where the locale and the location hinder the function. In addition, we must acknowledge and embrace the fact that we live in a fast-evolving world. The ramifications of these changes, and the pace with which the changes occur, must be considered when we conceptualise, formulate and implement regional development policy. For this reason, the committee sees a need for the establishment of a Joint Standing Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation. This issue demands an ongoing committee that exits to constantly examine and assess the issues that face rural and regional Australians. The committee asks that the same committee that is tasked with examining the issues also oversees the broader Commonwealth decentralisation program. I would like to reiterate the committee's call for a consolidated government policy on regional Australia, through a regional white-paper process. In closing, I would like to make special mention of my electorate of Paterson and thank those people who submitted to the inquiry. I thank those who attended the Hunter hearing. I was most honoured to chair that hearing and I was very pleased that representatives from the airport at Newcastle, Maitland Business Chamber, Kurri Kurri District Business Chamber, the University of Newcastle and the Hunter Research Foundation all gave some fantastic ideas and evidence. Thank you so much for your commitment to helping our community thrive and, more broadly, thank you to the committee and those who served on it with me, as deputy. It was a terrific experience and I do hope that we can move forward and really help our regions that are so ready to prosper. 11:13 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi by leave—To endorse the comments of the chair and deputy chair—thank you. What I'm so pleased about is that this is a principle-based report and if the recommendations are accepted by the government it will lead to good governance for all of Australia. The principle that the deputy chair has referred to that I most want to stress, the one that's most important to me, is that of subsidiarity. This is a concept which says that decisions are made at the level of governance most close to the people who are going to be impacted by it. I think it's that particular principle that governs the whole report. How do we make sure that the people who live in the regions and in rural and remote areas of Australia have decisions made for them and by them at the level closest to them? If I could briefly pick up on three of the recommendations in the report that support this principle. The long-term recommendations, as has already been mentioned, are about policy. I and very, very supportive of the green-paper and white-paper policy processes. As we travelled around the country, we saw examples of where this process works. It had the unanimous support of the committee and it's a process that, if we do well—which, of course, we have the capacity to do—will give this country a regional policy that will be there for the long term for all people. However, in the report there are also some short-term, easily picked up recommendations. I'm delighted the minister is at the table. From my perspective, the most important recommendation in the report is about regional deals. I'm delighted that, when the minister was speaking to the National General Assembly of Local Government, both he and the Prime Minister endorsed this concept of regional deals. We look forward to working with you, Minister, on piloting these in the very, very near future and getting them underway. I think we can do things in a reasonably short time frame to actually show the people of rural and regional Australia that they have been listened to and to say, 'This report has been taken seriously, and here is the action that the government is going to take as a result of it.' We all know how well the city deals are working. So taking that machinery of government and applying it to regions will, I think, have a really big impact. So, Minister, I'm looking forward to working with you as we do that. The other aspect of the report that I really like is the practical nature of the recommendations. I acknowledge the member for Murray for his work and his absolute tenacity in supporting Regional Development Australia groups as the main mechanism for grounding these regional deals. It's a strategic approach. We already have Regional Development Australia bodies in place. Let's use them. Let's do strategic planning at the regional level and then let's work with the governments—the Commonwealth government, state governments and local governments—and communities to do the planning and strategising that will enable these deals to take place. Here is a huge call-out to the RDAs: we're really looking forward to you having the resources you need to do the planning you need. We can work from that. The other aspect of the report that I would like to talk about is that it is bipartisan. Again, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of all the chairs we've had and the contribution of the Labor Party. We have worked really hard with our communities, because we absolutely understand that, if we are going to get the development that we need in the regions, it's got to be a parliamentary activity. We can't fight on traditional tribal lines. It's got to be everybody working together regardless of their political affiliations. We have that in this report. It's a fantastic achievement. I'd like to really pay tribute to the leadership, who did the really hard work to get everybody to agree to the recommendations. So congratulations to this parliament. I think it will make the people of Australia really proud that, when we have to, we can work together as a parliament, not play those tribal games and deliver a report that everyone agrees with. But, having done the report, the work's not over. As the deputy chair said, we've recommended setting up a parliamentary standing committee to make sure it gets supported. But here is my real call-out. It's to the Prime Minister and to the relevant ministers. This is only going to work if we have leadership. One of the reasons why this committee exists is that it had the support of the Prime Minister in the beginning. So I know he is onside with this. But, if we are going to have regional Australia reach its potential, be full of opportunity, be caring, be prosperous and take its place in this nation, it's going to need significant leadership. It's going to need us all pulling together behind that leadership. We absolutely know it's possible, but it's not going to be easy. I mention to this parliament that one of my predecessors as the member for Indi, Lou Lieberman, in his maiden speech in 1993 said regional development was his major issue. Twenty-five years later I'm standing here as the member for Indi making the same call. But we must draw a line in the sand. We can't keep going without a national strategic approach to regional development. In bringing my comments to a close, I want to say to my colleagues in this House—to the members of the National Party who represent regional seats, to the members of the Liberal Party who represent regional seats and to the members of the Labor Party who represent regional seats—that we have shown we can work together. We have a report here that has some significant recommendations in it. Over the next six months, if we can get that standing committee set up really quickly and begin to do the work that we know we can do so that, before the next election, before we all go out and face our electorates again, we can say, 'We have done this, we have delivered regional deals and we have the standing committee,' and if we could even get the Commonwealth government, through its cabinet, to reform its Regional Ministerial Taskforce to provide the coordination we need, they would be such good activities about which we could go back to our communities and say, 'Tick—we've done what we said we were going to do.' In bringing my comments to a close, I also want to acknowledge—the general thankyous have been done—and thank the people of Indi for 44 submissions. Forty-four community groups and individuals got together. They did the hard work. They put the hours of preparation in. They heard the call. They turned up at the hearings. They delivered results. I have to say proudly that there were more submissions from Indi than from any other electorate in the country. Clearly, my electorate cares, and I care. So thank you to the people of Indi for absolutely getting behind me as your member. We'll continue to advocate for this. The other people I need to thank are my staff. All our staff have worked so hard on this. I want to acknowledge Kerryn Lee for managing the diary, a really hard task. It was very, very difficult as we chopped and changed and did the hearings around the country. I want to acknowledge my electoral officers, Christine, Sara and Peter, for handling the constituent inquiries—fantastic. I want to thank my media people—Leah currently and other media people—who have got behind this whole process and helped explain to my electorate and particularly to the young people in the electorate why this is important. I want to thank Jeremy, my political adviser, who continues to give me really sound advice on how to do work. I thank George for a fantastic job, which you continue to deliver; you continue to persist. I know that in the last month you've worked so hard on this draft. I thank Di, my chief of staff, for the guidance you give all of us to enable us to keep doing our work. And to all my other staff, who I'm not going to name, but to all of you: this has been a whole-office job; it's been a whole-community job, and I am so pleased that we've got to this stage. I give my commitment to my community to work with my colleagues now, to work on the standing committee, so that we can advance the recommendations and actually do the hard work that we know needs to happen next. Thank you, Deputy Speaker, for the honour of being here. I thank my colleagues, the chair and the deputy chair particularly, for your work. It's been a real—I want to say 'baptism of fire'—challenge, but I think that, if we can do what needs to be done next, we will all retire from this job, in the long term, very proud of the work that we've done for regional Australia. 11:22 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 24 11:22 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia 24 Report 24 11:22 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report entitled Northern horizons—unleashing our tourism potential: report on the inquiry into opportunities and methods for stimulating the tourism industry in northern Australia. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr ENTSCH 7K6 by leave—Northern Australia has many natural advantages that make it a unique and unforgettable tourism destination. Northern Australia's varied and pristine natural landscapes and wilderness areas; its strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture; and its proximity to Asia present major tourism opportunities. As well as providing incredible experiences for visitors, stimulating the tourism industry in Northern Australia will support the long-term economic and social development of the north. Tourism investment and development can also contribute to the sustainability of a large number of remote and regional communities. While northern Australia's natural advantages are significant, there are a range of challenges facing tourism operators which has meant tourism growth has been inconsistent across the north. This report outlines 33 recommendations to address these challenges with the aim of stimulating tourism in northern Australia. These recommendations focus on: enhancing the marketing of northern Australia, facilitating timely and affordable access to the north and its tourist attractions, supporting tourism operators and entrepreneurs, and improving the planning and coordination of the development of tourism destinations. The Northern horizons report also identifies major areas of opportunity for tourism growth in the north, which reflect its natural attractions (such as coral reefs, beaches, tropical rainforests, desert, lakes and mountains), its rich Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, and outback experiences and way of life. In particular, the committee examined ways to stimulate further investment in, and development of: eco, cultural, drive, educational and industrial tourism. As well as holding public hearings and inspections across mainland northern Australia, the committee visited the Indian Ocean Territories. The committee found that there are untapped opportunities to expand the tourism offerings in the Indian Ocean Territories, but that challenges related to remoteness and limited tourism infrastructure have presented barriers to tourism growth. Reflecting these circumstances, the committee has made recommendations specifically focused on the development of tourism in the Indian Ocean Territories, including that the Christmas Island casino resort be reopened as a matter of absolute priority. This is similar to recommendations made by the national capital and external territories committee over successive parliaments. It was also a recommendation that we made in our first northern Australia report, the Pivot north report back in, I think, 2016. A large proportion of the tourism industry in northern Australia is made up of small- to medium-sized businesses, many of which are family owned and operated. As such, the committee has made recommendations to ensure that government programs related to tourism are appropriately targeted to meet the needs of small- to medium-sized enterprises. This included recommending eligibility requirements for aspects of the Northern Australia Tourism Initiative be expanded to enable access for smaller businesses and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses. The Northern horizons report and its recommendations build on the predecessor committee's report Pivot north: inquiry into the development of northern Australia, released—I stand corrected—in 2014. Pivot north outlined a range of opportunities for development in the north, one of which was tourism. This report reiterates the recommendations outlined in Pivot north that relate to tourism, as well as the recommendations regarding the need to reduce insurance premiums—which are still very much an impost—upgrade roads and port infrastructure, and lower airport security and flight costs in Northern Australia. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the range of individuals, businesses, organisations and government agencies who provided information to this inquiry. In particular, I would like to thank the small tourism operators who took precious time away from their businesses to provide submissions, attend public hearings, and host committee inspections. I would also like to thank committee members for their participation in this inquiry. In particular, I'd like to thank my deputy chair, the honourable member for Lingiari, sitting across from me here, for the very cooperative way in which he handled issues in developing the north. I'd like to thank all committee members and the secretariat for their ongoing commitment to the work that we're doing here and, of course, the economic and social development of northern Australia. I commend the report to the House. 11:28 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari by leave—I've been so flattered by the member for Leichhardt that I need to respond! I thank the member for Leichhardt, the other members of the committee and the committee secretariat for the work which has been undertaken. We do have a good, joking relationship, which works well in our committee. I have to say that the participation of all the committee members over the period of this inquiry has been exceptional and the work of the committee secretariat has been very, very good. But I do want to just emphasise some points which have been made by the member for Leichhardt. There are tourism opportunities yet to be realised and that remain untapped in northern Australia. It's not because people don't have vision or planning; they don't have the resources and many of them don't have the capital to meet the needs that they have. But most important is the infrastructure efficiency, whether it's in roads, ports or airports. These are issues which the report canvasses and which need to be addressed. The other issue which I wanted to highlight very briefly was the comments made by the member for Leichhardt on the Indian Ocean Territories, part of my electorate and a wonderful part of Australia. It is a part of Australia most Australians have no knowledge or experience of. I would say to them, if they get the opportunity to visit either Christmas Island or Cocos Islands or both, they would value that experience, learn a great deal and enjoy it because of the attractions that exist in those two places, which are unique in the context of Australia. The report addresses some of the impediments to tourism in those two communities and makes recommendations to address them. I want to again highlight the issue around the casino on Christmas Island. This has been a bugbear for 20 years now. It should've been addressed some time ago. People need to be offered the opportunity to apply for a casino licence on Christmas Island to facilitate the development of the casino resort once again. It was a very good undertaking when it operated initially. Sadly, it fell on hard times, but it was very profitable and employed a lot of people. That would happen again in the future. The closing of the immigration detention facility on Christmas Island which has employed hundreds of locals, and, over the medium term, the closure of the mining operation on Christmas Island will mean that we need alternative options. The principal alternative option will be the tourism industry. I would suggest to those people who read this report: understand that we have very much at the front of our minds the opportunities that would exist in the Indian Ocean territories as a result of investment in tourism. Lastly, not because it's a hierarchy of comment but because it is important, the issues related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement with the tourism ministry have also been canvassed in this report. Around 50 per cent of the landmass in Northern Australia is owned in one way or another by Aboriginal people, either through land rights or a native title, and therefore they need to be engaged more often than they currently are. There is no doubt that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people see opportunity in the tourism industry. What I would like to think is that we can facilitate their engagement with and the growth of the tourism industry through the recommendations in this report. I thank all of those who gave their submissions and who tolerated our presence when we visited their communities. 11:32 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I move: That the House take note of the report. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 26 11:32 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Treaties Committee 26 11:32 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I ask leave of the House to make a statement on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties concerning the committee's report No. 177 and also to present a document relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction. Leave granted. Mr ROBERT HWT Today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report No. 177, which was originally tabled on 15 February this year. The report considered the proposed extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties with Jordan. As I advised the House in February, the committee has a history of supporting extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties and, after careful consideration, recommended the two treaties be ratified. The committee has received additional information this week from the Attorney-General's Department which changes the substance of one of the other recommendations made in the report, and it's important this statement be made to the House. Back in February, the committee recommended that Australia and Jordan negotiate a less than treaty level agreement setting out how the extradition treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters transiting through Jordan from Iraq and Syria. The committee believed the less than treaty level agreement would prevent complications arising from the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences. The additional information from the Attorney-General's Department clarifies this issue. After due consideration, the committee has resolved to table a document provided by the AGD, the Attorney-General's Department, regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction. The document will, of course, be published on the committee's website. The document makes clear that what was initially informed to the committee—that there would be complications from the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences—is not complicated at all. A significant body of work has been done by the Attorney-General, and the committee thanks him for his time and diligence. That document shows that in Jordan terrorism offences are contained in the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 55 of 2006. The legislation goes on to list, on a non-exclusive basis, a number of acts that are considered as terrorist acts. According to article 3 of the law, as amended in 2014, there are nine offences under Jordanian law that would make it possible to extradite for extraterritorial offences. If a foreign fighter were fighting in Iraq or Syria and transiting through Jordan, Jordan could indeed seek to bring them into custody, and Australia could seek to extradite them if the offence that occurred in Syria or Iraq were an offence in Jordan. I will list just the top four of the nine offences under article 3 of the Anti-Terrorism Law No. 55 of Jordan: 1. Directly or indirectly providing, collecting or raising funds for the purpose of committing a terrorist act, whether performed inside the Kingdom or against its citizens or interests abroad; 2. Committing acts that would subject the kingdom— of Jordan— to hostilities, harm its relations with a foreign state or subject Jordanians or their property to the dangers of retaliation. 3. Joining or attempting to join any armed groups or terrorist organizations, recruiting or attempting to recruit people to join such groups or organizations or training such persons for the said purpose, whether inside or outside the kingdom. 4. Establishing or joining an association, group or organization for the purpose or committing terrorist acts, whether inside the kingdom or against its citizens or interests abroad. It is clear from an analysis of the Jordanian Anti-Terrorism Law No. 55, particularly article 3, that there are not complications with respect to the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences. Accordingly, the committee will table this advice from the Attorney-General's Department. The committee also seeks to withdraw the recommendations that Australia and Jordan negotiate a less-than-treaty-level agreement setting out how the extradition treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters transiting through Jordan from Iraq or Syria, on the basis that Jordanian law quite clearly allows it and therefore would allow an extradition to occur. I present the document. 11:37 Mr DANBY WF6 Melbourne Ports by leave—The member for Fadden, the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I'm deputy chair, has this morning tabled additional information about extraterritorial jurisdiction. This document, now public, entails the following: Jordan's antiterrorism law is subject to its own Penal Code No. 16 of 1960. Article 10 of the Penal Code No. 16 applies extraterritorial jurisdiction to all acts that are considered as felonies under Jordanian law, including acts under the antiterrorism law, where such acts are committed by a Jordanian citizen or foreigners residing in Jordan, even if they take place outside Jordan. So apparently, thanks to the Attorney-General's diligence in questioning his own department's advice, Australia would not have difficulty in extraditing foreign terrorists to Australia. Through the making of this clarification and the member for Fadden adding this erratum in parliament, we are making it clear that Australia and Jordan can address such difficult extraditions. This is particularly relevant for me, as any fair-minded interpretation of article 3 of Jordan's own laws on antiterrorism would see the arrest of Ahlam al-Tamimi. The member for Fadden read article 3 out, I will just read it out again: Joining or attempting to join any armed groups or terrorist organizations, recruiting or attempting to recruit people to join such groups or organizations or training such persons for the said purpose, whether inside or outside the kingdom— That would see, in my view, the arrest of Ahlam al-Tamimi, a Jordanian national convicted—but released in a prisoner swap—of assisting a particularly obscene act of terrorism at a pizza shop in downtown Jerusalem on 9 August 2001, in which 15 civilians were murdered, including seven children and a pregnant woman, and 130 people wounded. Tamimi has publicly admitted that she planned this attack and that she drove the suicide bomber to the target. One of the people killed, I regret to advise this parliament, was my constituent Malki Roth, daughter of my constituents Arnold and Frimet Roth. Under Jordan's own law we should see Tamimi surrendered in response to the US FBI most-wanted-terrorist warrant issued last year. Now, thanks to the Attorney-General's clarification and the member for Fadden's erratum in this parliament and clarification, there's a possibility that Australia will also deal with this individual that the FBI issued a warrant for last year. BILLS 27 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 27

Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018

Second Reading 27 11:40 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 aims to protect members' superannuation savings from erosion by fees and charges. Of course, this is an objective that Labor is sympathetic to. As the shadow Treasurer said in his remarks to the Press Club in May, 'We also think insurance, opt-in insurance, is a legitimate issue to consider, particularly for young people with low superannuation balances.' Account holders who generally have lower superannuation balances are younger members; low-income earners—predominantly women, unfortunately—and seasonal workers. Often people with low balances are disengaged from superannuation and do not actively monitor or organise their accounts to minimise erosion of savings. Many people also have multiple superannuation accounts, leading to them paying multiple fees, charges and insurance premiums. At 30 June 2017, over 14.8 million Australians had a superannuation account—so approximately 15 million Australians had a superannuation account—and approximately 40 per cent of those people had more than one superannuation account. Of course, when you have more than one superannuation account often you're paying multiple sets of fees and have two insurance policies covering exactly the same thing—and, therefore, you are paying premiums for both those insurance policies. It's inefficient and, ultimately, it's whittling away investment returns for those members. This bill aims to protect members' superannuation savings from erosion by limiting fees so that low-balance savings can grow and are protected from disproportionately high fees. It also bans exit fees. This will remove a barrier to account consolidation. The bill helps to ensure that arrangements for insurance in superannuation are appropriate so that members are not paying for insurance cover that they do not know about or that is inadequate in terms of the coverage and are not paying premiums that inappropriately erode their retirement savings. Finally, this bill strengthens the ATO's role in reuniting small inactive balances to reduce the costs to members and consolidate the accounts of members that have accrued multiple superannuation accounts. More specifically, the bill prevents trustees of superannuation funds from charging certain fees that exceed three per cent of the balance of a MySuper or choice product annually where the balance of the account is below $6,000. It also prevents trustees from providing opt-out insurance to new members aged under 25 years, members with balances below $6,000 and members with inactive MySuper or choice accounts, unless the member has directed otherwise. This is something that some of the super funds have been looking at for some time now. AustralianSuper, the largest industry superannuation fund in the country, actually decided to implement this policy so that members aged under 25 years need to opt in to insurance within their superannuation fund. If they've got balances below a certain threshold, then those provisions kick in as well. The bill will require the transfer of all superannuation savings with balances below $6,000 to the tax commissioner, if an account related to a MySuper or Choice product has been inactive for a continuous period of 13 months or more. The proposed start date for these changes is 1 July 2019, and the explanatory material reports that the changes are expected to raise savings of $1.75 billion in underlying cash balance terms over the forward estimates and $850 million in fiscal balance terms. The changes in this bill are significant and will impact people's lives and retirement incomes. While Labor is certainly sympathetic to the objective, we wish to take our time in ensuring that there are no unintended consequences from this bill and to deeply analyse this legislation. In that respect, we are proposing that a Senate inquiry look at the provisions of this bill and their consequences and hear the views of the Australian people regarding them. Some concerns have been raised by employee representatives, by trade unions and by the operators and administrators of particular funds about the potential unintended consequences of removing insurance for people under the age of 25, particularly where they work in dangerous industries, like the building industry or the mining industry. We want to make sure that we're not unintentionally reducing that coverage. It is pretty important for people, particularly once you start raising a family, once you get married and have kids, that you do have an appropriate level of insurance. We all know that actuarial studies and other surveys have indicated that Australians are hopelessly uninsured when it comes to general insurance and, indeed, life insurance. We want to make sure that there are no unintended consequences of this and that it doesn't result in negative consequences rather than what was intended. So, as I mentioned, we will be referring it to a Senate inquiry. When it comes to superannuation, this government doesn't have a really good record, to be honest. Of course, we remember the government's disastrous 2016 superannuation changes. After Labor led the way from opposition in 2015 and proposed policies to reform superannuation tax concessions, the government spent much of 2015 and 2016 arguing against the sensible changes to superannuation concessions that Labor had put forward. Then, in the 2016-17 budget, the government announced that it planned changes to superannuation, and they were done in a hurry and without consultation. The government's proposed $500,000 lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions triggered widespread concern that the government was making retrospective changes. Yet, the government ploughed on and, in its hurry to get to an early election, the then Prime Minister, when asked if he could foresee any circumstances in which the policy announced in the budget would change following an election, said, 'It's absolutely ironclad.' That was the Prime Minister's quote: 'It's absolutely ironclad.' They said they wouldn't be changing it. But after one of the longest elections in recent times, the divisions within the government became clear. We saw several members of the coalition raise concerns about retrospectivity, which saw the spectacle of some members of parliament threatening to cross the floor and oppose the government's budget proposals if changes weren't delivered upon. While the government eventually, reluctantly scrapped the flawed changes, it was only after it had undermined the confidence in the retirement system that sparked a civil war within the Liberal Party. Given the government's record, we will take our time to look through the proposed changes in this bill carefully. Not only have the government made a hash out of their tax changes relating to superannuation but they have consistently shown a poor record when it comes to supporting the right changes around superannuation in this country. They voted against the introduction of universal superannuation when it was proposed by the then Treasurer, Paul Keating, back in the 1990s. They voted against every single increase in the minimum rate of the superannuation guarantee, because we all know that they don't believe in the notion of compulsory superannuation. They have never gotten over the fact that industry funds do a better job at managing people's finances than the retail funds and many of the self-managed funds. That's because there are union representatives working with employers on those superannuation trustee boards. The Liberals don't like that philosophy. They have never gotten over the fact that the industry funds do a better job of managing people's finances, in terms of lower fees and better investment performance when it comes to superannuation returns. The Liberals delayed the scheduled increase to the superannuation guarantee from 9.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent. If we're going to ensure that Australians have an adequate income to retire on, and avoid going onto the pension in later years, particularly those workers who have breaks from the workforce—most notably women, unfortunately—if we're going to ensure that employees and workers retire with an adequate investment pool, through their superannuation, and can avoid going onto the pension, then we need to increase the compulsory rate of superannuation savings in this country. There is a litany of actuarial studies and other surveys indicating that on current trajectories most people won't make it, particularly those on low incomes—that they won't be able to ensure they have an adequate retirement savings pool, after they finish in the workplace, and thus avoid going onto the pension. So this government's opposition to further increases in the compulsory superannuation rate is really damning for the budget, as far as increases in outlays associated with the pension are concerned. It therefore reduces the potential for us to run surpluses in the future and to fund programs that will be important, particularly aged care and other programs associated with an ageing population, like Medicare and properly funded hospitals and aged-care beds. So we need to be looking at increasing the compulsory rate of superannuation in this country, but this government has delayed it. On every occasion on which they've had the opportunity to vote for these changes, they have voted against them. They abolished the low-income superannuation scheme, and then they reintroduced it, but only under pressure from the Labor Party and from some within the industry. They reintroduced it one budget later. I think they got rid of it in the 2014 budget, and then in the 2015-16 budget they reintroduced it and renamed it the LISTO. They undermined our superannuation system with their First Home Super Saver Scheme, which will do nothing to address housing affordability. More recently, the government has proposed a superannuation amnesty that would give a penalty holiday to employers who have not paid superannuation to their employees for as much as 25 years. The notion that under this government people who have broken the law for 25 years will be able to get away with it is completely ridiculous. Imagine if you rocked up to the tax office one day and said: 'You know what? I haven't paid income tax for 25 years. I haven't paid company tax for 25 years. I want you to give me an amnesty.' That is exactly what this government is doing with superannuation. Employers who haven't paid superannuation to their employees, which they are required to do under legislation, and for which there are quite harsh penalties, will be given an amnesty by the government. Labor, of course, has expressed its opposition to this proposal. Superannuation theft is exactly the same as wage theft. Why should dodgy employers get away with stealing hard-earned money from their employees? In contrast, Labor has a very different philosophy when it comes to superannuation. We all know that it was the Labor Party that built the compulsory superannuation system. It has now developed into the third-largest savings investment pool in the world and it is one of the reasons that our economy had a buffer to protect Australian workers from the ravages of the global financial crisis in the wake of 2008. It was Labor that introduced universal compulsory superannuation. We proposed and legislated all of the increases to the rate of the superannuation guarantee. They were all opposed by the coalition. Labor introduced the low-income superannuation contribution scheme, under which low-income earners would effectively not pay tax on their superannuation guarantee contributions. We introduced MySuper, the new, simple and cost-effective default superannuation product. Labor made it easier for small businesses to pay their super through the introduction of the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House in 2010. Labor led the way in reforming the payments system. The introduction of SuperStream in 2012 fundamentally improved the superannuation system experience for fund members, employers and funds. Labor is the party of superannuation, and we'll be checking the bill, as I mentioned earlier, for unintended consequences and to consider whether there are better ways of achieving this objective. We'll take the time to consult with stakeholders and to explore concerns that have been raised, including: that the removal of default insurance could lead to members with high-risk occupations, and others with families and mortgages, becoming uninsured or underinsured; that the changes could lead to an increase in premiums; and that the transfer to the ATO of accounts which have been inactive for 13 months could lead to lower returns for members. We also need to ensure that the changes to the fees will not be able to be circumvented through an increase in other charges. In conclusion, the objective of trying to protect the balances of people with low balances is one Labor is sympathetic to, but we'll take our time to work through these measures in this bill and we'll reserve our position on it, including on whether any amendments are required, until after the Senate Economics Committee inquiry into the bill has reported. 11:56 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax The member for Kingsford Smith has done what Labor do so well: he has said that he is sympathetic to this bill that protects people's hard-earned money, their superannuation. The Labor Party are sympathetic, but what are they going to do? They're going to kick the can down that time-honoured road of analysis paralysis. There they stand, saying: 'We, like the government, believe in protecting super, and you know what we're going to do? We're going to analyse it even further, because there might be unintended consequences, and the Labor Party don't like springing surprises and don't like governing at speed.' This is at a time when the Leader of the Opposition has surprised everybody, including his own caucus and front bench, with a complete reversal of tax policy. Now they're going after small and medium businesses. This is not just a denial of a tax cut to small businesses; these tax cuts have already been legislated for recently. This is an attempt by the Labor Party to collapse confidence in our economy. It is an attempt by the Labor Party to tax one of the values that this side of the House drives: aspiration. It is a clear tax on aspiration, and the Labor Party has the hide to stand in this chamber and hold back this bill, claiming that it wishes to have further analysis. The only other bill the member opposite tried to attack was legislation debated in this House last week on providing an amnesty to employers over a 12-month period to pay superannuation that was due but not paid. This is an opportunity for 50,000 Australians to recoup the money they have earned. Did the Labor Party support that? No, they did not. An opportunity for employers to voluntarily fess up, the ones the government isn't already onto, and for over $200 million to go back to the workers—did the Labor Party support that? No, they did not. They want to kick the can again down the road and not deliver. We on this side of the House, the coalition, are different. We stand for many good and noble values firmly planted in the liberal tradition of free enterprise, personal freedom and the rule of law—not least among them is the right to aspire to be the very best you can be. Key to any society that truly values and promotes such aspiration is one essential ingredient, and that ingredient is confidence—the very thing those opposite are trying to collapse in our economy. We share confidence in a strong Australian economy, an economy now in its 27th year of consecutive growth. It is an economy that creates jobs, thousands and thousands of new jobs, under this government. Last year we averaged more than 1,100 jobs every single day. Now, over one million jobs have been created since the coalition came to government less than five years ago. Then there's another level of confidence: confidence in good governance, confidence in fairness and confidence in that notion of the Australian fair go. It's this level of confidence deep within the economy, at the level of institutions and individuals, that motivates Australians to have a go, to have a crack, to work hard, to invest, and to better leverage their means to expand their enterprises and themselves. This is where the jobs and the growth ultimately come from, and it's something that the Labor Party never seems to understand. Labor thinks that if we have big taxes, big spending and big unions then everything will just fall miraculously into place and we'll arrive at some economic nirvana, where the iron laws of arithmetic are suspended and magic must just happen. In the real world, a strong economy doesn't just happen. It takes good government. And good government in this country empowers the efforts of all Australians through lower taxes and better protections for their wealth and their wellbeing. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 aims to do just that. You see, this bill is part of a wider suite of targeted reforms under this government—reforms that safeguard and sustain Australia's huge $2.6 trillion superannuation sector. The reforms introduced into this parliament will improve the governance, transparency and accountability of superannuation funds, while additional reforms will protect Australians' hard-earned savings by ensuring that all workers get their superannuation guarantee entitlements on time and in full. The Turnbull government—led most ably by the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, who said she was not going to wait for the industry to do this—has taken resolute action to protect the superannuation savings of millions of Australians from undue erosion due to excessive fees, inappropriate insurance premiums and the inefficiencies of people having multiple accounts. Firstly, I will look at excessive fees. This bill will prevent the trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees that together exceed three per cent per annum of the balance for accounts under $6,000. Trustees will likewise be banned from charging exit fees on all super accounts. I'll say that again, because I love this part of the bill: trustees will be banned from charging exit fees on all superannuation accounts. The benefit of these measures is twofold: preventing low-balance superannuation accounts from being just eaten away by high fees, and, at the same time, removing a clear disincentive to account consolidation and rollovers. The benefit, which is expected to flow to approximately seven million hardworking Australians and is estimated to save them about $570 million in the first year alone, should be obvious to almost everyone—everyone except those opposite and, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition. Back in 2013, when the Leader of the Opposition was the then superannuation minister, he deliberately removed protections for low-balance super accounts. These measures address the appalling consequences of the Leader of the Opposition's decision when he was the minister. And he didn't stop there, by the way. In addition to removing protections for low-balance accounts, the then minister, today's Leader of the Opposition, also required trustees to provide automatic insurance products on an opt-out basis, further eroding member account balances, with little or no real benefit in many cases. In so doing, he effectively ripped through the retirement savings of millions of Australians like a wrecking ball. Therefore, to make good on the hapless legacy of the Leader of the Opposition, this bill seeks to address issues associated with the current default insurance arrangements in superannuation accounts—more specifically those accounts held by younger Australians aged up to 25 years or members with account balances below $6,000 or whose accounts have been inactive for 13 months or more. In these cases, schedule 2 of the bill will require that insurance is only offered on an opt-in basis. Voices within the industry, including the Financial Planning Association of Australia, have pointed to a potential underinsurance risk for young Australians and suggest that total and permanent disability cover—TPD, as it's typically referred to—coverage should remain as an opt-out policy to ensure adequate injury protection for young account holders. While this suggestion could be dismissed as self-interest, the government has carefully considered such advice and has designed the measure to ensure there is no disadvantage, so that any member can easily obtain or maintain insurance cover to suit their real needs and personal budgets. These changes have been estimated to give about five million Australians the option to save a total of up to $3 billion in unwanted insurance premiums annually. Finally, schedule 3 of this bill will enable a more effective and timely mechanism whereby the ATO may proactively reunite and consolidate inactive accounts that are without insurance cover and have balances under $6,000. This measure in the first year is expected to reunite around $6 billion with the active accounts of about three million members. While the current system for recovering lost super will remain in operation, these new measures will significantly supplement and streamline those existing arrangements. Collectively, all the measures announced in this bill are specifically designed to restore protections lost under Labor—to protect the retirement savings of hardworking Australians against excessive account erosion and to prevent low-balance accounts from being eaten away to nothing by excessive fees, unwanted and inappropriate insurance and multiple accounts that compound inefficiencies and cost to account holders. This government, the Turnbull government, believes strongly that the superannuation savings of Australians are their money—the Australians' money, the workers' money—and that money deserves to be protected and allowed to grow. For these reasons, I commend the bill to the House. 12:08 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I rise to proudly support this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018, because it is part of a package of economic bills introduced by this government that seeks to honour the savings, the hard work, of Australians. Deputy Speaker, you may be aware, if you read through my speeches in this place—and maybe one day, like the former member for Fairfax, I might even publish a tome which will end up in the future member for Fairfax's office or perhaps corridor—that there is a consistent theme in every speech I give: the importance of people's freedom and a greater sense of intergenerational justice, where young Australians seeking opportunity are able to secure the chances they wish for in life but, equally, where security is provided for older Australians who are in a position where they can't change their circumstances. We know, on this side of the House, that superannuation is part of that rich matrix of providing both opportunity and security at different stages of life. But there are thousands of young Australians at the moment who, under the legislative regime, have money taken out of the balance of their superannuation accounts to feed the interests of financial services companies—sometimes banks and sometimes many other agents—who want to extract the value of the hard-earned savings of those young Australians for their own benefit. I have had constituents come up to me over time and complain about their low-balance accounts, particularly those of young people at the start of their working life, and how the value of their superannuation account balances is being extracted for the benefit of insurance payments that they don't seek, wish or want, because it doesn't reflect their stage of life. All it does is remove the value of their account to the benefit of the companies that hold their balances. Many of the constituents who have raised this with me haven't just raised it in an esoteric way. They've watched themselves or their young children who have got their first job lose the value of their superannuation account balance through these fees and insurance premiums. When you put that in the context of what the Leader of the Opposition did when in his previous role in government, when he deliberately designed mechanisms within the superannuation system to encourage the raiding of young Australians' superannuation accounts, not only does it raise an eyebrow but it also raises the question yet again: does he act in the interests of workers or does he act in the interests of his union friends, allies, comrades, financiers and sometimes acolytes? That is ultimately what this bill is trying to address. It is actually putting consumers and workers at the centre of the superannuation system, not the industry funds run by unions. It's a pretty straightforward proposition, which is perhaps why the opposition is so relativist on this piece of legislation. Perhaps the opposition leader and those who surround him, those who sit on the other side of this chamber, in a choice about whether union-controlled superannuation companies should be able to raid and extract every single cent of value out of the superannuation accounts of young Australians and whether funds should be provided to finance the interests of union-backed superannuation funds, are choosing the interests of their union mates yet again. That's what it looks like to me, and I suspect that's what it looks like to thousands of young Australians whose superannuation accounts are being raided by the types of regulations in law at the moment, which were unjustifiably introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and at their expense. It is true that there is a very important role for superannuation and people being encouraged to save for their retirement, no matter at what stage of their life. It is also true that underpinning a strong economic environment where people earn wages and contribute to their superannuation accounts is a strong economy. Of course, we know that, under this government, we have made a strong economy the primacy of our focus, because when we deliver a strong economy a human, social and environmental dividend comes with it, as well as an economic dividend. But, of course, a strong economy also heavily depends on having certainty in the market and, in particular, the legislation and regulation. We know that we don't have that with the opposition leader and the legislative agenda that he would aspire to introduce. I was reminded of that only this morning when I spoke on a program on 2CC Canberra radio, where the interviewer, Tim Shaw, was asking the member for Canberra simple questions like: Do you agree and do you support your leader in the winding back of tax cuts for medium business that he announced this week? And time and time again the member for Canberra dithered and couldn't answer the question. It was like the member for Bass the day before—in fact, it was Bass squared. Her answer was: We are continuing to consider businesses up to $10m turnover but we have always been crystal clear that we put schools and hospitals ahead of tax cuts for big business and the banks. That's the standard line, the rhetoric. It has obviously been poll tested. It's not actually sincere. Then the interviewer, Mr Shaw, was quite right in saying: Gai— or, as we refer to her, the member for Canberra— I asked you specifically, do you support Bill Shorten's position when he said 'yes' to the winding back of tax cuts for medium businesses? And I remind you that you are a former small business person yourself. She responded: Yes I am and a proud former small business person— good on her on that. She went on: … as I said, we are continuing to consider … up to $10 million turnover. Mr Shaw responded: So the leader was wrong to announce to the media that, yes, the policy of the Australian Labor Party was to repeal already L.A.W. law tax cuts for small business? The member for Canberra said: Well there has been internal discussions on this issue, those discussions continue … And the interview goes on—train wreck day 2. In the end, we now have an opposition that clearly doesn't understand the importance of a strong economy or the interest of how it delivers for Australian workers and everything else. But the Leader of the Opposition no longer even enjoys the support of his party for his economy-wrecking agenda. I would hope that, when you see a Leader of the Opposition pushing forward an economy-wrecking agenda—whether it is repealing tax cuts, taking money out of the pockets of hardworking Australians, or it is potential meddling in industrial relations, or it is an economy-wrecking emissions reduction target; whatever the economy-wrecking position he takes—at some point the members opposite would actually stand up and defend the rights and interests of ordinary Australians and particularly workers. That is why they should be supporting this piece of legislation—not the moral relativism that they engage with in the speeches in this place but actually supporting a cap on fees so that young Australians in particular do not have their superannuation accounts raided by union-backed superannuation funds. They should be supporting a piece of legislation that says that, if you do not want an insurance premium, you should have the freedom to choose not to get one from the get-go. You shouldn't have to find out that all this money has been taken out of your account before you turn around and say: 'Actually, I don't think that's right. At 16, I'm not sure it's actually a good financial decision to get a life insurance premium.' It might be, later, but not when you're only earning a few thousand dollars and you certainly have a superannuation account balance of less than six grand. That's what's at the heart of this piece of legislation. It's just making sure that young Australians and those people with low, duplicate accounts don't get their money raided by the unions. Imagine that! I would have thought that this is a relatively straightforward proposition for everybody in this parliament to support, except for the fact that we know it will be going against the direct agenda of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party in the past, who have actively supported raiding those accounts. This bill seeks to do very sensible things. It does not require a genius to be able to stand up and realise that the principal benefits of this legislation are for those seeking their opportunity on their way up. They might have multiple accounts and have multiple jobs. They may have low balances because they have not contributed very much over the years, because they have started at a very small base at the start of their career. But never forget, Deputy Speaker, that there is another big group of Australians—in fact, the majority of Australians—who will gain and secure the benefit from this piece of legislation. Rightly, there has been a focus on the low balances of women in their superannuation accounts, particularly as they enter retirement age, certainly in comparison to men. We all know that there are multiple factors that drive that. But, because superannuation is often one of those matters that are heavily debated, particularly when you see family breakdown or marital breakdowns, women have been exposed to some of the worst cases of egregious gouging because of life circumstances. I never want to get into generic and overgenerous assessment of people's individual circumstances. Every person's life is different. But the other core group of Australians who will benefit from this legislative reform is not just young Australians seeking their opportunity, in that their superannuation accounts will not be raided by union interests; it is women who will get the benefit of this reform. It saddens me no end that those on the other side of this chamber, who could be supporting sensible, pragmatic reform to support young Australians and women, have chosen to put the interests of their union mates against those of Australians. They have chosen to support those people who fund their campaigns—to support those people who organise and rally to get them elected. Sometimes there's a thing in this parliament where we should rise above the interests of politics and look at the future of the nation. If we say that we are going to sell out young Australians and women, in particular, by keeping in place an unjust, unfair form of legislation and regulation that undermines their interests to the benefit of big-union established interests, the modern Labor Party no longer has any claim to understand what justice means in a free society. 12:19 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I'm particularly pleased to be talking on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 today because some of the young people who will be affected by our measures in this bill are actually sitting up in the viewing area. They are the wonderful young people from Busselton Senior High School, who are here in the chamber gallery today. I welcome them and I really hope they enjoy their time here today and make the most of this opportunity. It's a long way to come from Western Australia, and they've done exactly that. They're most welcome. I'm really pleased that it is young people like these young people sitting here today who will be the beneficiaries of this legislation. It will be young people and, as we heard from the previous speaker, women, in particular. We're taking action to make sure that these great young people here will be able, when they go to work, to retain more of their own money, ensuring that these young people retain that through personal income tax cuts as well as through the decisions we are making in this superannuation bill. They will actually be able to keep more of their money, particularly when they're on low incomes at the beginning of their careers. But I'm equally hoping that these young people sitting in the gallery today will take a personal interest in their own superannuation when they go to work. I hope that they will actually take an active interest in what's happening with their superannuation. Of course, this bill fixes yet another Labor mess: the decision in 2013 to abolish low-balance protection as part of the MySuper changes. Low-balance accounts were very vulnerable to changes through erosion by fees and charges. But, under this particular piece of legislation, we're going to prevent trustees of super funds from charging administration and investment fees exceeding three per cent per annum on the balance of superannuation accounts below $6,000. This is really important for people on low incomes. There are around seven million Australians who will actually save around $570 million in just the first year of this change. That's just extraordinary. The actual figures involved in this are just extraordinary. That's an extra $570 million that will be retained in superannuation for hardworking Australians, helping them to earn more interest and to accumulate more savings for their senior years. The senior years are not something that's going to affect you young people from Busselton for some time, but, when you get there, I want you to have as much in your superannuation accounts as you possibly can. These measures today are going to help with that. They will prevent trustees from charging exit fees on any superannuation product, no matter what the balance is. According to APRA data, one-third of funds charged an exit fee in 2016-17—that was a total of $52 million across the industry. That's another $52 million of your own funds that will be retained. I think that's great news. The bill addresses the provision of insurance through superannuation. When you're young, life insurance may not be your top priority. But, when a significant proportion of retirement savings—sometimes an entire balance—is eroded by insurance premiums, it certainly is an issue. Again, this was part of the opposition leader's MySuper default, with automatic insurance on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in basis. I can't understand why the Leader of the Opposition would have made that decision knowing how badly it would affect—and has affected—those lower paid workers. We will ensure that members who are at the greatest risk of seeing their account balances eroded will not have to have insurance provided on a default basis. It will be on an opt-in basis for members with balances below $6,000, accounts which haven't received contributions for 13 months or more and new members from 1 July 2019 who are under the age of 25. These changes will affect around five million people, with the option to save an estimated $3 billion in premiums a year. What we're doing is giving people choices and options. This is something that is in our DNA. We actually believe in people having choices and having control. This is a really important issue. I encourage people—and these great young people in the gallery today—to take a direct interest in and know exactly what's happening with their superannuation because many people do not. We recognise that some don't take that interest, but we need to make sure that, irrespective of whether people take a direct interest or not, their interests are reflected and they retain as much of their earnings and their superannuation as possible. A million workers need to have their say on superannuation and their choice of super restrictions, which have been affected and restricted by EBA directions. But in these days of people changing jobs, many millions of Australians have multiple superannuation accounts. Young people in Busselton could have multiple changes of jobs in their lifetime. We want to make sure that, irrespective of how many times they change their jobs, they are able to consolidate that superannuation into an account where they'll know exactly how much they have at their disposal. It's interesting that, of the 14.8 million people who have a super account, 40 per cent of them have more than one account and around 176,000 people actually hold six or more accounts. They need to bring them together. That leads to tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars less at retirement. When young people retire, they're going to want every cent so that they can do the things they want to do when they're at a more mature age. I want to see that they get that. Through this bill, the Australian Taxation Office will be given the opportunity for the first time to proactively return the balances of inactive accounts that people might have from past jobs—but they may not know where that super is—to the people who earned it, along with existing unclaimed super moneys. That's what we want. We want your money to stay with you, like personal income tax cuts. The ATO estimates it'll be able to do this within a month of receiving the funds. Like a lot of these young people, one of my staff has had five jobs in 20 years in both the private and public sectors. He did a super search to see what was out there that he didn't know about and he found over $78,000 in a lost super account. Isn't this a great reason for young people to take a very direct interest in their superannuation when they go to work? Make sure you know what's there and that you take control of that. This is a very big issue for one of my staff, and this is a practical example for anybody watching or listening as to why you need to make sure that you know what's happening with your super. I congratulate the minister for her efforts in getting this particular bill together. We're going to see a lot of Australians in the first year—three million people—automatically getting their money back, being reunited with $6 billion of their own money. What a fabulous outcome! It's a fantastic outcome by this government that we're going to see three million people reunited with $6 billion of their own money. I commend the bill to the House. 12:28 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I too would like to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. We will be giving qualified support to the passage of the bill through the House. Our position on this bill will be subject to the findings of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. We want to make sure that this bill delivers what it purports to do and that there are no unintended consequences. Labor will always act to support the hard-earned savings of Australians. As it stands today, superannuation has $2.6 trillion under investment. That's $2.6 trillion of assets for mums and dads out there. I don't know about these young people, but I don't know how many noughts you've got to put on 2.6 to get a trillion—they'll probably work it out for us, Mr Deputy Speaker. But we will always take the side of the workers in ensuring the safeguarding of their earnings and their superannuation, and we will be part of any attempt at legislation that delivers safeguarding from inappropriate fees, insurance arrangements and the inefficiencies that result, as at present, from multiple superannuation accounts. The more superannuation accounts are out there for a single person, the less accumulated savings are going into that person's asset base for the future. This is particularly so when we consider young people who may be working casual jobs, low-income earners who may move from one job to another, women who may take periodic breaks in their career and, particularly, seasonal workers out there moving from one regional location to another, whether they're cherry picking, working on vineyards or doing other things. The tendency is that those people are more than likely to have multiple superannuation accounts. Treasury analysis in 2016 showed that, at 30 July 2016, there were 9.5 million superannuation accounts in this country with a balance less than $6,000. That accounts for 40 per cent of all superannuation accounts. The ATO, whose role in terms of superannuation this bill will strengthen, found in their super accounts data overview in 2017 that 14.8 million Australians had superannuation accounts, but 40 per cent of those people were holding multiple accounts. If that money could be put into one account, the growth rate would be increased and therefore the asset base for retirement earnings would be similarly increased. As I say, we will always defend superannuation. We know on this side of the House that superannuation, together with a means-tested and government-funded age pension, forms an integral part of a person's retirement earnings. Australians now rely on it. I advise everyone not to forget that it was the Labor government that created the Australian superannuation system. We are the party of superannuation, and we'll always stand in this joint to defend it. Labor understands that superannuation is now the second biggest saving vehicle of any household. Apart from the house itself that people will purchase and live in, superannuation is already the second biggest asset base and will grow into the future. Seventeen per cent of the household asset base is currently based on superannuation alone. I'd like to remind everybody that, if it weren't for a Labor government, we wouldn't have universal compulsory superannuation. Universal compulsory superannuation had its initiation, in the first iterations, as a trade-off for productivity. It was award based. I know our colleagues over there don't like talking about awards, enterprise agreements or trade unions, but it was a trade union initiative that forwent a four per cent increase in the productivity payment for, at the start, three per cent compulsory superannuation. It has grown from there. By the way, every measure of growth in compulsory superannuation, which now stands at 9.5 per cent, has been opposed by the coalition. Labor have supported every increase in the rate of superannuation guarantee. It was a Labor government that introduced the low-income superannuation contribution scheme. I remind those opposite: don't forget that you came here under directions from your then leader and repealed that legislation, which gave a measure of support to people on low incomes. You repealed it, only to find out that that wasn't particularly electorally popular and you had to reinstate it. It was the Labor government that brought MySuper—a new, simplified, cost-effective default mechanism—to superannuation products. Again, that was an effort to streamline it and make it a more effective payment system. And, further, it was also a Labor government that in 2012 brought in the SuperStream, which fundamentally improved the superannuation system and the experience that people, would have as members of a super scheme, not only for employees but also for the employers and the funds themselves. We will always hold this government to account, particularly on matters that involve employees and workers. Those opposite would like you to believe that they have changed their stripes and they are now all about what's best for workers. This is the party of Work Choices, the party that made it legal for the first time in our history to pay people below an award rate of pay, and they would like us to believe that they've changed their stripes! Don't forget that, back at the 2016 election, they had a policy of a $500,000 lifetime cap to non-concessional contributions. It triggered widespread concern, because people were being encouraged to contribute to superannuation but this had the aspect of retrospectively opposing this restriction, which would fundamentally change the saving plans for many households. But the government at that stage made it very clear that they weren't up for changing. The Prime Minister gave what he described as an ironclad guarantee, and, lo and behold, what did they do? Just like with the low-income superannuation contribution scheme, they backflipped. They didn't backflip because they thought it was a bad idea; they backflipped because of the pressure that came from their Liberal Party base, who thought, 'You are now retrospectively diving into our retirement funds, and we've caught you out.' They also made further inroads into superannuation—and you could probably put it kindly by saying 'unwittingly'—making another regressive aspect to superannuation with the introduction of the First Home Super Saver Scheme, which allowed people to use their superannuation to buy their way into the real estate market. That was maybe a noble objective in the first place, but it was one which did not have regard to what it would do to the intention of superannuation in providing reasonable retirement earnings for people. And, by the way, it would have absolutely no effect at all on the affordable housing crisis, particularly what's being faced in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Only last week, there was another thought bubble that came from those opposite. They thought it would be wise to give a 12-month amnesty to employers who failed to make superannuation contributions on behalf of their employees for the last 25 years. Ordinarily, if you didn't pay your tax for 25 years, you would get a penalty. If you didn't pay your superannuation under current law, you would be penalised; as a matter of fact, you'd be penalised 200 per cent. Wipe all that! They're now saying that, under this amnesty, if you want to declare yourself and become an honest broker after 25 years—'Mea culpa; I haven't paid my employees properly'—you've got 12 months to rectify it. But what's unbelievably worse is that they will give that employer a tax deduction on the contributions they make. They're not just going to say, 'Don't do it again.' They're going to give them a tax deduction! Just compare that to what the treatment would've been if an employee had been ripping off their employer for the last 25 years. They would probably be summarily dismissed in the first place once they were caught, and it is highly likely they would be fronting up before a court on some criminal charges of theft or whatever. So they're happy to look after dodgy employers and reward them with a tax deduction, but not so when it comes to workers. The former speaker said looking after people is in their DNA. Well, for some of us on our side, looking after people has been in our DNA. I don't mind admitting that, like many on my side, we were formerly workers' representatives. We are working and advocating for workers' rights and looking after them as members of the trade union movement. I actually wear it as a badge of honour, but they want to create a slight about that. Just think back: when was the last time you ever heard a positive word said by this government about a union or about a union official? I don't know if you can remember it, but there is one time. They spoke about Kathy Jackson, the then National Secretary of the Health Services Union. According to the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister, she was the hero of the trade union movement. She was the defender of workers' rights, a person we should look up to. They used a word: she was a 'doyenne' of the working class. Poor old Kathy at the moment is facing court on corruption charges in Victoria. Adverse findings have been made by the trade union royal commission, which they set up. But that was their hero of the working class. It was not someone who is going out, looking after people, looking after low-income earners and making sure their welfare has been looked after. They pick someone to hold up as an exemplar of trade union official, and the only example they ever have picked up to do that is, as I say, currently defending criminal charges resulting from corruption allegations. The provisions in this bill, as I said at the outset, are good. We certainly want to be guarded against any unintended consequences. We want to make sure that we do not unnecessarily complicate things for people in high-risk occupations, see a possible increase of insurance premiums or make any change that would result in lower returns for members. We think we need to do everything to protect employees' savings and, in particular, superannuation. Superannuation, quite frankly, I think is one of the key initiatives that were brought in within our generation. It is a mechanism that we should be encouraging all people to be part of, not simply with their own contributions but looking to prop those up where necessary. It's not just about bringing people away from the concept of welfare or being on the old-age pension; it's a matter of making proper provision for their life in retirement. This is a matter of decency. It's a matter that we will always support on our side of politics, and I would caution those opposite to be more restrained when they refer to trade unions. (Time expired) 12:43 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I have to admit that I do like the member for Fowler. There's much in his contribution that I could speak on, but, in the interest of staying focused on the bill before us, I won't do so. But I will just outline a couple of things for the member for Fowler and his colleagues over there to consider. One of the reasons we're discussing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018 is that in 2013, as part of the MySuper changes that those opposite legislated when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, they removed the member protections for small-balance superannuation accounts. I haven't heard those opposite mention that in their contributions this afternoon. Those standards protected accounts with balances of less than $1,000 from erosion via fees by ensuring those fees could not exceed the earnings of the superannuation fund. Whilst those opposite talk about protecting people with low balances, in reality when they were in government they did exactly the opposite. As is said many times in this place by my colleagues, it's not about what those opposite say; it's actually about what they do. This bill is a great step in protecting the hard-earned superannuation contributions of working Australians. They're hard earned because, as the member for Fowler outlined, initially super was a trade-off for a wage increase. Now, with 9½ per cent of people's earnings going into superannuation, for the majority it is their second largest investment, behind their home. It is critically important that we have a system and framework that protects those funds from erosion via unnecessary fees and charges or, in some cases, inappropriate insurance. The other interesting comment the member for Fowler made was around the importance of super in EBAs. Mandating a superannuation fund in an enterprise bargaining agreement means those employees have no choice whatsoever about where their superannuation goes. Nearly a million employees in Australia have no choice of where their superannuation goes. If they already have a personal or other fund and join an employer that has an EBA, they cannot have that employer put their superannuation into their existing fund. So what do they finish up with? They have multiple funds. We know that some 40 per cent of Australians have more than two funds. In my experience prior to coming to this place in 2010 I had a client who had eight different superannuation funds, including the one into which contributions were being paid. It took nine months of working with that client and the various superannuation funds to consolidate all of that super into the one fund into which his contributions were going, but in the meantime all of those other funds were collecting fees and insurance premiums. In a number of cases, in those funds where he had income protection cover, he wasn't able to claim on any of that income protection cover and therefore was paying a premium for something he wouldn't ever have received. He wasn't getting any service, advice or anything like that from those funds. They were all funds with small balances. At the end of the day once we tallied them all up it was maybe $9,000 or $10,000. These are the people this bill is seeking to protect. The measures in this bill, particularly around improving the capacity of the ATO to receive those low-balance superannuation accounts—those below $6,000 that have been inactive and are without insurance—are critically important. The bill will empower the ATO to proactively obtain those funds, then work through its systems to transfer those funds to an existing fund for that member. Equally, it is important that where we see funds with a low balance—and we've set that limit at $6,000 in this bill—we provide the opportunity, where people are under 25, for default insurance arrangements not to exist on an automatic acceptance basis. Those superannuation members can always opt in to obtain insurance cover. It's about those first few years of accumulating your superannuation fund. When you start out in the workforce, there are two important things: the risk of multiple accounts and the risk of insurance cover that you don't necessarily need or that is way above what you need, and consequently paying unnecessary premiums. There is also a risk, as I've seen in many product disclosure statements, that even if you do have that insurance cover in your fund, particularly with income protection—less so with death and total and permanent disablement—you can't even claim on the income protection policy or, in a lot of cases too, death and total and permanent disablement cover, because you do not meet the relevant thresholds for making a claim within the fund. So why is there a situation where people are apparently covered for something and paying for something that they have no ability to access in the event they actually need it? I don't think that that is a system that benefits hardworking Australians who are trying to save and accumulate super for further retirement. As has been rightly pointed out by a number of speakers in this place, we want to see people's superannuation grow and accumulate so that they have more in their superannuation funds when they retire, thereby ensuring that the requirement of government for age pensions is reduced. That was the original purpose of superannuation. It was to allow people to accumulate wealth in a tax-advantaged environment where they couldn't touch it until they were age 65—or age 55, in some cases—so that the requirement for the government to help fund people's retirement through the age pension would be reduced. We recognise as our population is getting older that the number of people actually working to support our social security and our age pension system is reducing. So the tax revenues are not necessarily there. That is the whole purpose of superannuation. The more we can do at the outset to create a superannuation system that protects those balances when they are small and ensures that the number of accounts that people have is kept to a minimum, the better it will be for those people in accumulating that superannuation and that wealth for their retirement. I commend this bill to the House. I think it's a tremendous example, again, of what this government is seeking to do to protect people's savings, allowing them to grow wealth and prosperity for the future not only for themselves but for their families and the country. 12:53 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins Firstly, I'd like to thank those in the chamber who have contributed to this debate. I particularly thank the member for Forde, who preceded me in speaking, for his passionate advocacy on behalf of so many superannuants. I am a bit disappointed that those opposite have not taken the opportunity in this chamber to back millions of Australians and their superannuation savings by giving support to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Protecting Your Superannuation Package) Bill 2018. We have heard from them a number of weasel words where they are squirming to try to maintain a position where they are of course protecting vested interests. Let's be very clear on what this bill does. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to put members first and protect their hard-earned retirement savings from erosion through excessive fees, inappropriate insurance arrangements and the inefficiencies which result from having multiple superannuation accounts. Schedule 1 to this bill prevents trustees of superannuation funds from charging administration and investment fees exceeding three per cent per annum of the balance of accounts below $6,000. Those listening to this debate will recall that there was a time when there were caps on fees. It was when the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible for superannuation that we saw fees become uncapped for low-balance accounts—accounts of below $1,000. This schedule also prevents trustees from charging exit fees, regardless of the account balance, which, of course, makes it so much easier for people to consolidate accounts. Schedule 2 to the bill will address the provision of insurance through superannuation. The schedule requires that insurance be provided on an opt-in basis only for members with balances below $6,000, for accounts that have not received a contribution for 13 months or longer, and for any new members from 1 July 2019 who are under the age of 25. Again, when the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for superannuation, he presided over a change that saw young people defaulted into superannuation arrangements where they had to take out insurance, whether or not they wanted it or needed it. Under this bill, we are changing this. Under schedule 3 to the bill, all inactive accounts with a balance below $6,000 and no insurance cover will be transferred to the Australian Taxation Office. The schedule also empowers the ATO, for the first time, to proactively return these amounts, along with existing unclaimed superannuation monies, to their rightful owners' active accounts. The ATO estimates that within a month of receiving the funds it will be able to reunify the amounts it holds with the rightful owners, which is a good outcome for those members. The amendments in the bill all apply from 1 July 2019. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 38 12:57 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence 38 Membership 38 12:57 The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I have received advice Chief Government Whip nominating members to be members of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. 12:57 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce by leave—I move: That Mr K. J. Andrews, Mr Broadbent, Mr Morton, Mr Ramsey and Mr van Manen be appointed members of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. Question agreed to. BILLS 38 BILLS Airports Amendment Bill 2016 38

Airports Amendment Bill 2016

Second Reading 38 12:58 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise to speak on the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. I indicate my support for the amendments that will be moved by the member for Grayndler. I do so because, as you would probably be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have Adelaide Airport in the middle of my electorate—it is situated at West Beach, six kilometres from the Adelaide CBD, in the heart of the electorate of Hindmarsh, and it is surrounded by housing density all the way around, on every side. Like all members in this place, I recognise that aviation is a significant creator of jobs, and economic activity as well. It is one of the largest employers in the electorate of Hindmarsh. It employs more people than most other industries in the airport precinct. For example, the South Australian tourism industry supports more than 36,000 direct jobs and is worth more than $6 billion annually to my state of South Australia. Direct tourism jobs have increased by 13.8 per cent to 35,700. That is the data from the tourist research that was revealed. This growth rate is significantly higher than the national average of approximately five per cent. We've beaten every other state in that area. The Airports Amendment Bill 2016 before us seeks to amend the Airports Act 1996, which sets out the conditions that airport lessees operate under. In South Australia, Adelaide Airport Ltd took over the airport back in 2000. Once upon a time it was operated by the federal government of Australia, and gradually we have seen the privatisation of airports around the country. While this act may spell out the legal conditions, it's important that our airports also operate under a social licence—particularly an airport like Adelaide Airport in my electorate, as it is surrounded by housing on all sides six kilometres from the CBD. This is a licence granted when the community is properly engaged and appreciates the benefits an airport brings, but this is also a licence that is maintained through consultation and dialogue. I have to say that, because there were so many issues with the airport in my electorate years ago and because we do continue to have the odd issue here and there, we set up a consultative group which included residents, resident organisations, industries, airlines and airport workers. We would meet continually every few months to nut out the issues and problems under the guidance of Phil Baker, who was then the CEO of Adelaide Airport. It created a structure and atmosphere of working together and getting through issues. I'm pleased to say that, when we on this side of the House were in government, the member for Grayndler looked at our consultative committee in South Australia and how well it worked and decided to ensure that there were consultative committees all around Australia where airports existed. I'm proud to say that the model that we put together with residents groups in my electorate became the model which is currently being used for all of Australia. This was a good and important way to find a good balance between aircraft travel and the thousands of residents who live directly under the flight path like in my electorate. We estimate approximately 25,000 residents are directly under the flight path. I'm one of them. I've lived under the flight path my entire life. My dogs jump up and try to bite the aeroplanes; that's how low they fly over my house. During my time in this place I've raised this issue many times and I've been proud to represent the interests of my local community when it comes to matters of aviation. I'm very proud of our achievements when we were in the Rudd-Gillard government, through the National aviation policy white paper and having worked with the member for Grayndler to ensure that the community and stakeholder voices were heard and protected, as I said, through a formalised consultative process that airports have. Also through the national aviation white paper we had greater safeguards for residents living in areas adjacent to airports and flight paths. We had mechanisms for the protection of their interests. For example, we have a curfew in Adelaide Airport between 11 pm and 6 am. I think it's important we maintain that curfew and I've always been a staunch defender of that curfew because, when you have an airport six kilometres from the CBD and surrounded by 25,000 households, it is an issue. You have shiftworkers. You have mothers and fathers with young children. You have people that need some form of peace and quiet between those hours. The upside for the airport is that it is so close to the CBD. That is a special position to be in when you look at airports around the world, where airports are placed miles and miles—sometimes up to two hours—out of the CBD. We know also that having a curfew is not an unusual thing. We know that major airports around the world have curfews. For example, Hong Kong has a curfew of a sort where planes are not allowed to fly in over residential properties or over land between, I think, 11 pm and 7 am. They have flights that come in but only over the sea. Those are the regulations they have in place. LaGuardia Airport in New York has a curfew, as do many other airports around the world. It's not unusual. We hear of people that want to get rid of the curfew and open it up 24 hours a day. I think that curfew is protecting the interests of the residents that live around the airport. I pushed for that for a long time. We also saw the creation of the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman to receive and resolve complaints from the general public that relate to aircraft noise. Previously, constituents or residents would ring the airport, me, Aviation Australia et cetera for their complaints. There was no independent body to investigate their complaints and come up with findings. In the history of Australia there have been ombudsmen whenever we have privatised our banks or our telecommunications. There have been ombudsmen in those areas because we need an independent umpire to ensure that, when issues were raised by the public, someone would look at it in a completely independent way. I pushed for the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman and spoke to the minister when we were in government, and the member for Grayndler received those issues and came up with a great policy, where we now have the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman, an independent body that can look at those complaints and queries from residents and can resolve them. This was a great innovation and is continuing to be a terrific success. We also developed a major development plan trigger—this goes to the body of this particular bill—to ensure that the community has the opportunity to scrutinise developments and their impact, so that the local area is not adversely affected. This bill seeks to increase the current threshold from $20 million to $35 million. The rationale presented to us by the government is that the construction CPI has increased since the threshold was put in place. While we on this side of the House accept that the construction CPI may have increased by about 20 per cent since 2007, the bill proposes to increase the threshold by 75 per cent. This would mean a large-scale project could proceed without consultation, local input or public scrutiny from those affected. This could adversely affect a whole area or suburb, and we have seen this happen when there hasn't been good consultation. The bill also provides that if the minister decides to do nothing with a major development plan within 15 days then it is deemed approved with reduced consultation. We know the history of this government with this parliament. They couldn't even get their act together to keep this parliament under control at the beginning of the parliamentary three-year term. They lost control of this parliament twice. Those opposite have an aversion to turning up and doing their job. This parliament nearly collapsed because they couldn't even get their act together. If you give the minister only 15 days, how can you trust that they will properly consider major development proposals and their impacts, especially on communities such as mine? The issue of the curfew, as I said, has been particularly important to my electorate. I'm proud that our government continued to protect the curfew, which from time to time enjoyed bipartisan support. I have to give due credit to one of the former members for Hindmarsh, Ms Chris Gallus, who was a Liberal member but fought very hard for the curfew. I was then chair of the Adelaide Airport residents group, which was a group with over 200 members that lived around the airport, and she worked very closely with us. I was neither a member of parliament nor a candidate at that time, but we worked so closely together that the curfew was enshrined in law. On the eve of the 2013 election, the former candidate for the Liberal Party put out leaflets saying that the curfew would remain with the bipartisan support of both political parties. It's a pity. They put their hands on their hearts and promised that there'd be no changes. We had promises from the Liberal candidate and from the Liberal opposition about undertaking and maintaining the Adelaide Airport curfew. Guess what? Less than two months after the Liberal candidate won the seat of Hindmarsh and the Liberal government came to power, that commitment disappeared. That broken election commitment allowed aircraft to come in before 6 am, even though we had a promise by the Liberal opposition and the Liberal candidate at the time that this would not happen. They broke their promise less than two months after they formed government—and after they had put out leaflets in the entire electorate promising that this would not be happening. I'd also like to raise the importance of keeping Australians safe. I have raised a series of questions in writing with the Minister for Home Affairs. I'm yet to hear back from him, but it was only a couple of weeks ago, so I've given him some time. I look forward to hearing back from the minister regarding these important questions about security at Adelaide Airport and airports around Australia. There were reports in newspapers and on radio about workers in our airports. We know they play a tremendously important role, and it's important we provide them with the resources they require and the support they need to carry out their work. I'm very proud of the work I've done with many workers at the airports, through the collapse of Ansett and more recently, with the Australian Services Union. It's so important to ensure that we make workers feel safe at work—and not just make them feel safe but also ensure that they are safe. Our emergency service workers, our security officers, our AFP—they are all hardworking, dedicated people. We have seen recently in media reports that weapons have passed through security screening undetected at Adelaide Airport on multiple occasions. This is deeply concerning, and I've called on the Minister for Home Affairs to investigate these matters. Labour strongly support investment in aviation and we are committed to growing the sector, but the simple fact is this investment must be underpinned by a social compact between airports and the communities that live around them. We do a pretty good job in Adelaide, through the auspices of Phil Baker, the former CEO of Adelaide Airport, and now Mark Young. We have a good consultation committee. When issues arise I ring them or they ring me. We brief one another, and we are able to work through the issues. But, as I said, this is so important, especially in Adelaide, where we have a trade-off involving an airport that is six kilometres from the CBD and is surrounded by housing and an urban environment. This is why these amendments will be put forward by the member for Grayndler, and I encourage this parliament to support them. I encourage them to do so because what we see in the amendments is that the proposed monetary trigger for requiring major development plans is to be reduced from $35 million to $25 million. A trigger of $35 million means that bigger projects, projects that have a bigger impact on the community, would be able to go through without any consultation. We are told we need this to 'align better with the recent cost escalations', but, in effect, our amendments mean that more projects at airports will require a formal development application process, which means that there could be better consultation and better input from those communities that are adversely affected. 13:13 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Aviation brings people and cultures together like no other form of transport. Air travel reunites Australian families and friends within and beyond our Australian borders. It can also be a lifeline for Australians in remote and regional areas who rely on aviation to receive critical aeromedical services. The aviation sector is central to Australia's economy. It is a significant creator of jobs and contributes in excess of $30 billion per annum to the Australian economy. It also plays a vital role in supporting international tourism, which is a key part of Queensland's economy, with over half the international tourists travelling to their destination by air. In particular, Australia's airports are critical pieces of economic infrastructure which support our aviation sector. Archerfield Airport is a key part of my electorate of Moreton, with a history dating back to the early 1930s. In fact, Archerfield was originally set up in the late 1920s and it actually replaced Eagle Farm as Brisbane's domestic airport in 1931. During World War II, Archerfield became a hive of activity. My grandfather worked there as a grader driver. During World War II, Archerfield was used by the Royal Australian Air Force, obviously, but it was also used by the Royal Netherlands Air Force because the Dutch East Indies government-in-exile was actually just down the road at Wacol. So there was actually another crown operating in Australia at that time in Wacol. Not many people realise that. It is a tale worth telling, especially when it comes to Indonesian independence. Much of their equipment—naval equipment, aeroplanes and the like—wasn't able to go back to fight the Indonesian independence movement because the Australian union movement black-banned the movement of those vehicles. But that's a story for another time; we're talking about airports. Archerfield was also used by the United States Army Air Forces and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm. In fact, they were almost at the end of my street in Moorooka. Many of the houses in my electorate were built by military forces that were there during World War II. Especially after MacArthur moved his headquarters to Brisbane, the use of the rather waterlogged Eagle Farm declined and the focus went to Archerfield. Then, obviously, Brisbane has taken off as the airport, incorporating part of Eagle Farm. If you have flown into Brisbane, you would have seen that they had to put a lot of fill there because it is very swampy territory. That is a little bit of the history. Archerfield Airport and Brisbane Airport have changed over the years. Obviously, the Archerfield Airport has faced numerous ups and downs. Currently, the airport operates as a general aviation airport under the Airports Act, and, like most, but not all, airports, it's on Commonwealth land with a 99-year lease. Likewise, Brisbane Airport is on Commonwealth land with a 99-year lease, renewed after 50 years. The Archerfield Airport employs the equivalent of 13 full-time staff and has approximately 140,000 aircraft movements per year. As such, Archerfield Airport operates at a much smaller scale than major airports like Brisbane, Melbourne, Sydney or Perth. Currently, however, the Airports Act does not appropriately distinguish between the major airports and smaller airports like Archerfield when it comes to planning and development. This has become a significant problem for Archerfield Airport and prevents the airport from realising its full potential—something its neighbours are probably okay with because, obviously, planes flying overhead cause some disturbance to people in my electorate. It is therefore necessary for the viable management and operation of Archerfield Airport that a more appropriate regulatory framework is applied to it. The proposed Airports Amendment Bill changes multiple aspects of the act in order to achieve a more suitable regulatory framework for general aviation airports like Archerfield. Therefore, I support this bill. However, I believe some amendments are needed to achieve a more appropriate balance in the regulatory framework. Firstly, the bill seeks to make changes to airport master plan requirements in the Airports Act. The Airports Act provides for the establishment of much-needed airport master plans for federally leased airports. A master plan operates as a 20-year strategic vision for an airport site. The master plan addresses future land uses, types of permitted development and noise and environmental impacts that involve consultation with neighbours. It also includes an environmental strategy which sets out the airport's plan to manage environmental issues. This is vitally important, as airports, if not managed correctly, can have many negative environmental impacts on local communities, such as poorer air quality, poorer water quality and high waste production. I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, you are well aware of the consequences of PFAS getting into the environment. Under the act, a new master plan must be prepared every five years for all federally leased airports except the Tennant Creek and Mount Isa airports. Preparing a master plan can be potentially a very laborious and expensive process for smaller general aviation airports like Archerfield, which often do not have the internal resources to carry out this entire process in house, as many of the major airports do. As a result, much of this work is farmed out to external consultants and advisers. The plans themselves take nearly two years to develop, and a significant burden is placed on the staff at the airport during such processes. There is also the prospect of administrative review, which an airport's neighbours are obviously entitled to consider. Such difficulties are demonstrated by the process undertaken by the Archerfield Airport Corporation in relation to their previous master plan. Consultation for that plan began in December 2008; however, because the plan was subject to a three-year Administrative Appeals Tribunal review, it was not completed until July 2015. Just six months later the process had to start again for the current master plan. This has come at significant distraction to the effective management and operation of the airport by staff. The Airports Amendment Bill is a significant step towards addressing this issue. Under the proposed changes new master plans will be required only every eight years, instead of every five years, for federally leased airports like Archerfield, with the exception of the major airports—Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. The changes enable an improved balance to be struck between the regulation of airports and effective airport management and operation. This amendment will help to ensure that master plans continue to provide an updated, comprehensive vision for the sustainable use and development of airports, yet the plans will not be produced so frequently as to substantially infringe on the day-to-day operation of airports like Archerfield. Further, the Airports Act currently requires master plans to include an Australian noise exposure forecast, which forecasts future aircraft noise patterns for the areas surrounding the airport. Such forecasts are very important, as aircraft noise can substantially affect the liveability of Australian homes and neighbourhoods. However, the act currently does not specify that the forecast must be renewed for each plan. I certainly know this as I'm right under the path of the emergency helicopters that are based at Archerfield. Obviously, I know that someone is in a lot of trouble whenever the emergency helicopters go over, so, whilst it might wake me up, I always figure that it's better that I'm in my bed than in that helicopter. The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to make it a requirement to obtain and include a new Australian noise exposure forecast when preparing a new draft master plan. This ensures that each master plan will include up-to-date information regarding the potential impacts of airport noise in local areas. This is important as these up-to-date forecasts can help to ascertain whether future changes in airport noise will substantially infringe upon local residents and businesses. This has been a concern of some residents in Moreton, particularly for residents close to Archerfield and Acacia Ridge. It's a concern that I take very seriously. It is often aired at the community meetings, thus I support the proposal to require a new forecast for each master plan. This bill also proposes a number of changes to planning processes for major airport developments, some of which I'm committed to supporting. The Airports Act provides for the establishment of major development plans. A major airport development generally includes any significant building work or any development associated with a substantial environmental impact on the airport site. Major development plans must provide details about these major developments and their likely effects on, for example, noise, flight paths, traffic flows and the environment. These plans must be approved by the minister before any such developments can go ahead. The act outlines that developments must be completed within five years after major development plans are approved by the minister, unless the approval states otherwise. The minister may also extend that period by up to two years. Whilst a majority of these major developments are completed within the relevant time frame, larger and more complex development projects may be unable to achieve completion within such a time period due to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances. The Airports Amendment Bill proposes to remove the limitation on the number of times an airport can apply to extend the planned completion period. This allows for greater flexibility for developments—such as a new runway, which is currently occurring in Brisbane—and allows for such projects to adapt to changing circumstances. However, by using a two-year extension the necessary control is maintained. Therefore, I support this proposed change to the Airports Act. This bill also proposes amending the act to allow an airport to withdraw an approved major development plan by giving notice to the minister of its intention not to proceed with the development. This can apply if the project has not yet commenced and the airport considers that exceptional circumstances beyond its control have made it unviable to proceed with the development. The plan ceases to be in force the day after the minister has given the airport written notice acknowledging receipt of the withdrawal notice. 'Exceptional circumstances' is not defined further by the bill, and the explanatory memorandum does not give any further explanation or examples. Whilst more clarity is needed as to what constitutes exceptional circumstances, it is clear that resources should not be wasted on unviable projects, thus, provided the proper oversight occurs in the withdrawal process, I support allowing such withdrawals. However, this bill also proposes a number of changes to airport development planning processes that I find very problematic. Labor will be proposing two amendments to this bill to address these concerns. One such change includes increasing the trigger for major development plans to $35 million. In 2007 it was determined that a major development plan would only be required for major developments where construction costs exceeded $20 million. However, over time, rising construction costs and inflation have resulted in a larger number of projects triggering the requirement of a major development plan, perhaps sometimes unnecessarily. As such, I support increasing the trigger for major development plans. However, we need to ensure that this increase accurately reflects changes to development costs so that appropriate amount of developments will be subject to a major development plan. The government's amendment seeks to increase the major development plan trigger to $35 million. However, this increase is too great. It is larger than the increase in the ABS construction CPI, since the trigger was last adjusted in 2007, and is inconsistent with observations of a currently soft market in civil construction activity in most parts of the nation. Increasing the trigger to $35 million would inevitably mean that many more major projects would go ahead without any public consultation or independent assessments concerning the impact of these developments on local communities. I want people in my electorate to understand what is going on at the airport they live around. I believe that residents in Moreton are entitled to have a say on plans for major airport developments that could significantly affect them. I therefore support amending the bill to change the proposed trigger from $35 million down to $20 million. Another problem change to the Airports Act proposed in this bill concerns consultation periods for major development plans. A key part of the major development plans process is, of course, public consultation. Under the act, a draft major development plan must be published for public consultation. The public consultation period is 60 business days, although the minister may approve a shorter period of no less than 15 business days. These shorter consultation periods can only be approved if requested in writing by the airport company and if the minister is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the airport master plan and that it 'does not raise any issues that have a significant impact on the local or regional community'. However, this bill proposes to insert a new provision whereby if the airport makes a request for a shorter consultation period and the minister does not make a decision on the request within 15 business days, then the minister is deemed to have approved that shorter period. This amendment raises the possibility that the minister could simply not decide on the request and then be deemed to have approved the shorter consultation period, even if the development is inconsistent with the airport master plan or raises issues that have a significant impact on local communities. In other words, it appears that this provision could potentially be used to circumvent the requirements and purpose of public consultation. Obviously, this is deeply problematic. Once again, it is vital that people in Moreton and every community surrounding an airport, all around Australia, can voice their opinions about airport developments that might affect the value of their homes, that might affect their amenity or that might affect the places that they work in. I'm therefore opposed to this provision. The current act already provides adequate scope for reduced consultation and the further relaxation of these rules not justified. It is important for Moreton that we achieve necessary reforms to the Airports Act. It is important for airports like Archerfield Airport and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane Airport. There are low points in Moreton that are affected by the runway, particularly in Tarragindi and Annerley. When the second runway comes in, people living Chelmer, Sherwood and Graceville will be further affected by planes flying overhead. It's important that we get the change in the regulatory framework right. The Airports Amendment Bill takes important steps towards achieving a more sustainable balance. As I pointed out, some changes are necessary to strike an even better balance. 13:28 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay The attention given to the Airports Amendment Bill 2016 and the reliance on putting some more consultation measures in it are admirable. We know that, from this government on the opposite side, that's absolutely what's required. After you have seen their consultation over the Western Sydney Airport, you know that they would need to strengthen those provisions in this bill. That is because there has been no consultation on Western Sydney Airport with my community. This was evident at the very first meeting that I attended with Minister Fletcher, who couldn't even name the electorate in which the airport was actually going to be built. He sat there and argued with me: 'What on earth could a backbencher from Western Sydney tell me about her own community? What on earth would she know? She is not only a backbencher but also a woman.' After he got into an argument with me over where this airport was actually located, and he conceded that I was actually right, he then gave me maybe five or 10 more minutes to discuss the airport. That was at four o'clock on a Thursday afternoon, with about 24 hours notice that the meeting was going to take place. That was the way he treated me, regarding where this airport is actually going to be. We then saw the consultation process, when they were coming out to my community. My community were given just six days notice— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 My apologies, but the debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The member can be assured that she will be given leave to continue the debate at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Youth Voices in Parliament 44 13:30 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Continuing my Youth Voices in Parliament campaign, I would like to introduce Rebecca, a year 7 student in the Gifted and Talented class at Cumberland High School, who is passionate about the need for a swimming pool in Rydalmere. These are her words: A multipurpose swimming pool located on the previous Macquarie Boys High School to replace the Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Pool, which was knocked down to build a bigger stadium. This solution allows the people living in the Parramatta district a place to swim without travelling all the way to Granville through infuriating traffic just to get some 'me time'. This swimming pool will accommodate all ages and professions with a kiddy pool, a children's pool, a fifty-metre pool and a diving pool that can also be used for water polo, synchronised swimming and other water sports. This pool will also provide swimming lessons and will be for hire from schools and community groups making the pool a social place to be. Rebecca continues: To achieve this change, I would contact the Parramatta council through mail, email or attending meetings, put up notices and send around flyers to raise awareness of this change and or start a petition to make a statement to show that we want a swimming pool. This pool would be a social place and have a positive environment to gather, and hold events and have fun. For the children a place to learn and have fun, for the adults a place to relax and get away from responsibility and for the competitors a place to train and compete. …   …   …    … I think this change will change the future of this towns liveability for the better … I think the stakeholders will agree, our community needs a pool! Thanks, Rebecca. We certainly do need a pool. Page Electorate: Schools 44 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to congratulate Lismore's St John's College Woodlawn netball team, who, this week, won the 24th annual Marist Netball Carnival. The team members were: Sarai Sandral, Georgia Davis, Emma Clark, Zoe Lawrence-Daly, Courteney Watson, Samantha Glasby, Mia McRae, Natasha Flanagan and Anna Kaeslin. They were managed by Fiona Fennamore and coached by Alisha Meredith. As well as winning the final, the team also received the fair play and sportsmanship trophy awarded by the umpires. Also, players Sarai Sandral and Zoe Lawrence-Daly, together with Lismore's Trinity Catholic College players Morley Cromwell and Ella Egan, were named in the All Australian Marist team. Congratulations to them all. Last month, 22 schools competed in the New South Wales state school canoeing championships at Hanging Rock, west of Grafton. I would like to congratulate Casino High student Declan Ellis, 15, who outperformed older competitors to be named 2018 New South Wales All Schools and CHS Individual Champion. Casey Ellis set the fastest time in the C1 flatwater sprint, with Zentay Cormick taking out two first places in the SK1 downriver and sprint. Corbin Woods took two second places in the same events behind Casey. Callie Ellis also won two events, the K1 and Cl slaloms. Danny McGovern and Coen Powell added valuable points to the school tally, enabling Casino High School to finish second in the overall competition. Congratulations to the team and to teacher Mark Ellis for giving the students this wonderful opportunity. Workplace Relations 44 13:33 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith This Sunday, 700,000 Australian workers will again have their penalty rates cut by on average $77 a week. Yet again, the Turnbull government stands by and does nothing and supports this cut to low-paid workers' incomes in our country. The government has had eight chances, no less than eight chances, to vote to stop cuts to penalty rates in Australia, in the restaurant, catering and hospitality industries, and on all eight occasions the government has done nothing and voted to ensure that these penalty rates cuts occur. Australian workers and their families are doing it tough. They are facing record levels of household debt, ballooning electricity costs and childcare and education costs, and wages growth is painfully low in Australia at the moment. Low-paid workers and their families are doing it tough. Most of those low-paid workers, unfortunately, are women. This is a further kick in the guts for those workers who are going to face on average a cut of $77 this weekend to their weekly incomes. The government stands by and allows this to occur. Well, Labor will fight for those low-paid workers. Labor will fight to protect penalty rates. I urge those members of the government who voted on eight occasions not to protect penalty rates to join with Labor and support the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill to protect Australian workers' penalty rates. Swan Electorate: St Pius X Catholic Primary School 45 13:34 Mr IRONS HYM Swan A few weeks ago I visited a year 6 class at St Pius X Catholic Primary School in Manning, which is in my electorate of Swan. I know they're watching, so a big hello to all the students at St Pius and their teacher from Parliament House here in Canberra. Their teacher, Mr Paljetak, contacted my office to arrange the visit, as his students are studying civics and citizenship this term. So I went back to school to chat with students about all things politics, my role as their local federal member, how our parliament and democracy work, the work I've done in the electorate of Swan and what motivates me. Of course I said my wife motivates me, and then I went on to tell them about an inherent sense of duty I have to serve the great people of Swan. I was asked about leadership and what it means to me. I could delve into that, but I won't at the moment. I was also very impressed with some of the answers that I received in return when asking the class the same question about leadership. I learned that St Pius X had 230 students, which I was able to compare to 226 members and senators that are elected to represent the people of Australia, no matter how far they are from where they hail. I also got to tour the virtual reality room with virtual goggles, allowing students to be transported to wherever or whatever it is they were learning about. I wish some of us could do that sometimes. I would like to thank Mr Paljetak and year sixes for hosting me and look forward to attending their graduation ceremony later in this year. Decentralisation 45 13:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Today Canberrans are vindicated. They are vindicated by the Select Committee on Regional Development and Decentralisation's report once again, once again, once again showing the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale for what it is: a blatant, shameless pork-barrel. With the bruises still healing from the decision to relocate the APVMA, Canberra sent a very strong message in its submissions to the committee, saying: 'Hands off Canberra. We've had a gutful of what coalition governments do to us—an absolute gutful.' And for once Canberra was listened to. The Regions at the ready: investing in Australia's future report highlights that many submissions stated that whole government departments or agencies were not expected to be picked up and moved to a regional town, yet that is exactly what the member for New England did when he decided to undertake one of the biggest, most shameful and most shameless pork-barrels in history, moving the APVMA, a regulator in agricultural and veterinary medicines and chemicals, from Canberra to Armidale. None of the committee's recommendations came close to even retrospectively supporting this outrageous pork-barrel. The key criteria is in recommendation 6: decisions as to whether to decentralise an agency should be part of a broader strategy for regional development; and the objectives and reasons for any decentralisation decision are clearly stated and publically available. (Time expired) Petrie Electorate: Sport 45 13:37 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie This weekend is going to be really exciting for the community of Redcliffe Dolphins football on the Redcliffe Peninsula, because we're opening the eastern grandstand. When I was first elected I had lots of people within the community raise with me the need to build Dolphin Stadium. The Dolphins rugby league club is certainly a professional club. They've got great staff, strong supporters and excellent players, and the stadium is not just used for Dolphins matches; it's used by clubs such as the Peninsula Power Football Club, which is soccer, of course, and in the next few weeks we've got the Brisbane Roar taking on the Melbourne City Football Club at Dolphin Stadium. But the $4 million that the federal government has been able to contribute to the Dolphin Stadium, which is great for the wider Moreton Bay area, came about because of people power within my electorate. I want to thank the locals that wrote to me and signed my petition to make sure the federal government can contribute. We've seen the western grandstand open and it looks fantastic. This weekend the eastern grandstand will open. I'm looking forward to having Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie, the Minister for Sport, coming up and opening the stadium with me. This will be great for the people of Moreton Bay and our region. Higher Education 45 13:39 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay 'A pinch and a punch for the first day of the month' is a little rhyme that I'm sure all of us heard at some point in our childhood to remind us that a new month was coming and one was finishing. What have the young people got to look forward to going into the next month? It's not just a pinch and a punch; it's an actual knockout blow. On the first of next month what we're going to see is that all those kids who dared to aspire to go to university—because we've heard a lot about aspiration this week—are now going to be paying their HECS debts back when earning $45,000, reduced from $55,000. There are some people who would agree that was an okay thing to do and might be not so bad—certainly not on this side of the House—but this government was even crueller. It was even crueller to 700,000 people in our communities, who are going to be $77 a week worse off when they lose their penalty rates. So on the first day of next month all young people should be reminded that it is not a pinch and a punch; it is an actual knockout blow provided by those on the other side of this House. It is an absolute abhorrent outrage to treat young people who want to get ahead like this. It goes to further show how out of touch, how arrogant and how inconsiderate of what people in our communities need and rely on to get ahead the government are. Those opposite had eight times to vote against these penalty rate cuts, and every time they sold their communities and young people out. Special Broadcasting Service 46 13:40 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes SBS are currently running an ad showing an elderly couple in bed. The wife turns to the husband and says, 'Can you turn the heater back on; it's pretty cold in here.' The husband then says, 'I don't know if that's a good idea.' Then the climate fairy appears and proclaims: 'To meet the target set out under the Paris agreement, heating is one area we can all cut back on. If every Australian household did the same, we could easily hit our target.' This dangerously stupid ad is likely to put people's health at risk. The science is settled. In Australia, mortality is substantially higher during the winter months and cold homes are known to contribute to excess winter deaths. The World Health Organization recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18 degrees and, ideally, 21 degrees if babies or elderly people live at home. To promote a message that if one is feeling physically cold in their own home they should not turn the heater on, as this SBS ad does, will put people's health at risk. I call on SBS to immediately withdraw this ad. South Sudan 46 13:42 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne On 21 June 2018, the President of the Republic of South Sudan, General Salva Kiir Mayardit, and his former vice-president and current armed opposition leader, Dr Riek Machar Teny, met for the first time in two years under the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in Addis Ababa, where peace negotiations between the warring parties have been taking place since December 2013, two years after the independence of South Sudan. On 27 June this year, both leaders signed an agreement in Sudan's capital city, Khartoum, with high expectations for ending five years of deadly conflict in the world's youngest nation. This civil war has devastated the young nation, taking thousands of lives and leaving more than four million people displaced within and outside the country. The South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative, another community-led reconciliation effort in the diaspora, are monitoring the situation closely as South Sudanese Australians and South Sudanese communities around the world are affected by what goes on in their home of origin, due to close family connections they still have there. I'd like to congratulate South Sudanese Australians and the South Sudanese communities around the world and especially the founders of the South Sudan Australia Peace Initiative, Mr Nyok Gor and Mr Kaka, for the crucial role they've played in contributing to this peace process. They worked with my office, the office of the member for McMillan, Russell Broadbent, the former member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, and Anthony Byrne, the member for Holt, in an effort to set up the Parliamentary Friendship Group of South Sudan. I also commend the President and opposition leader of South Sudan for taking this important step towards peace. Bowman Electorate 46 13:43 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Mine is the only seat in this place that conforms precisely with a city—that's Redland City in outer metropolitan Queensland. There's a bit going on in federal infrastructure in our neck of the woods. Only the second road to be duplicated, the duplication of Rickertt Road, connecting with Quarry Road, which was duplicated 10 years ago, is underway at the moment. We have wireless towers now approved to cover all of our Moreton Bay islands. That's very important for connectivity. NBN is about to start rolling again with HFC, and a final bit of fibre to the node to the mainland will start in October. These are all important coverages. We've seen funded the Icon radiation oncology centre, the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. Chaplaincy, a passion of mine, has been defended. Launch into Work, a new program to get young, disengaged people into the workforce, is underway in a national first in my electorate. The early intervention model we are trialling so that we can get allied health into childcare centres is the first of its kind in Australia. We hope to see it running in an even broader sense by the end of the year. We have online NAPLAN being trialled in two of our schools, which was a great success, and we have a local drug action team raising awareness about the dangers of ice, which is a national fight, led by Linda Grieve in my area. Redlands Netball Association has now been fully upgraded, with a new commercial kitchen and shed facilities. Australian Industry Trade College, one of the last remaining John Howard technical colleges, is still operating and is absolutely top of its class—funded in my electorate—together with The Sycamore School, for children with autism. Lastly, for all those businesses out there facing 2½ per cent tax increases under Labor, we'll make sure it never happens. Turnbull Government 47 13:45 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor On budget night we heard the Treasurer ask what those opposite had achieved. I thought I would spend a bit of time today talking about what they've achieved. Well, they've managed to give themselves, and everyone else who earns over $200,000, a $7,000 tax cut. They have managed an economy for record low wages growth and record high corporate profits. They have cost-shifted to the states in health and education. They have managed to get an increase in the cost of early education and child care—they did that overnight, which was pretty good. What haven't they achieved? They have achieved nothing in housing affordability. They've done nothing about power prices in this country. In fact, they're so busy fighting one another about power prices that they haven't even started a conversation yet about what to do. Their cruellest achievement starts on Sunday. What have they achieved? They have managed to take $77 a week out of the pockets of people who rely on penalty rates—17,000 people in my electorate. That is what they have achieved. They managed to walk in here eight times and not protect those workers. They have managed to walk in here eight times and achieve absolutely nothing for the lowest paid workers in this country. That is what this government stands for. They stand for themselves. They don't stand for the people of Australia. Heart of Australia 47 13:46 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Australians who live in rural and remote areas, the outback of this wide, brown land, are often referred to in romantic fashion as 'hard as nails' or 'tough as teeth'. These terms of reverence are given as a sign of respect by those of us who live in the plush surrounds of the city. But there's one thing that none of us can deny, and that is that the people in the bush are made of exactly the same stuff as the rest of us—they grow, they eat, they break and they get sick, just as we do, often without the necessary level of health services to get them through. Compared to their city cousins, those living in the country are 44 per cent more likely to die from a heart attack, 70 per cent more likely to die from heart failure and 31 per cent more likely to die from a stroke. The Heart of Australia's service is magnificent in theory and it is changing the practice of cardiology services for hundreds and hundreds of rural Queenslanders. This service brings fortnightly cardiac and respiratory services to rural communities right across Queensland. It does it in a 25-metre-long, custom-designed clinic on wheels, driven by a big, shiny Kenworth K200 prime mover. This service is bringing real specialist services into remote areas that desperately need them and it is changing the lives of the patients as they go. I salute the whole team at Heart of Australia and declare I'm behind them all the way. Workplace Relations 47 13:48 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Mr Deputy Speaker, there is much commentary about the world being a 24/7 place, and indeed it is true that it's busier than when you and I went to school. But let me tell you what hasn't changed: school hours. This goes to the very heart of penalty rates and what this government is doing. It's about children and it's about families. When kids start going to school 24/7, maybe the world truly will be a 24/7 place. But at the moment children still go to school Monday to Friday from nine to three, or thereabouts. That is what is so important about penalty rates for working people who sacrifice that time with their family, with their children, on weekends. They know that to put bread on the table and to buy shoes for their children to wear to school they have to go to work on Saturday and Sunday, and they should be rewarded for that. In my electorate of Paterson, one in five local workers work in industries where penalty rates are being cut, and this Sunday they will be cut again, thanks to this government. While this government wants to give big business an $80 billion tax cut—let that sink in: $80 billion—they are taking $77 out of the pay packets of the hard workers of Paterson. I say to this Prime Minister: shame on you, Prime Minister. You are refusing to stand up for the families and the children of Paterson. Shame on you. Berowra Electorate: Scouts Australia 47 13:49 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra Back in March, I went to the Cherrybrook Movie under the Stars, a wonderful family event organised by the 1st Cherrybrook Scout Group, which is led by the omnipresent and hardworking Stephen Hunt, in my community. I met a remarkable young lady named Lilly Judge that day. Lilly is a proud member of the Scouts and she sold me a Starlight Children's Foundation badge as part of the Australian Scout Medallion award and asked me to come to presentation night. I told her I would go and I was impressed by her story. Lilly and the members of her scouting troupe designed the badge to have both the Starlight Foundation logo and Scouts logo and sold badges throughout the community to raise money. Lilly told me she and her troupe sold over 500 badges, including to a buyer from Canada, and raised over $2,000 for the Starlight Foundation. Scouts Australia awarded her with the Australian Scout Medallion and green cord. That presentation night took place at the Hornsby Heights Scout Hall, and I was honoured to be involved. I also want to congratulate Mikaela Becchio, who is the granddaughter of Penny Becchio, one of the state scout leaders. She attained her medallion and green cord on the same night for having organised an amazing cake stall at Bunnings, getting grandmothers, mothers and fathers to bake cakes for them, and selling $1,250 worth of cakes, which is huge for a cake stall. The money is going to the Scouts to help them with their upcoming jamboree. Congratulations again to both Lilly and Mikaela as well as to their parents and grandparents, who I'm sure are very proud of these amazing Australian Scouts. Energy 48 13:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Wholesale energy prices in this country have doubled under this government. We have record-high electricity prices and a record number of energy policies by this hopeless and incompetent government. We had the Direct Action dog. We had the emissions intensity scheme, which lasted for 12 hours before the ministers surrendered to the member for Warringah. We had the Clean Energy Target with Alan Finkel for nine months before, again, the Prime Minister folded. And then we had the National Energy Guarantee. Now it looks like the dinosaurs in the Liberal Party room, with their allies in the National Party room, are now holding the Prime Minister hostage again. We saw that the National Party is now demanding $5 billion for new coal-fired power stations before they sign up to the NEG. This is unacceptable because everybody knows that the cheapest and the most reliable new form of power generation in this country is a combination of renewable energy—solar and wind—backed up by gas peaking plants and pumped hydro storage. That is the cheapest and most reliable form of new generation. What the National Party room are saying, and what the Prime Minister will inevitably surrender to, is, 'We want to add to people's electricity bills by spending $5 billion building new coal-fired power stations.' This is a recipe for higher power prices, higher emissions and stopping the growth of renewable energy that the rest of the country knows is so desperately needed. Yet again, we have a weak Prime Minister, a craven Prime Minister, who will do anything to appease his party room rather than look after the people of Australia. (Time expired) Farrer Electorate: Hospitals 48 13:52 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I rise to note a very important event tomorrow in my electorate and in my hometown of Albury. After much fanfare and lengthy planning, it will be my pleasure to help open the new Albury-Wodonga cardiac catheter laboratory. Locally, for the first time, specialists will have diagnostic imaging equipment to visualise a person's heart, the surrounding arteries and chambers to assess any serious abnormalities. This new, state-of-the-art facility means that local patients and carers no longer have to travel great distances to get the professional or immediate care they need. Previously, a patient might need to have been ferried to Melbourne, often by air ambulance, adding unnecessary extra pressure and cost to the public health system. The cardiac cath lab will commence operation from Monday, with local staff and professionals supported by St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne to ensure the best possible care. There are extra support areas for carers and staff, along with six recovery and day beds catering for an estimated 1,600 procedures annually. From next year, we're also looking at providing additional interventional services, such as stents and pacemakers. How did this all come about? It was from a federal coalition commitment of $5 million in the 2014 budget, cooperation with the Victorian department of health and local campaigners who lobbied for this great day to occur. It will occur—it happens tomorrow—and together we will be able to improve the heart health of Albury-Wodonga and the surrounding communities. Turnbull Government 48 13:54 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand We've heard a lot of talk about aspiration from the Turnbull government this week. Unfortunately, it's been more like the kind of talk you'd hear around a merchant banker's corporate boardroom than around the family dining tables of Australia. Australians' aspirations are much bigger than increasing the bottom line of the top end of town. When Prime Minister Turnbull cut $17 billion from Australian schools, he showed his ignorance of the aspirations of millions of Australians who dream of their children reaching their full potential in life. When Prime Minister Turnbull cut $3.8 billion from Australian universities, he showed his ignorance of the aspirations of tens of thousands of Australians who dream of being the first from their family to go to university. When the Prime Minister refused to rule out the construction of new coal-fired power plants under his government, he showed contempt for the aspirations of millions of Australians who dream of being able to share the Great Barrier Reef with their grandchildren. Prime Minister, the aspirations of Australians are far richer than the bank balances of millionaires and the big end of town. Labor understands this, and a Shorten Labor government will meet the aspirations of Australians, not just in the tax system but in our hospitals, our schools, our universities, our TAFEs, our workplaces and our natural environment and, importantly, at the next federal election. Labor understands aspiration in this country. We understand the dreams of parents and the dreams of children. And we will build a country where all Australian children can reach their full potential, a fair society where everyone's aspirations are treated equally. Forrest Electorate: Nannup 49 13:55 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Nannup is a special town in the South West of Western Australia, officially gazetted in 1890. Its name stems from a word in the Noongar people's language, meaning 'stopping place'. Nannup was long known for its timber production and, still today, for agriculture. It's a quaint and picturesque town, voted by Qantas as one of the five best places in Australia to see autumn colour. It's soon to become the home of the world's biggest wooden clock. Craftsman Kevin Bird has spent the better part of a decade building the clock, which is six metres high and three metres wide, weighing 1.5 tonnes. The tower is expected to be completed by spring. It will be located in the heart of Nannup, on Warren Road. It will be another great drawcard to bring people to Nannup. The tower will have an interpretive display and an audio tour for tourists. Nannup has established a heritage trail, featuring over 50 sites, detailing the stories and history of old buildings and culture. This is a must-do when you visit the town. Recently, through the Turnbull government, I secured CCTV cameras at the Nannup Recreation and Community Centre to increase the safety around the centre, and Nannup RSL received a grant which helped them to preserve their beautiful war memorial, right in the middle of town. Nannup is a wonderful jewel in the south-west, and its community volunteers are exceptional. Family and Domestic Violence 49 13:57 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On White Ribbon Day 2016, I announced that a Labor government would amend the Family Law Act to prevent women in family violence cases from being cross-examined by unrepresented perpetrators of that violence. I said that I wouldn't mind if the government adopted that policy straightaway, so we welcome today's news by the government. The pain and hardship of family violence doesn't end when you leave home or change the locks. For far too many, the legal gauntlet of the Family Court is impoverishing, isolating, demoralising and dehumanising. When women seek justice from our nation, when they summon up the courage and resilience to tell their story, they should never be directly cross-examined by their perpetrator. This is a re-injury, a further injustice inflicted by an abuser who's already done enough damage. It's long past the hour that Australia should put a stop to this. Labor's policy on this allocates $43.2 million to ensure legal aid is made available to all unrepresented parties. I hope the government backs today's words with dollars and resources to ensure proper independent representation is not just a principle but a reality. Preventing violence against women and delivering justice and safety for survivors should be a national priority for our parliament and for all Australians. Newton, Mrs Joyce, OAM 49 13:58 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In Fisher, we have a true local hero in the form of Joyce Newton. Joyce has always displayed an energetic commitment to going the extra mile for others in everything she has been involved in. During a long association with local schools, Joyce created new services for Maleny students, including meet-the-teachers nights, after-school sex education for parents and children, a student council at the primary school and a responsible-thinking classroom at the high school. Joyce has spent a lifetime making Maleny a better place. She was the driving force behind building Maleny's community swimming pool and keeping it running since 1983; setting up a mothers' nurses group; restarting the Maleny Community Kindergarten; building an indoor activity centre at the high school; setting up our local hospital auxiliary; and creating the Maleny Rangers soccer club. Along the way, Joyce found time to run the blood bank at Maleny hospital, keep the Maleny Guides and playgroup going, and sit on the advisory group of the Maleny Community Precinct. I was delighted to attend Joyce's investiture with a well-deserved Medal of the Order of Australia on 4 June, which Joyce, with typical humility, accepted on behalf of all the community members who've worked with her over the years. On behalf of Maleny and the House, many congratulations and a sincere thank you for all— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 49 SHADOW MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence—for the information of the House, I present a revised list of the shadow ministry. The document read as follows— SHADOW MINISTRY Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio, (2) which is in Treasury portfolio and (3) which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type . Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Brand will join the shadow ministry as shadow minister for consumer affairs, shadow minister assisting for resources and shadow minister assisting on small business. The member for Barton will add shadow minister for preventing family violence to her existing role. The member for Griffith will take on a new role as shadow assistant minister for young Australians and youth affairs. The member for McMahon will add shadow minister for small business to his existing responsibilities as shadow Treasurer. The member for Hotham will join Labor's— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The members for Deakin and Barker! The Leader of the Opposition may proceed. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG The member for Hotham will join Labor's economic team as shadow minister for financial services in addition to her existing role. Senator Jacinta Collins will become Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, and Senator Glenn Sterle will become shadow assistant minister for road safety. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 51 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister abandon his vote on his centrepiece $80 billion handout to big business today? Is this just another failure of this Prime Minister, or has the Prime Minister struck a secret deal with the One Nation party to delay the vote giving $80 billion to big business until after the upcoming by-elections? 14:02 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. Speaking about secrets: the honourable member kept his slashing assault on small business a secret from his shadow cabinet, from his caucus and from his mystified colleagues, including the deputy leader. He kept it secret from them until he dropped that bombshell and announced that he was going to put at risk five million jobs: 4.8 million Australians, to be precise, work for businesses with a turnover of under $50 million, and those jobs are put at risk by this Leader of the Opposition in this captain's call, this relentless assault on small and family business. The parliament will be breaking for six weeks or so, and everyone will be out campaigning hard, no doubt. It's going to be very interesting for the Leader of the Opposition. Where is he going to go? What about— Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Oh, he says he's going to be visiting small business perhaps—a hi-vis opportunity. Oh, yes, he could be going to Stubbs Constructions in Burnie. He could be going to see Penguin Composites. He could be going to do that with the candidate in Braddon, who announced on her Facebook page how Labor was backing Penguin Composites. She obviously wasn't watching the 7.30 program when that company was denouncing the savage assaults on its business by the Labor Party. So where is he going to go? He can't go to any family business or any small or medium business—no more hi-vis. Where's he going to go? He could have a cup of tea with some seniors and talk about the 28 per cent of their income he's taking away, or he could talk to some workers in the construction sector and talk about his assault on the property industry, or he could talk to some of the members of what he describes as the top end of town, people on average weekly earnings of $80,000 or $90,000, and explain how he is going to deny them—if he gets into government—the opportunity of a lower tax rate. Right around the country, Australians will know that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party stand for higher taxes. They stand for higher taxes on business, large and small. They stand for higher taxes on families. They stand for higher taxes on property and investment and on retirees. That means the Labor Party stand for less economic growth, fewer jobs and lower wages. I look forward to the Leader of the Opposition's tiptoeing through all the landmines he's created around Australia. Small Business 52 14:05 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please outline to the House why it is important to back small and family and medium businesses and not penalise those who seek to create jobs for all Australians? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:05 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and I acknowledge the passionate advocacy he brings for small business in his community. Of course, coming from a small-business background himself, he knows exactly about the enterprise, the determination and the confidence that is required for thousands of small businesses across Australia to invest, to employ and to get ahead. What we have under our economic plan, which is working and delivering more jobs and stronger economic growth, is a plan that delivers lower taxes and delivers the incentives for businesses to invest and get ahead. The Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in the Labor Party love to talk about 'the top end of town'. Is he seriously suggesting—that's what they're saying, 'the top end of town'—that a business with a turnover of between $10 million and $50 million is at the top end of town? It's like calling somebody who earns $90,000 a year a multimillionaire. Well, the Labor Party believe that as well. They are so out of touch with what makes Australia work. It is hard work. It is enterprise. It's investment. It's the private sector. It's the aspiration that mystifies the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The business that needs to be supported, as the member for Grayndler knows, is being undermined and assaulted every day by the Leader of the Opposition. I mentioned the member for Grayndler. There's a great Australian business in his electorate—aussieBum; it makes underwear—founded by Sean Ashby. He says that the attack on his business, and thousands like it, will undermine the future of his business. This is a guy who started a business from scratch. The big retailers didn't believe in him. He went online. He's won the award for Australia's leading e-commerce exporter. He's got over 30 jobs there and he wants to grow. He wants to keep growing. And he's funding his business from retained earnings, as all these family businesses are. So the reduction in company tax that his company is benefiting from now enables him to invest more, to grow, to build his markets both at home and overseas and to employ more people. The question he asked about the Labor Party was: I just wonder if they would be so forthcoming if they had to explain how repealing the tax cut is going to benefit my business and more importantly my suppliers and my staff. The member for Grayndler needs to stand up for Sean Ashby and aussieBum. He does. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 He does. He knows him. Honourable members interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 Well, he'll have an interesting chat with Sean. I was speaking to him just a few minutes ago, and he shares your views about your leader. (Time expired) Turnbull Government 53 14:08 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government reached any agreements with One Nation within the last 48 hours? 14:09 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member and I congratulate him on his recent appointment as the shadow minister for small business. Of course, there are many ways to create a small business. Most people start off with no business at all and build it up. Others—and I think the shadow minister would fall into this category—start with a large business and turn it into a small one. That's exactly what he will do with Australia's economy and Australia's businesses— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! The member for Wright! The member for Mackellar—who's becoming a regular customer, I have to say! The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Point of order: direct relevance. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has completed his answer. Taxation 53 14:10 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on why it is so important for a strong economy that business can have certainty around taxation and is supported by lower and simpler taxes? Is the Treasurer aware of impacts of alternative proposals? 14:10 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He understands that our legislated tax relief for small and medium-sized businesses is part of our plan for a stronger economy, which is working, which has seen over a million more Australians employed since we were first elected, 80,000 young people get a job over the last 12 months, the unemployment rate coming down and non-mining investment growing at five times the long-run average. Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 How much is your tax cut? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L In the last couple of years we have seen businesses with turnover of less than $25 million already receive the tax cuts and the tax relief, but just next week, in a couple of days time, businesses with turnover between $25 million and $50 million will also get tax relief from 1 July. That happens in just a few days time. That includes CaPTA, a wonderful business up in Far North Queensland, a medium-sized tourism operator run by the Woodward family. That business has been running for 40 years, employs some 300 people and runs the rainforest nature park, tours and charters. It is a great business. They are getting tax relief next week. The Leader of the Opposition would be familiar with a whole bunch of other businesses, like Milltech Martin Bright out in Laverton North, which he has visited. They have a turnover of just under $50 million. They're getting a tax cut next week. Victoria Wool Processors at Laverton North are getting a tax cut next week. Jako Industries in Jandakot, Perth, are getting a tax cut. Fairmont Homes out in south-western Sydney are getting a tax cut. But in one year's time, if the Labor Party is elected, all of their tax relief will be stripped away. Those businesses with turnover between $10 million and $50 million will pay a million dollars extra tax on average over the next 10 years if this Leader of the Labor Party becomes Prime Minister between now and then. He is leaving 100,000 businesses in the lurch because he refuses to tell them, as does the shadow Treasurer, whether businesses with turnover between $2 million and $10 million will have their tax cuts ripped away from them in the same way, with a captain's call from the leader of the Labor Party, who announced this week that he'll be ripping them away from businesses with turnover between $10 million and $50 million. Some two million people work in businesses with between $2 million and $10 million in turnover. The Leader of the Labor Party has by-elections coming up all round the country, and he owes it to small businesses in those electorates, as to all small businesses around this country, to tell them the truth. He has done it once this week. I'm not excited about the fact, or encouraged that he will make a habit of telling the truth, but he should tell them the truth: will he strip away tax cuts for businesses with turnover between $2 million and $10 million? It's a pretty simple question. (Time expired) Pauline Hanson's One Nation 53 14:13 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the government reached any agreements with One Nation within the last 48 hours? 14:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question and understand his curiosity, but we never discuss negotiations with the crossbench. We don't. We have found that the most important thing to do when negotiating with other members of parliament is to treat them with respect, and that's what we do. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If the member for McEwen could just not miss the moment. Everyone else has stopped. We're trying to proceed. Rail 54 14:14 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister. Minister, my question is on the $235 million Victorian north-east railway line project. In February the then minister told this House that the scope of works would be released for community consultation in about the middle of the year. It's now the middle of the year. My community is asking: when will the scope of works be released for community consultation? Who is responsible for developing and implementing the community strategy? Will you please, as minister, Deputy Prime Minister and a representative of the National Party, provide us the leadership we need to deliver on this multimillion dollar commitment. 14:15 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Indi for her question. It is the middle of the year—another year of delivery and achievement by the Liberals and the Nationals. I thank the member for her passionate advocacy for north-east rail. I also thank the member for Murray for similar advocacy. After detailed consultation with the community and the Victorian government, on 16 March this year the federal Liberal and Nationals government, to which she referred, committed a further $135 million to upgrading the north-east rail line to improve passenger services, bringing our total commitment to $235 million for this particular line. This is part of our $1.6 billion investment and commitment to the Victorian Regional Rail Revival, which is upgrading every passenger line in Victoria— Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 including in the seat of the member for McEwen, who is very noisy. This additional funding for the north-east rail line was committed to upgrade the NERL to a Victorian class 2 performance standard. This will allow for faster, more-modern trains and give communities along the north-east rail line the services that they expect and that they deserve. The Australian Rail Track Corporation is working with the Monash University Institute of Railway Technology to ensure that the upgrades deliver what her community expects. Consultation with the community has begun. Key groups, including the Hume Corridor Passenger Rail Collaboration Group and the Border Rail Action Group, have already been consulted. The community will have the opportunity to understand what will be delivered and when. This will also help minimise disruption. Detailed consultation on the delivery of the upgrades, including the scope of works, Member for Indi, will be undertaken by the ARTC in consultation with Victorian rail agencies in the coming months. Ultimately it is the ARTC that is responsible for delivering these works. I know that, under the new chairman, Warren Truss, they will be delivered. Whilst the business case will need to be reviewed by Infrastructure Australia, I expect upgrades to be underway by early next year and delivered by 2021. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will pause for a second. Ministers up the other end with the signs can get rid of them—or I'll get rid of you. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. Mr McCORMACK 219646 The ARTC is already delivering improvements to the line to improve the ride for commuters. This is yet another investment to help people get home sooner and safer. Ultimately it will be upgrades to rolling stock, which is the responsibility of the Victorian government—to which they are committed—that will deliver the services that the people of Seymour, Euroa, Violet Town, Benalla, Wangaratta and Wodonga deserve. Of course this is a key passenger trunk route as well as a corridor of commerce. It's a key part of the inland freight rail from Melbourne to Brisbane, which will bring more than $7 billion of economic development and prosperity to Victoria and more than 16,000 jobs in the construction phase alone. Our $9.3 billion commitment to the Inland Rail is delivering that nation-building infrastructure that I know the member for Indi's people will benefit from, as will the entire nation. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 55 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon Commodore Pritchard, Chief of Defence Staff for Trinidad and Tobago. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Taxation 55 14:19 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how regional businesses are using tax cuts to create jobs and opportunities around Australia? How would a different approach affect regional jobs and confidence for investment? 14:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Capricornia for her question. When you've actually run a small business, you understand how a little bit of tax relief goes a long way. The people of Rockhampton, Sarina and Central Queensland have got a fighter in the member for Capricornia. She understands, she cares, she's delivering and she's getting results for businesses such as Artisan Gluten Free Bakery in Rocky. Its owner, Simone Lawrie, backs our plans to get on and build the Rookwood Weir and to cut taxes. She told the member for Capricornia: 'I currently employ 11 staff here but I'd love to put on more staff and provide more jobs, and I'm sure that this would be the case once Rookwood Weir is under construction. And tax cuts are such a great help.' That's what she said. The member's getting results in infrastructure as well with the investment in the Bruce, Capricorn and Peak Downs highways. We back jobs. We back confidence, and we're delivering tax cuts. That's what this Liberal and Nationals government is all about. We changed the law to make it easier for small, medium and family enterprises, but now those opposite are threatening to take all of that away. But Labor is mystified by aspiration. It's against the better deal for small, medium and family enterprises. It doesn't want to get better opportunities for Central Queenslanders. In Longman, Labor wants to hold back the growth of more than 12,000 small, medium and family enterprises. It doesn't want cafes in Caboolture to grow and hire staff. It wants to block brickies on Bribie Island from getting ahead. And we wonder how this so-called party of workers got to where they are. It might have something to do with Labor taking the 'u' out of 'labour' way back in 1912. I borrowed a very interesting book from the Parliamentary Library called A Federal Legislature. It's right up there with the new shadow small business minister's book called Hearts & Minds, published in 2013. It probably sold more copies. Hearts & Minds is still available at bookstores, which are benefiting from tax cuts brought about by the government. In this particular book, there's a very interesting table about the Labor Party back in 1912. It says that in that Labor Party, primary producers accounted for 4.2 per cent of members; professional, 16.7 per cent; business/commercial, 14.6 per cent; and—listen to this one—tradesmen and workers, 50 per cent. Could you believe that! And union and party officials accounted for 14.6 per cent. Compare that to what we have now: staffers and unionists comprising 80 per cent of those opposite. Most of them have never worked a day in their life. That's right. They don't understand. The small business shadow minister doesn't get it. I say to the people watching this telecast at home, to the farmers listening to the broadcast on the radio, to the people of Longman, Braddon and Mayo, remember this: we know why Labor turned its back in 1912. It's because they've forgotten about you. They've forgotten about you. That's right. (Time expired) Pauline Hanson's One Nation 55 14:22 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the government reveal the details of its secret deal with One Nation before the 28 July by-elections or after them? 14:23 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth Talking about personal discussions and conversations, I noted in the shadow minister for small business's interview with Alan Jones today, he was slipping and sliding, failing to defend his leader's captain's call— Ms Rowland interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Greenway is warned. Mr TURNBULL 885 And he said: Just on your point, Alan, while I'm not going to go into personal conversations that the leadership group or Bill has with us or I have with him … Why not? But he says he always takes a very consultative approach. There'll be nothing more consultative, I would say, than the event in Devonport on 4 July, when the Leader of the Opposition is having a business luncheon and is going to reveal Labor's plan for Braddon. It's advertised nicely. There's the Leader of the Opposition, and there are two young men in hard hats and high-vis. I'm just wondering who they work for. Do you think they might be working for Penguin Composites, so popular— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW Direct relevance. It's a really—if yesterday was a long bow, this one's extraordinary. The SPEAKER 00APG I do say to the Prime Minister: the first part of his answer was completely relevant due to the wording of the question, but I think he's now beginning to stray into another area. The member for McMahon on a point of order. Mr Bowen DZS Mr Speaker, could I ask the Prime Minister to table the transcript of myself on Alan Jones and any transcripts he has of himself and Alan Jones! Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! I've got to say to the member for McMahon: I've made the point on public documents. He's not going to use the House as a distribution mechanism for his transcripts, okay? Business 56 14:25 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is working to help small and medium-sized enterprises thrive? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by alternative approaches? 14:26 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Forrest for her question. She gets small and family enterprises because, of course, she's built one. She's built a dairy business from the ground up, and her husband is still working in that business. She knows how hard it is to work in small and family enterprises, just as those people on this side of the chamber understand that. That is why we are providing tax relief for all of those small and medium-sized and family enterprises and for 17,000 people and businesses in her electorate of Forrest. But, regrettably, those opposite unfortunately either don't understand it or, worse, actually want to punish these small or medium-sized or family enterprises. Thanks to a crazy captain's call from the Leader of the Opposition only this week, he is going to increase their taxes. He will hike up their taxes because, of course, he has declared war on small business. He believes that they are the top end of town. Well, I have news for him. They are not the top end of town, and the people they employ are not millionaires. In fact, these businesses employ more than half of the private sector workforce. Millions and millions of Australians are employed by these businesses. But, despite this, the Leader of the Opposition stubbornly clings to his divisive antibusiness plan. He clings to this because he wants to create something in Australia that doesn't exist, and that is class warfare. This is a guy who, of course, wants to embark upon a $200 billion tax-and-grab. Make no mistake: if he gets his way, this grand assault on the Australian economy will have devastating impact on the Australian people. It will have a devastating impact on retirees, on small businesses, on family enterprises, on women, on anybody who's actually employed and on those people who are trying to get into a job. This Leader of the Opposition is dangerous and he cannot be trusted. Whether you live in Caboolture or on Kangaroo Island, the Leader of the Opposition is punishing aspiration. He's punishing retirees. He's punishing small business. We have people who are prepared to stand up: people like Trevor Ruthenberg, who will stand up for the people of Longman; Brett Whiteley, who will stand up for the people of Braddon; and Georgina Downer, who will stand up for the people of Mayo. The truth is we know that the Leader of the Opposition is short on judgement. He cannot be trusted. He is Unbelieva-Bill. He is unelectable and, according to the member for Grayndler, he is Disposa-Bill. Ms Rowland interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I remind the member for Greenway that she's been warned. Member for Greenway, you've been warned. Business 56 14:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister visited Universal Trusses and spoke about the company in question time. Given the company is owned by the president of the Canberra Liberal Party, is the Prime Minister also planning to visit similarly independent businesses like MB Turnbull Pty Ltd, Turnbull and Partners Holdings or Turnbull and Partners Pty Ltd? 14:29 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. it says a lot about the character of the Labor Party that they are attacking a family business, a longstanding Canberra business, and they are attacking it because one of their directors is a member of the Liberal Party. Maybe they all are. And what's wrong with that? It's not an offence. It's not an offence to be a member of a political party. Do you know what? Here's the thing. We believe in free enterprise, we believe in business, we believe in family business and we believe in jobs. Universal Trusses is a great example of a hardworking Australian family business that would be hit by the Labor Party with higher taxes were Labor to get into government. They would be in exactly the same position as so many Australian businesses recently visited by the Leader of the Opposition. Milltech Martin Bright is a steel manufacturer. Their revenue is such that they will be getting the benefit of the tax relief in this coming financial year. So will Victoria Wool Processors, the Northern Oil Refinery and Northern Oil Advanced Biofuels, and Jako Industries in Fremantle, which the Treasurer was talking about. The reality is there are hundreds of thousands of businesses across Australia that, under Labor's new captain's call assault on family business, will have their viability threatened by Labor wanting to put up their tax. It's extraordinary. In the most competitive global environment you can imagine, this is a time when we want businesses to have a go, to invest, to employ and to be like aussieBum and export and take on the whole world with their products, be ambitious, invest and grow. We want them to do all those things. What is the message the Labor Party has for them? 'We're going to increase your tax'—that is Labor's message. Higher taxes, less investment, lower productivity, fewer jobs and lower wages—that is what the Leader of the Opposition will be traipsing around the countryside delivering, going from one business luncheon to another, walking in to applause, no doubt, from all those people delighted, so he hopes, to be enjoying what the deputy leader describes as the 'privilege' of paying higher and higher tax. We know that Australians want to keep more of the money they earn. Australian businesses want to invest the money that they make in their businesses, and that's what they're doing. That's why we have record jobs growth, and the greatest threat to that jobs growth is sitting opposite me today. Taxation 57 14:32 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government's competitive tax system is supporting businesses to link our world-class education services to the Indo-Pacific region, creating Australian jobs? Is the minister aware of any alternatives that would not provide similar support for Australian businesses? 14:33 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Grey for this very important question. At the outset, in relation to educational links to the Indo-Pacific, I announce to the House that, under the latest New Colombo Plan grants round, between 2014 and 2020 40,000 Australian undergraduates will have lived, studied and worked in our Indo-Pacific region. That's 40,000 young Australian ambassadors underpinning our engagement in the Indo-Pacific. On education services more generally, our impressive export performance is driven by businesses that compete in world markets and sell their goods and services overseas. The education sector is, in fact, through our education services industry, the third-largest exporter in Australia, valued at $30 billion in 2017. That's a 17½ per cent increase over 2016. Our education services sector could grow even more if the businesses that were delivering education services could be more competitive on the world stage. That means lower corporate tax rates so that they can put more money in their businesses, invest more and create more jobs. We must be aware of the fact that our competitors in the education services sector internationally are countries like the United States, the United Kingdom and other OECD countries, which have far lower tax rates than Australia. In fact, on the OECD tax scale, Australia is now the second highest. So, we back SMEs like ARO Educational Services at Bridgewater in the electorate of Mayo. They are providing horticultural training and agribusiness training. They want to expand internationally, and they've in fact received an Export Market Development Grant from the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment so that they can expand globally. And we back MRWED, a training company in Caboolture in the electorate of Longman. They've set up training centres across Australia. They, too, want to expand their educational services into the Indo-Pacific and beyond, and they have also received an Export Market Development Grant from the Turnbull government. So, on this side of the House we are backing businesses in the education sector to sell their services overseas. We are doing so by giving them tax cuts, a lower tax rate and by giving them export grants. We back small businesses in the education sector. On the other side of the House they've declared war on business, they've declared war on the education sector, and they've made them competitively— (Time expired) Workplace Relations 58 14:36 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy workers will have their penalty rates cut again this Sunday. Why does this Prime Minister support cutting the penalty rates of over 11,000 working Australians in Longman by up to $77 a week while he's giving an $80 billion handout to big business and the top end of town? Is the Prime Minister telling these hardworking Australians who are having their penalty rates cut again this Sunday to get a better job? 14:37 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth We know that the honourable member is baffled by geography and mystified by aspiration and she's also way off target with her class war. This is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who describes businesses with turnovers of above $2 million as being at the very high end. 'We absolutely won't support tax cuts at the very high end,' she said, when asked by Michael Rowland about their policy—the captain's call policy, which she studiously avoided any association with. What she has done, in her claim to be concerned about the biggest companies in Australia, is to threaten the viability of millions of small companies and hundreds of thousands of family-owned businesses of the type we've been discussing here today—Stubbs Constructions, aussieBum—businesses with 30, 40, 50, 60, 100 or 200 employees. This is where 4.8 million Australians work. They work in the businesses whose viability is threatened by the Labor Party. They can go on with their class war as long as they like, but these family-owned businesses and their employees know that Labor is coming after them—and it will be very interesting to see them as they go to their business lunches and go around visiting businesses, seeking approbation for putting up their tax. Every business knows Labor is a threat. It's a threat to the business, it's a threat to the employees and it's a threat to every one of those 4.8 million jobs. It is private business, the business sector, that employs 90 per cent of Australians. Labor is declaring war on the businesses that employ 90 per cent of Australians. They have abandoned the workers. They are a threat to the economy. They're a threat to growth, they're a threat to jobs and they're a threat to wages. Defence Industry 58 14:39 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the government is creating jobs and supporting workers in defence industry manufacturing and sustainment? What impact would other ideas have on the growth and job security of the workforce behind the Defence Force? 14:39 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Bennelong for his question. The member for Bennelong knows, as do most members of the House, that the government is involved in the largest build-up of our military capability in our peacetime history—$200 billion of spending, building our capability, defending our nation and keeping it secure. Part of that, one of our major motivations—our second priority, after capability—is growing Australian industry: jobs, businesses and investment. In Australia, almost all of the 3,000 businesses in defence industry are small to medium enterprises. Virtually none of them would be described as primes. We are helping those businesses by giving them an entree into that huge spend, in a way that no government has done before. We are also helping them by reducing their company tax rates, making them more competitive, helping them to invest more money in their own businesses—businesses like, in the member for Bennelong's electorate in fact, Sonartech Atlas; or in Fisher, in Caboolture, HeliMods, which provides components for Navy helicopters; in Mayo, in Mount Barker, Ceramotec Technical Ceramics; in Dunkley, Wayout Evacuation Systems; in Tangney, AVI, who export ruggedised secure routers for the US Air Force; and, in Braddon, Delta Hydraulics, who provide precision hydraulics and components for defence in Devonport. We talked about Penguin Composites yesterday, and Delta Hydraulics in Braddon are doing similar work in the defence industry. These kinds of businesses cannot afford to have Labor pulling the rug out from underneath them, increasing their company taxes, chopping and changing, and belting small businesses. We've seen that Labor want to belt the household incomes of hardworking Australian families. We know that they want to do that by increasing their income tax. Now we know that they want to increase the company tax for small and medium enterprises in the defence industry who are desperate to grow and employ more Australians. The Leader of the Opposition has a war on business. He's said that himself. He has a war on business, but it's really a war on Australians, on hardworking families, on small businesses, on higher wages, on investment and on growth. There was a time when the Labor Party stood for growth and jobs—in the Hawke-Keating government, in particular. The right wing of the ALP must be absolutely aghast. The member for McEwen, the member for Hunter, the member for Rankin and the member for Eden-Monaro must be absolutely aghast at where the Leader of the Opposition has taken the Labor Party. I know that it impresses the CFMMEU. I'm sure it impresses the CFMMEU to have a war on business. The Leader of the Opposition has put the CFMMEU ahead of his own colleagues. No wonder they're frustrated, like the member for Bass. Patsy rang in. She was frustrated. The member for Bass rang in because he was frustrated. It's time for change. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 59 14:43 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell 67-year-old Jacqueline, from my electorate of Lindsay in Western Sydney, who is also a grandmother of three, why she's been forced to wait five months for her pension application to be processed? Why is this Prime Minister doing everything he can to support an $80 billion tax handout, while making older Australians like Jacqueline wait so long? 14:43 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. If her constituent Jacqueline has been waiting that long to get an application processed then I'd ask her to give me the details of her constituent, and we'll make sure that her application is processed in due time. National Security 59 14:43 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Sydney is warned. Mr WOOD E0F Will the minister update the House on the importance of a strong, united and consistent approach to border protection? Is the minister aware of any risks to the integrity of Australia's borders? 14:44 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question and the hard work he's doing in Victoria representing the people of his electorate, particularly in relation to those people who are here on visas committing crimes against Australian citizens. The member for La Trobe has worked really hard to make his community a safer place by cancelling those visas of criminals in our country, and he should be applauded for that. This morning in one of Australia's great daily publications, The Courier-Mail, there was a poll that demonstrated to us that in the seat of Longman less than one in three people believe that the Labor Party is capable of protecting our borders and keeping our country safe. That should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched recent history in this country. People don't forget the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister in the glorious years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period, when 50,000 people came on 800 boats, and, tragically, 1,200 people drowned at sea. I noticed something that also needs to be recorded, because it is a fact in history. Not to contradict the Prime Minister about the shadow Treasurer in relation to his new title, but he hasn't always been in favour of making big businesses small. There was a period in his distinguished parliamentary career where he was adamant about making small businesses big—but not in our country. He was a champion of the people smuggling business in Indonesia. When he was the immigration minister in the glory years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd period, he presided over 398 boat arrivals. 25,092 people arrived on his watch and we know that, tragically, he put 4,200 children into detention. If that wasn't bad enough, the Labor Party want do it again. If you're in Longman, Braddon or Mayo, you have an opportunity at the end of July to send a very clear message to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Labor Party that you do not want a return to that dysfunctional period when Labor and the government of Australia lost control of our borders. We cannot afford, in this day and age, to lose control of our borders again. The people in Longman know that they have, in Trevor Ruthenberg, a man who will stand up to people smugglers. Big Trev is a champion of Longman. He is going to be a great member for Longman, and I'm confident that he and many others will realise that we cannot afford a return of the Labor Party, because it would see a return of people smugglers in this country. Banking and Financial Services 59 14:47 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham Prime Minister, yesterday the royal commission heard about ANZ's treatment of the Handley family, whose farm struggled with drought and fires. ANZ reneged on an agreed overdraft and overcharged interest on the Handley's accounts. When Elizabeth Handley received adverse biopsy results, ANZ refused to reschedule their mediation. She was later diagnosed with cancer. Why is the Prime Minister rewarding the big banks with a $17 billion handout? 14:48 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The testimony that was given in the royal commission reveals unconscionable conduct, and the ANZ bank is being rightly held to account. I'm disappointed that the honourable member wants to call that in aid of an argument about company tax. The reality is this: we are determined to ensure that the wrong that has been done will not be repeated, and that those in the financial services sector who have done the wrong thing will be held to account. The government has been demonstrating it's determination to do that, as you've seen from one case after another. I will refer to one good example, one very substantial one: the $700 million fine that this Commonwealth Bank has recently paid following AUSTRAC's work. We are determined to ensure that those wrongs will not be repeated and that those who have done the wrong thing will be held to account. Taxation 60 14:49 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning My question is to the. Will the minister update the House on how the government's tax cuts for small and medium businesses are benefitting the economy? And what are the risks to the business sector posed by different ideas? 14:49 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I thank the member for Canning for his question and note that recently we were touring his electorate, talking to small and medium-sized family enterprises that, as the Treasurer mentioned earlier, as of next week will enjoy further tax cuts. In a spirit of bipartisanship, I congratulate the member for McMahon, the shadow Treasurer, for being made full time the shadow minister for small and family business, especially given his strong history and association with them. I do note, though, that I am pleased—and many people make reference to the book that he has written—that, in good news, I don't suspect we'll have a book on how you run a small and family business, because the member for McMahon could write what he knows about that on the back of a postage stamp. That said, in his defence, the Leader of the Opposition could write what he knows on the top of a pinhead. In Western Australia there is a building company called Daly & Shaw. They employ 40 full-time employees and 250 subcontractors. They turn over $40 million. Their profit margin, net, is around two per cent. That's the part that gets missed by the Leader of the Opposition. Big-turnover businesses do not necessarily mean big-profit businesses, yet they employ big numbers of people. The 250 subcontractors whose profitability—it's not just the 40 full-time people here. Yes, their employment resides on the profitability of this business, but the 250 subcontractors also do. And what do they do? They spend back in the local economy. In the last 4½ years under the Turnbull coalition government, there has been a net increase of 40,868 small and family businesses in construction. In Labor's last years, there was a decrease in the number of businesses operating in construction of 2,232. Those 40,868 construction businesses account for 200,000 jobs, 20 per cent of the one million created in the last 4½ years. For the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and their reckless plan to attack business, irrespective of size, there is one sure-fire result: they won't just hit the businesses in question. If you attack small and medium and family businesses, you are also attacking their employees. That is the part they miss. They've never done it. They don't know what it looks like, yet they want to offer themselves up as an alternative with their economic plan. I say: not now, not ever. Energy 60 14:52 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, every government senator including the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia teamed up with One Nation to vote to call on the government to facilitate the building of new coal-fired power stations and to retrofit existing power stations. Given that the finance minister voted for this motion, can the Prime Minister advise how much taxpayers' money will be allocated to build new coal-fired power stations or retrofit existing ones? 14:53 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The government's policy is technology agnostic and facilitates investment in all forms of generation. Our focus is on reducing energy prices. That is what our policy is directed at. And we are starting on 1 July with reductions in most states in the National Electricity Market. That means that, from this weekend, a local takeaway shop in Queensland with Origin Energy or EnergyAustralia could save between $400 and $766 a year. A hairdresser in Queensland could save $243. A winery in South Australia with Origin could save between $370 and $840. Now, these gains can be locked in by the National Energy Guarantee. It provides a technology-neutral framework to encourage investment in all forms of generation and energy infrastructure. Investment certainty is what is required. I know the honourable member for Port Adelaide—whose seat has been abolished, and we sympathise with him there—believes he knows more about the energy market and energy economics than every player in the market. He reckons he's got it all worked out. That's good because, if he's not returned to parliament, he'll have a brilliant career; he'll be able to be the chief executive of one big energy company after another! For our part, we see government's job as ensuring that there is the investment certainty that encourages people to invest in generation, invest in transmission and invest in storage so that you get lower energy prices. We are already delivering on that. We are turning the corner on energy prices. Across the national electricity market, prices are coming down from 1 July. Of course, wholesale customers have been receiving the benefit of much lower wholesale prices and lower gas prices for some time. Our plan is working. We are bringing energy prices down. The problem for the honourable member and his leader while they're going around the countryside over the winter and telling people they're going to put up their taxes is that they'll also be telling them how they're going to jack up their energy bills. Queensland: Health Care 61 14:55 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a stronger economy enables the government to deliver a long-term health plan for the people of South-East Queensland? What affect would other approaches have on the delivery of health services in Queensland? 14:56 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Fisher who, amongst other things, has been a passionate advocate against eating disorders and has been helping people not just in his own electorate and not just in Queensland but also around Australia, as are many members of this House. I was pleased to join him recently when we commenced the national pilot in relation to better services for those with eating disorders. However, he knows that no government can do this as well as supporting things like the PBS unless fiscal circumstances permit. We know that because Labor said that in their 2011 budget, when they deferred seven major medicines. But fiscal circumstances do permit this government to make record investment in health, and that's because there's been a plan for the economy that's produced more than a million jobs. In turn, that's allowed us to provide record funding for Medicare, an additional $30 billion for hospitals—including $7½ billion in Queensland—and support for every new medicine for the PBS. On 1 July, this Sunday, we will be listing Kisqali. Kisqali is a new breast cancer drug. It will help over 3,200 women who would otherwise have had to have paid $70,000. Along with the member for Bonner, I recently met women in his electorate in South-East Queensland who will benefit from this medicine. These are tremendously important developments. Another thing we're able to do in South-East Queensland is support drug and alcohol rehabilitation in Caboolture in the electorate of Longman. It was a project advocated and fought for by Trevor Ruthenberg, Big Trev. Honourable members interjecting— Mr HUNT 00AMV He is Big Trev—I've stood next to him! And do you know what? He's big-hearted and, above all else, he fought for drug and alcohol rehabilitation for Longman. We're delivering drug and alcohol rehabilitation for Longman. The reason we're doing it is because it matters. I'm asked whether there are any other alternative approaches. In Queensland, the state Labor Party pretends there are cuts to Caboolture. False! We're adding $120 million; state Labor is ripping $21 million out. But it's not just that case. Like others, I saw the poll in TheCourier Mail today that identified health as the No. 1 issue in Longman. What is interesting is that it asks the question, 'Which plan and which leader do you most trust on health?' It said, on health, Bill Shorten: 42 per cent; it said, on health, Malcolm Turnbull: 57.8 per cent. So the people of Longman are on to the Leader of the Opposition. They don't trust him and nor should anybody else. (Time expired) Energy 61 14:59 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware The Australian reports today the Nationals have drawn up a set of demands for the Prime Minister headlined by the creation of a fund of up to $5 billion that would deliver government money for new baseload generators, including coal-fired power? Has the Prime Minister agreed to use taxpayers' money to fund new or existing coal-fired power, and is this part of cutting a deal with One Nation to give an $80 billion handout to big business? 15:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Under the National Energy Guarantee, power prices will fall. That is why businesses and their representatives, representing over five million workers, were in the parliament this week—to confirm that the National Energy Guarantee is in the national interests. It will mean lower wholesale prices by an average of 23 per cent. That means, for the member for Gilmore's electorate, businesses like Nowchem in Nowra, with their 65 employees—a 40-year-old, family owned business—will benefit from lower energy prices. Milton District Meats will also be better off, with their 35 employees. As the Prime Minister said, prices will start to fall across the main states from 1 July. Also, if you're with an emerging retailer, like Powershop, and you run a small business in Queensland, you will see up to a $1,470 saving in your power bill each year. If you're a household, a family, you will see a saving of more than $800 a year. We know what it takes to get power prices down. That's the action we're taking. But those opposite are the greatest threat to lower power bills. In the electorate of the member for Port Adelaide, Adelaide Brighton Cement saw through the blackout with 185 people at their business; they lost power for nearly 36 hours. It cost them $13 million. And do you know what the member for Port Adelaide called it? Do you know what he called the blackout in South Australia? Mr McCormack 219646 A hiccup. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL A hiccup! The member for Port Adelaide has now lost his seat, he's now lost the presidency, but there is a new job coming his way. I went to the member for Port Adelaide's profile on the internet, and this is what it said. It said that, in addition to everything that he's done, the member for Port Adelaide served as the member for Grayndler's campaign manager in October 2013 in the federal Labor leadership race. The SPEAKER 00APG The Minister for the Environment and Energy will resume his seat. That's fascinating but irrelevant. We'll just go to the next question. Economy 62 15:02 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how businesses and workers in regional Australia are benefitting from our plan to deliver a stronger economy, including in my seat of Wide Bay? Is the minister aware of any threats to small and medium businesses across regional Australia? 15:03 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I thank the member for Wide Bay for his question. His advocacy for his community is very well recognised, right throughout the Wide Bay Burnett region, and that is ongoing advocacy. Be it in Gympie, Maryborough or Noosa, the coalition is delivering a stronger economy—more jobs, more confidence, more opportunities. We are have a plan for regional Australia, and we are getting it done. Australian workers and businesses are definitely benefitting from the coalition government's pro-jobs, pro-growth, pro-investment agenda. The coalition's Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, for example, have seen close to $700 million invested in local infrastructure projects right across the nation, creating more than 11,000 jobs. More than $14 million of this was invested in the member's own electorate. This includes support for Dale and Meyers, an iconic timber and recycled wood processing business in Maryborough, beefing up their processing facility, allowing them to bring on 10 new staff, supporting 10 families in the Maryborough community, spending more money, investing more of their hard-earned in the local community. Our tax relief package is seeing family businesses like them employ more people and spend more money right across the nation. They are up to it because they know they have a coalition government that's backing them in. If we compare that with the war on business led by those opposite, we'll understand where those risks are. Last week Labor voted against giving more than 52,000 low- and middle-income earners in Wide Bay much-needed tax relief. This week they announced that they would slog family owned businesses with increased taxes. As sure as night follows day, Labor will keep pounding Australians, and family businesses in particular, with bigger and heavier taxes to pay for their spending addiction. This opposition leader believes that the Labor Party of waste and mismanagement—you remember pink batts, those overpriced school halls and the cheques to dead people—is better placed to spend your money than you are. What a ridiculous notion! Dale and Meyers timber is just one of the thousands of businesses that Labor clearly does not care about. They'll be put to the sword by this mob. I've spoken to the boss, Curly Tatnell, and he is worried about Labor's tax hike. Wide Bay knows that those opposite, with the dead wood in their team, would simply mean fewer jobs and more taxes for Queensland. (Time expired) An honourable member interjecting— Ms Henderson ZN4 The member for McEwen made an unparliamentary comment, and I ask that it be withdrawn. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members will cease interjecting. Did the member for McEwen make an unparliamentary remark? Mr Rob Mitchell M3E I'm happy to stand, but I'm getting a bit tired of these false accusations from the member for Corangamite. The SPEAKER 00APG We're not going to have a debate about the matter. There is an established practice for dealing with this that occurs every time. I have to ask the member for McEwen to stand up and answer the question as to whether he made an unparliamentary comment. Mr Rob Mitchell M3E As I said before: no, I didn't. Turnbull Government 63 15:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made a choice to support pay cuts for nearly 700,000 workers and give tax cuts to multinationals. He has made a choice to take $17 billion from schools and give it straight to the banks. He has made a choice to cut funding for public hospitals and give it as a handout to private health insurers. Why, when he's given the choice, does this Prime Minister always choose the top end of town? 15:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth When the Leader of the Opposition was targeting the top end of town, he was in Burnie, going after Stubbs Construction with 60 jobs; he was in Hume, going after Universal Trusses with 60 employees; he was at Varsity Lakes at the Gold Coast, going after Evolve Skateboards with 15 staff; he was down in Braddon, going after Penguin Composites, just like his candidate down there, Justine Keay. Penguin Composites is another of those hardworking Tasmanian family owned businesses that will be slugged by the Labor Party if they get hold of the reins of government and can jack up their taxes. We saw him with a picture on his flyer for his business lunch in Devonport. That'll be great. You can imagine the applause he'll be getting from all those people. I wonder whether anyone from BridgePro Engineering will come to Devonport. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 He says he'll let me know. That business was started in 2010 by Aaron Brimfield, structural engineer, trained at the University of Tasmania. It has $16 million turnover. He started it with two staff; it now has 60. It builds bridges, jetties and general construction. That's the type of family owned business the Leader of the Opposition is going after. He likes to hang out with people in hard hats and high-vis, but he's threatening their jobs in Tasmania and all around Australia. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to table a document? Mr Shorten 00ATG Yes. It's the invitation to the Devonport chamber of commerce next Wednesday. People are welcome. It'll be a very good event. Leave granted. Aged Care 63 15:10 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to support aged-care providers to deliver quality aged care and support communities? Is the minister aware of any other proposals? Opposition members interjecting— Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left! The member for Barton! 15:10 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Barker for his ongoing interest and commitment to aged care and his ongoing commitment in the way that he works with local people. The government's crackdown on quality failures since South Australia's Oakden scandal is evident. A total of 39 residential aged-care services have been issued with serious risk notices this financial year— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield! Mr WYATT M3A as at 30 April, up from 22 in the previous year. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr WYATT M3A Member for Wakefield, just listen carefully and you'll hear the answer. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield will cease interjecting. Mr WYATT M3A The bottom line is there will be no compromise on aged-care standards. To ensure quality care, the coalition government has worked with the aged-care sector to develop a new, single, quality framework which will include a single set of aged-care standards, improved quality assessment arrangements and improved information about quality for consumers, with a greater focus on outcomes. Member for Wakefield, if you'd been interested in what was happening at Oakden, you would've raised those issues much earlier. We want to support our aged-care providers to understand these new standards, and that's why we announced $50 million in the budget to support residential aged-care providers transition to the new standards. The Turnbull government is committed to supporting aged-care small businesses, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who says to thousands of family-owned small and medium businesses across the country that, if he's elected, he wants to increase their taxes. Let's not forget that this opposition leader wants to dip into the pockets of self-funded retirees. People who've worked hard all their lives do not deserve to have their hard-earned funds ripped from their pockets. This will affect 3,534 people in Braddon. It will also affect 4,356 people in Longman. A vote for Labor is a vote for their plan to raise taxes and raid retirement incomes. Increasing taxes for small businesses and aged-care providers will mean that the opportunity to increase the number of staff in nursing homes is diminished and will not be realised. It will also reduce the potential for future innovation, investment and business expansion. The aged-care providers deliver care for our loved ones in aged care, and this opposition leader's war on small and medium businesses impacts on our aged-care sector. Let me say, the Leader of the Opposition's decision to increase taxes on businesses with turnovers between $10 million and $50 million is an attack on small and medium businesses and the millions of Australians they employ. And he refuses to guarantee that the tax relief already legislated for small businesses with turnovers between $2 million and $10 million won't also be impacted. The impact will be across this nation, and I— (Time expired) The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wills. Mr Khalil interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG All right, I'll be generous. The member for Wills was just stretching. The member for Sydney has the call. Workplace Relations 64 15:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Thank you. It was lucky he didn't buy a house that way! My question is to the Prime Minister. On Sunday, 700,000 workers will get a pay cut. Does the Prime Minister support the cut to penalty rates? 15:14 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth On Sunday, there will be thousands of workers in the hospitality sector and the fast-food sector who will not get penalty rates at all, because unions have traded them away. Oh, yes, the big unions that pay their bills—just as the workers at Clean Event had their penalty rates traded away, the STA and others are trading away the penalty rates of their workers. The reality is this: Labor is utterly hypocritical on the matter of penalty rates. For years and years—for over a century—Labor has said that it stands for the independent umpire, for the conciliation and arbitration, for fair work and for laws that were passed when the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for them. And then, after hearings in which all the submissions were heard, they didn't like the outcome and so they wanted to disown it. But, when it came to the crunch, when there was an employer that was prepared to pay some money to the union—oh, yes. The Deputy Leader shakes her head. She's so sad to hear the truth. The fact is big unions have been taking money from big business to trade away workers' penalty rates, and the only thing the Labor Party hates about that is getting caught. National Security 64 15:15 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney update the House on the impact the Commonwealth's changes to call-out powers for the ADF will have for Australia's national security? 15:16 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question and for his fine contribution to our Defence Force over the years. Today the Turnbull government introduced the most significant and substantial reforms to the way in which defence call-out powers operate in over 20 years. Of course, as well as the economic security of Australia, the national security in keeping Australians safe is the foremost priority of this government. To explain to the members of the House the substance of this change, it's necessary to have a quick look and an understanding of how the present rule operates. At present, the ADF is not able to be requested by a state who might be in a terror situation unless that state and the relevant authorities consider that the state is utterly overwhelmed and unable to respond to that threat. The difficulty with that is that it has been an incredibly high threshold, a very inflexible threshold, and it is not a question that could be properly answered by any state or authority until some distance down the time line of an offence itself. That has not worked. The view that was taken after the inquiries into the Lindt Cafe siege was that that was a standard that needed to be cautiously and sensibly changed. At the heart of the changes that we have brought in with the bill in the House today is that that standard changes to a more flexible and sensible standard where the state authorities—usually state police—would need to consider the nature and scale of the terrorist threat that they were facing and then consider whether there were any particular specialist ADF assets, skills or service personnel who could be brought to bear to improve the situation and the response and help save Australian lives. For the benefit of members of the House: it's not particularly difficult, unfortunately, to consider and conceive of the types of the situations that we and the Turnbull government are now preparing our country for. When we look at the terrible and tragic events that occurred in Paris on 13 November 2015, we see that, in the space of about 43 minutes, three suicide bombers detonated bombs. There were three separate shootings at different locations in cafes and bars across Paris. The Bataclan Theatre was subject to a multiple-shooter incident where 89 French citizens lost their lives. Those people died. Others were subsequently used in a hostage situation where the attackers were wearing suicide vests. It is an unfortunate reality of the world in which we live that that type of situation is not inconceivable in any Western democracy, and it's also not inconceivable that, had that or an analogous situation unfolded in Australia, the present standard for the ADF call-out would not have been met. It is very sobering to think that there is a need for legislative change that we have brought into this House today with great cooperation from all of the states and territories, coalition and Labor governments. I'm looking forward to working with members opposite on the passage of this bill. This is an example of a way in which on a bipartisan basis we can make Australians safer, the way in which the Turnbull government has that as an absolute priority and the way in which the fine service men and women of our ADF can potentially help save Australian lives. Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 65 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 53 of 2017-18 65 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's Audit report No. 53 of 2017-18, entitled Cyber resilience: Department of the Treasury; National Archives of Australia; Geoscience Australia. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Government Response 65 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of government responses to House of Representatives and joint committee reports, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 7 December 2017 and the date of the last schedule, 27 June 2018, and responses currently outstanding. Copies of the schedule have been made available to honourable members, and it will be incorporated in Hansard. The schedule read as follows— The schedule was unavailable at the time of publishing. DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Presentation 65 15:20 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. BUSINESS 65 BUSINESS Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders 65 15:20 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for this sitting. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 65 15:21 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I move: That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Health Care 65 15:21 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ballarat proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to properly fund healthcare for Australians. I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:21 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat The Liberals have cut $2.9 million from Caboolture Hospital. That is a fact. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Health somehow have the gall and temerity to stand up in this place and in the media and accuse Labor of lying about health funding. I'm sure they'll continue to do it every single day between now and the 28 July by-election. They are so desperate to avoid being exposed for who they really are—neoliberal crusaders hell-bent on cutting and privatising the services that Australians rely on and care about. They do all they can so that they can give the top end of town a tax cut. Labor won't rest until every single voter in Longman knows the truth. This government has cut $2.9 million from their hospital. Here are the facts. The Liberals promised to fund 50 per cent of the efficient price growth in our nation's hospitals. They did that in their own policy document. They lied. They broke that promise the first chance they got—literally within their first budget. The member for Warringah slashed $57 billion from public hospitals all across the nation just a few short months after promising that he would make no cuts whatsoever to health. He slashed and burned health funding. The Prime Minister reversed some of those cuts, but not all of them. He agreed to fund 45 per cent of the efficient price growth—it was better than Abbott but still well short of their promise. In Caboolture the difference between 50 per cent and 45 per cent over the 2017-20 agreement is $2.9 million. It's a simple formula. There's nothing tricky about it. The Liberals are delivering $2.9 million less than they promised the Australian people they would, and that's $2.9 million less than would have been delivered under Labor's National Health Reform Agreement—a landmark agreement that the Liberals just could not wait to tear up. So, yes, we're telling the people of Longman about this cut. They have a right to know what this government is up to and how this government is hurting them, even if it does frustrate and anger this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister to be exposed. The $2.9 million cut to Caboolture Hospital is the equivalent of 4,300 emergency department visits, more than 800 cataract extractions or 480 births. These are real cuts that will have an impact on the capacity of the hospital to meet future demands in the region. And that $2.9 million cut over the three years of the government's current agreement, which runs from 2017 to 2020, is $715 million nationwide. Now, they've been trying to lock in an even bigger cut from 2020 to 2025 by refusing to change their inadequate funding formula. This would result in a $2.8 billion cut nationwide, including $650 million from Queensland alone. No wonder the Queensland government are refusing to sign up to their agreement. They know this deal is woefully inadequate. We congratulate the Queensland government for holding out and demanding a better deal for Queenslanders and the people of Longman, even though it is denying some budget certainty for the Queensland government. The Liberals claim there is no cut, because the government funding is increasing year on year. Of course it is. Funding for hospitals always increases with population and health inflation and, because it's an activity based funding system, when services and activities are carried out. If we take population alone, there will be five million more people living in Australia in 2025 than there were in 2015, the year the government uses as the benchmark for its counting. But even on that basis the government is falling short, with funding actually declining on a per capita basis. It doesn't change the fact that it's delivering less than it promised, less than Labor's agreement would have delivered and less than a Shorten Labor government actually will deliver. Under Labor's Better Hospitals Fund, Caboolture Hospital will benefit from much better funding. That means more beds and shorter emergency department and elective surgery waiting times. The government is peddling other lies and furphies in Longman and misleading claims across the country. When the government says its funding is increasing much faster than the Queensland government funding, there is a simple reason for that. The government is calculating it off the low base of the Abbott government's rock-bottom offering. That's where it is calculating it from. Again, here are the facts. The National Health Funding Pool report on the Metro North Hospital and Health Service for 2016-17 shows that the Queensland government provided $356 million more to Metro North hospitals than the Commonwealth last financial year—more funding from the Queensland government than the Commonwealth. And the same data from July 2017 to January 2018 shows that the Queensland government provided $310 million more to Metro North hospitals in the first half of this year alone—more funding from the Queensland government than the Commonwealth funding. This week the government also sought to claim that Labor was lying about a lack of chemotherapy services for Caboolture Hospital. There are no chemotherapy services at Caboolture Hospital. The hospital's own website, in fact, actually confirms that—websites are something the minister likes to check, I heard, from Wikipedia. But, anyway, there you go. People have to travel to Redcliffe Hospital or to another hospital in Brisbane to get access to those services. We think that is unacceptable for the people of Longman. That's why we have promised to invest $10 million to establish a chemotherapy treatment service at Caboolture Hospital. This investment will see 360 patients receiving around 3,700 treatments every single year. At the moment, people have to travel significant distances to access critical chemotherapy treatment and bypass the Caboolture Hospital because the service isn't available. For a cancer patient living on Bribie Island who needs chemotherapy, this will cut their travel time by half. We believe it's important that we make these investments now because this is a fast-growing region, and there is going to be a lot of pressure on local health services into the years ahead. It is a region the government have woefully neglected. For example, this is an area that desperately needs a new MRI licence so people can get affordable access to life-saving medical scans without having to travel long distances, but the government have ignored their pleas. While Labor delivered 238 Medicare-subsidised MRI licences when we were last in office, the Liberals have just delivered—I know you'd think, 'We did 238; maybe they might have done half of that.' How many have they delivered? Just five in five years. The latest, of course, is in Kalgoorlie, as part of a dodgy deal with One Nation to win Senate votes for their inadequate income tax cuts. If only Queensland had a One Nation senator who could extract a similar deal with Caboolture! Oh, wait—apparently Senator Hanson isn't capable of making the same deal as her WA colleague for the people of Longman. The Liberals have also ignored the people of Bribie Island, who desperately need better access to emergency care. At the moment, the people of Bribie Island have to travel to Caboolture's overstretched emergency department. Almost 10 per cent of the 52,000 people who presented at the Caboolture ED last year were from Bribie Island, but the Liberals have done absolutely nothing for them. The Liberals also have a very shocking record when it comes to north-west Tasmania. They've cut funding and services relentlessly, leaving the people of Devonport and Burnie and the rest of the region worse off. Over 6,000 Tasmanians are waiting for critical elective surgery under the Liberals' surgery backlog, with one in 10 waiting almost a year. These are patients waiting for vital procedures such as knee and hip replacements, cataract surgeries and hysterectomies. One in four Tasmanians currently wait outside the clinically recommended time. This is the worst in the country. That is why Labor has committed to a $30 billion investment to slash Tasmania's elective surgery backlog. This will enable 3,000 extra elective surgery procedures—equivalent to half the waiting list. Then there are the government's cuts to TAZREACH, a vital service that gives Tasmanians access to better services. It provides access to services that otherwise are not available in that community. I'm proud that Labor has restored that funding, $4.5 million, that the Liberals have failed to match. When it comes to health, all this government can do is cut. It's cut hospitals, it's cut prevention, it's cut dental care and it continues to slash Medicare every single day. That is what the Liberals do. The choice at the next election, and the choice at the by-elections, particularly in Longman and Braddon—these critical elections—could not be clearer: more savage cuts under the Liberals, or a record investment under Labor and a record investment in Longman and Braddon 15:31 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders It's interesting to note that there was no mention of mental health, no mention of the PBS and no mention of medical research. I want to talk today about what this government is doing and what the previous government and the current Labor opposition can never do: guarantee the funding of essential services. We can guarantee that funding because we are able to secure a strong economy based on a deep plan. Let me begin with a very simple quote. This quote isn't from us; it's from Labor's health portfolio budget statement in May 2011. What did that statement say? That statement from the health portfolio budget said: … given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. There were seven medicines. Do you know what happened? It's very interesting. A Senate inquiry followed that, which saw people from all the different sides of the political divide and the medical profession condemn and chastise the ALP and force them to realise that what they had done was utterly unacceptable. As somebody said to me, 'They could fund pink batts, but they couldn't fund the PBS.' It was over $2 billion that they put towards pink batts, but the were unable to fund fundamental medicines—for schizophrenia, for IVF, for endometriosis for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—because 'fiscal circumstances' did not permit. Those are their words, not ours. There could barely be a more damning indictment of the inability of one side of this parliament to manage government and to manage the economy—and, therefore, their inability to manage health—than the deliberate deferral of medicines because 'fiscal circumstances did not permit', while at the same time they were funding pink batts. Under us, fiscal circumstances will always permit, because we not only manage the economy but manage the federal budget. We manage it as custodians for the people. Delivering new medicines is one of the most significant things that any government can do. Guaranteeing that you can manage the economy to deliver those new medicines is one of the fundamental tests of both honesty and competence upon which the Australian people should base their decision at the next election and upon which we ask the people of Longman, Braddon and Mayo to base their decisions in the coming weeks. Let me go forward. The result of this management of the economy is record funding for health overall, from $99 billion to $102 billion to $104 billion to $109 billion over the forward estimates of the budget. In Medicare, the first pillar of our long-term national health plan, we will go from $25 billion to $26 billion to $27 billion to $29 billion. That's record funding each year and every year, with new items such as 3D mammography scans coming in for over an anticipated 200,000 women a year, with new MRI tests for prostate coming in this weekend for thousands of males, with new renal dialysis provisions coming in under Medicare and with new treatments for ophthalmology coming in under Medicare. All of these things are critical and fundamental. But we see more than just that. There are new listings of medicines, as I mentioned earlier today, such as Kisqali, a $700 million investment, one of the largest on record by the Commonwealth, for breast cancer, something that I believe has the support of every member in this parliament. That means 3,250 women a year will have access to a medicine that would otherwise have cost $70,000 and been beyond the reach of virtually every woman and family in Australia. Only a very small number would have been be able to access it. However, what we see as well on so many different fronts is what we're doing with support in relation to HIV and the listing of PrEP, what we've done in relation to Crohn's disease and the listing of Stelara, and what we've done in relation to Keytruda and Opdivo and the extension to new forms of cancer treatment. These are fundamental. Along with mental health, these are probably the two things that are raised with me most often by the public. What do they ask about? They ask about mental health treatment, acknowledging the importance of this fundamental issue, and they ask about and are delighted at the access to new medicines and the guarantee that this government gives. When it comes to hospital funding what we also see is record funding each year, every year. We're going now from $21 billion to $22 billion to $23 billion to $24 billion a year under this government. What we see is a more than doubling of hospital funding from Labor's last year in office to the end of the new hospital agreement and a $30 billion increase, including an additional $7.5 billion in Queensland alone. There was some discussion about the metro north region, where the Caboolture Hospital is based. It is very, very interesting that Labor has walked away from its campaign. What was front and centre is now an embarrassment. When it was revealed that this government in the last full year alone increased funding to the metro north region in which Caboolture Hospital is based by $120 million at the same time as Queensland Labor reduced funding for that region by $20 million there were looks of horror on the faces of the opposition. They were embarrassed, shamed and caught in a classic Labor lie. But this time we're right onto it, right from the outset, as we were in Bennelong. We have learned not to dismiss Labor lies; we have learnt to deal with them head-on. What we saw in the papers today is that the people of Longman don't believe them on health either. That must have been a devastating blow for Labor. That must be one of the reasons why they have walked away from their great Caboolture Hospital lie. They were caught out. Patsy said it on radio, and Patsy's indictment of the Leader of the Opposition was simply devastating. She spoke for the people of Longman, the people of Queensland, the people of this parliament and the people of Australia when she made it absolutely clear that you cannot trust the Leader of the Opposition on health and you cannot trust the Labor Party. The reason why is very simple: if you can't manage the economy, you can't manage health. We're able to manage the economy. We're able to make investment in the third of our pillars—mental health. There is $338 million being added to mental health in this year's budget. There is $70 million and more for suicide prevention in wonderful programs through Lifeline and beyondblue; over $100 million to support our seniors, many of whom suffer from desperate loneliness, isolation and depression; and $125 million through the million minds mental health mission under the Medical Research Future Fund for the single largest medical research program into mental health in Australian history. We've also been able to support preventative and recovery actions for those who have drug addiction, including, in Caboolture, $11 million for the Lives Lived Well program: $3½ million for detox and recovery and rehabilitation facilities and $7½ million for a residential facility for those needing longer form recovery treatment. That finally brings me to medical research. What we've done in medal research has been one of the great achievements of this government. By laying down a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund, we are able to do things such as fund $250 million for clinical trials for rare diseases and rare cancers, to assist with $80 million for clinical fellowships, to assist with translation of new drugs and devices and to assist with a $100 million and more Australian Brain Cancer Mission and a $500 million national genomics mission. At the end of the day, you can only fund health if fiscal circumstances permit. Under this government, fiscal circumstances will always permit and always allow. 15:42 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh There is only one group of people you cannot trust when it comes to health—only one group—and that is this current government. I say so because, in 2013, we heard the promises of the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, say: there will be no cuts to health; there will be no changes to our system; and the hospital care will be the same. And what happened? They were elected in 2013, and not long after in 2014 they cut billions of dollars from our health system—billions of dollars! The only people you cannot trust when it comes to health is this government and their backbenchers and all involved. If it weren't for Labor's campaign on Medicare at the last federal election, these people here would have already privatised it. The only reason they haven't done it is that we campaigned against it—and you know it. Government members interjecting— Mr GEORGANAS DZY You want to privatise it. You might not be saying that to the public, but, deep down in your hearts, you want to privatise Medicare. There is no doubt about it. The Australian public has one choice at these upcoming by-elections, especially in Braddon and Longman. The difference between Labor and the government couldn't be clearer: there would be more savage cuts under this government and record healthcare investment under a Labor government. After four years of Abbott-Turnbull cuts and neglect, Australia's public hospitals are in crisis. Let's just look at my own state, South Australia. The state health minister recently signed an agreement with this federal government, which they were touting as additional money for health, expecting the public to applaud them. But this was after the Turnbull-Abbott government cut a billion dollars out of that state's health system in 2014. What a joke! This government wants applause for signing some agreement with the state government in South Australia, which is no different from stealing $50 out of their pocket and putting $20 in the other pocket and saying, 'Please, give me praise for that $20 I've just given back to you.' That's exactly what they've done. What a joke! This government and the Marshall government in South Australia are in cahoots, talking up funding increases, after this government slashed billions out of our hospital system. It's an absolute shame. This is smoke and mirrors, like most of their other policies. The Labor health spokesman in South Australia is all over this. He's exposed them for this. If you look at their last parliamentary session, you will see it. He recognised straightaway that the state Marshall government was caving in to his Liberal bosses here in Canberra in the federal government. By contrast, Labor has a proud record on public hospitals and public hospital funding. We were the architects of Medicare. They were the ones that brought it down and we brought it back in. And they'll do the same again. The Rudd-Gillard government signed a historic national health reform agreement with the states and territories in 2011. This committed the Commonwealth to fund an equal share of efficient growth in hospitals and it was designed to end the blame game. It was designed to give the public hospitals long-term budget certainty, and it worked. Ahead of the 2013 election, again, the Liberals promised no cuts to hospitals, but we all remember the horror 2014 budget. How can you forget it? The government broke this promise. They tore up this historic agreement and cut billions from hospitals. We shouldn't be surprised because this what is they do. This government can't help themselves. They're pathologically compelled to cut from the health portfolio, whether it's public hospitals, dismantling Medicare or other health services. All they see is a pot of money they can raid, get into and then throw at the top end of town, as we've seen in the billions of dollars of tax cuts. You can't trust a word they say on health care. They don't take it seriously. So the choice at these by-elections and at the next federal election is very clear. The choice couldn't be clearer—more savage cuts under this government, under the Liberals' record of healthcare investment, or big investment under Labor ensuring that the services that people require in my electorate and in all electorates around the country will be funded properly so people get the adequate health care that they require and the services they require. They know that, if they need to go to a hospital, if they need emergency services or if they need to see a GP, they'll be able to do so. Under this government, we will see more cuts, we will see the dismantling of Medicare, we will see a disgrace— (Time expired) 15:47 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to make a contribution on today's MPI. I've got to say that I think about this often. I sit back and I wonder how it is that the Labor Party approaches their policy and how they reach a decision, and some of things that they say. I'm sure it's something you consider too, Deputy Speaker, but I've come to the conclusion that they announce a policy, they determine what that is, they go out and say what it is that the government has cut from their policy, even though they're not in government and they can't deliver it. In fact, I'm fairly confident they go and have a bit of a giggle out the back, and say, 'We've gone out and done it again.' But I have to agree with the contribution from the shadow minister, and I did note one line in the shadow minister's contribution, and that is that we have increased spending in the budget for health. She said, 'It's gone up, that's right.' And that is— Opposition members interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 I note the interjection. We can go back and check the contribution on Hansard. The contribution was this: 'The health budget has increased. It has gone up.' And that's right. This is a question about trust. In 2012-13, the federal contribution for health was over $13 billion. In 2021, it is forecast to be over $22 billion. Mr Champion interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Wakefield will stop interjecting. Mr PITT 148150 I'm fairly confident, after four years of engineering and after high school and primary school, which I'm sure you attended, that $22.6 billion is more than $13.3 billion. That sounds like an increase. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 How substantial would that be? I know the opposition struggles with numbers, and I note the interjections from the member for Wakefield. I have said to the member for Wakefield that I have some sympathy for his situation. We certainly find ourselves on a unity ticket in some things. But this is an increase. You may well recall from your schooling that there were these coloured blocks and they would demonstrate when one thing is bigger than another. In fact, they'd demonstrate if it was twice as big or three times as big. It may well be a worthwhile investment for those opposite, because the reality is quite straightforward. In my home state of Queensland, in 2012-13, it was $2.66 billion; in 2024-25, that will be $6.5 billion. That is an increase. You cannot go out on radio and say to the people of Australia that there is a cut when there is an increase. It is an absolute outrage. I know they're bad at maths. I'm not sure if it's incompetence. I'm not sure if it's just plain deceit. I'm not sure how they sit there with a straight face and say to the Australian people that it's a reduction when in fact it's an increase. But we've got to say they've got form—and I note the previous contribution—from when they raised 'Mediscare'. 'Mediscare' was a completely deceitful campaign. It was false. It was untrue. It did not happen. I say to those opposite: you really should consider some of the people who listen to what you say. You went out and you scared people in my electorate, those seniors who are concerned about their health. You ran a false campaign. It was untrue. I think they've got form. Let's look at the Leader of the Opposition. He goes to Melbourne and, when he talks about mining, he says: 'I'm against mining. I'm with the Greens position.' When he flies to Moranbah, he says: 'I love miners. Miners are my kind of people. We'll back you guys up.' But, as the leader of the AWU, what did he do? He gave $100,000 to GetUp! to campaign against the resources industry. I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. They were your people. They were and they are no longer. You only have to listen to Patsy from Caboolture. Patsy had a fantastic line. She was absolutely right. She spoke to the Leader of the Opposition on radio and what did she say? 'I am frustrated because you are not telling the truth.' So the people of Caboolture have got you lined up. They know exactly what is going on. They do not believe you. It's a long line of people who do not believe them. There is a long line of people who want to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition. I noted the contribution from the member for Grayndler. He's certainly got form. He wants to line up. The member for Bass—I noted his interview yesterday, and, once again, I have some sympathy for him; we all find ourselves in those positions at times when working with journalists. But I didn't hear any support for the Leader of the Opposition—none, not a single bit. And today the member for Canberra had a run, on radio with Tim Shaw, and wasn't getting on board, wasn't supporting the Leader of the Opposition and certainly wasn't supporting the proposition that they wind back tax cuts for hardworking people in this country. We come back to the ultimate issue, and that is that health funding in this country is increasing and it is increasing substantially. It is increasing substantially in my electorate. In the Wide Bay region in 2014-15 it was $114 million. In 2016-17 it was $152 million. That is an increase, and you should all get out your maths books, work out what it is, stop telling lies and tell the people the truth. 15:52 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert Firstly, let me say this. The Minister for Health made a comment that Labor has done nothing and made no mention of mental health. Let me tell him quite clearly: I came into this job from 15 years of mental health experience, and the best mental health programs we ever got came from a Labor government. We had the first federal minister for mental health, in Mark Butler, and the best programs we have ever seen in this country. How dare he say that Labor doesn't talk about mental health? He should withdraw his comment, and quickly. History clearly demonstrates that Labor is the party of health reform and investment, and it's not at all surprising that the people in Longman and Braddon are concerned about their health care. Labor believes that, when people are sick, they should receive the care that they need in a timely manner, regardless of their credit card. In contrast, the LNP is the party of cuts to healthcare services, hospitals and Medicare, which it would love to privatise. The Turnbull government wants you to pay more when you visit your doctor and pay more for your private health insurance. The Herbert community has had enough of the LNP's cuts. This government has inflicted massive cuts on the hospitals in Herbert, which hurts, because our public hospital is the only tertiary hospital in Queensland outside of the south-east corner. The Townsville Hospital and Health Service will receive a $9 million cut under the Turnbull government. What does that mean? It means four fewer beds a year for three years, 12 fewer doctors a year for three years, 25 fewer nurses a year for three years, 21,825 fewer outpatient appointments, 30,468 fewer emergency department visits, 2,491 fewer cataract extractions, 1,488 fewer births and 345 fewer knee replacements. Where will the women go when they are in labour if the hospital does not have a bed for them in the labour ward as a result of the Turnbull government cuts? Where will pensioners go when they need knee replacement surgery, when the hospital has no funding for their surgery because of the Turnbull government cuts? Where will the veterans go when they want to visit the emergency department? Because of the Turnbull government cuts, the emergency department is now overcrowded. The Turnbull government has no understanding of what its cuts mean on the ground, especially in rural and regional centres. Allow me to read an email from a Townsville constituent that clearly explains how these cuts hurt. Karen from Townsville wrote on 2 June this year: Hi Cathy I need your help. In fact the whole state & country needs your help. My carer just had his 3rd heart attack on Wednesday. He was stabilised & scheduled for a procedure on Friday. All prepped & ready but the queue was so long he was bumped to Monday. Instead of being home today, it'll now be Tuesday or Wednesday. Cathy can something be done to reduce the queue, increase staffing (no one - except nurses - works on weekends) Yes, Karen, something can be done; we can vote out this out-of-touch Turnbull government at the next federal election. I am here every day fighting hard against this top-end-of-town government. I will fight for people like Karen and her carer because their hospital needs are really important and these cuts are not fair. All of this is in a community where the unemployment rate has almost doubled under the consecutive LNP governments. How can the Turnbull government think that cutting 12 doctor positions or 24 nurses is a good idea? My community is already hurting, yet the Turnbull government is hell-bent on creating more hurt by cutting doctors and nurses. It's disgraceful. Let's not forget the axe that is being taken to Medicare. More than $3 billion has been cut from Medicare by LNP governments. This has increased out-of-pocket costs to see a GP. The average out-of-pocket cost for seeing a GP is now more than $38. That's a $4 increase since Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's pre-election promise that no-one would pay more to see a GP. Out-of-pocket fees to see a specialist have soared even higher, up to almost $88, an increase of more than $12 since the election. The Bureau of Statistics' figures show that those cost increases are forcing many Australians to skip basic health care. Those cost increases have resulted in one million Australians saying they cannot go to see a GP—they're avoiding it; they can't afford it—and 1.7 million people are saying, 'I can't afford to see a specialist.' Labor will fund our hospitals and fund Medicare because we won't be giving $80 billion tax cuts to big business and the banks. Labor created Medicare and we will protect it. 15:57 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein Sometimes there are emotions or debates in this place that, frankly, reduce the public's appetite and support for our democracy because what they hear is deception. They hear lies. They hear information or ideas that underwrite or corrode the very integrity of the institution that I, at least, ran to serve. The objective of this parliament should and must be to serve the best interests of the people of Australia with honesty and integrity. I would hope that most members would come into this place believing that, when they left, our democracy would be healthier, more successful and carry greater trust. And then we get motions like the MPI today, which is built on a lie, a deception, a falsehood about what is happening in health care in this country and what this government is seeking to do. Make no mistake that the objective of this government is to make sure that every Australian, whether they walk into their primary healthcare clinic to see their GP, into a hospital run by a state government or into a private hospital, gets the opportunity to get the support and the care they need to live their best lives. Yes, sometimes there's a debate around money—and there is around health care—but our focus is and has been consistently focused on making sure we get dollars in and outcomes out. What we have in this motion today is a deception that there is some decline in funding. In fact, it is the complete opposite of what this government has sought to achieve. As you'll have heard consistently throughout this government, our focus is on what we can do to grow the economy. But we know that growing the economy is not an end of itself. Growing an economy is good. Yes, there's a larger pie. Yes, it means everybody's standard of living can rise. But it is about delivering a social, environmental, economic and human dividend, and a critical part of delivering a human dividend is, of course, providing health care for the Australian people. We do this against a backdrop of incredible challenges. Mr Champion interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON IMW Of course we know that one of the biggest areas of increasing expenditure that faces us regardless of who is in government, the member for Wakefield, is around the ageing population—people at a time when they need the most healthcare support because the vast majority of healthcare service provision is towards the end of life. It's not just health care directly in getting support and assistance from doctors; it's the increasing costs associated with aged care and, of course, an increasing dependence on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, particularly in dealing with some chronic conditions. At every point this government is actually delivering precisely what the Australian people need, and it's no clearer than from the record amount of investment that is going into the public hospital system. From 2013-14 to 2020-21 we have increased the investment by $13.3 billion, but apparently this is a cut. Under the new hospitals agreement, the government has committed an additional $30.2 billion in public hospital funding from 2020-21 to 2024-25, taking overall funding during this period to $130.2 billion. And we know this. In the wonderful Goldstein electorate we have one of Melbourne's best local community hospitals, as part of the Alfred Health group, at Sandy hospital. The Alfred Health group has had an increase from $219,913,309 in 2013-14 to $318 million in the last financial year—growth of $98 million. That's a fair amount. That's a big increase. What we're seeing more and more because of the focus on the economy to deliver for the human dividend is the amount of money we're able to contribute in increasing access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme so that people can manage their health condition. Yes, there have been approximately $9 billion in increased listings in this government, but increasingly we are seeing innovative new drugs like Kisqali and the whooping cough vaccine for pregnant mothers, which are being added as of 1 July, and we should be immensely proud of that. 16:02 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I would really like to say one thing before I commence on this matter of public importance, and that is that I am utterly ashamed at the way the minister has attempted to politicise the PBS. The PBS, since its inception in the 1940s, has had bipartisan support, and the attempt to politicise it is shocking. It is completely wrong. The minister and those opposite, if they attempt to politicise it, which is what they're doing, do not understand the basis of how the PBS and the PBAC work, and it is just shameful what this minister has attempted to do. I will say something else that has relation to this matter of public importance, and that's not about the health care provided to Australians. It's about the health care provided to our near neighbours. It is shocking the way this government has cut our foreign aid budget. Evidence of this can be seen in the really horrible outbreak of polio in Papua New Guinea. I would urge this government, through the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to urgently increase our aid budget looking at health care in our northern neighbours. The government clearly has no understanding of public health policy, and it is in their DNA to slash this crucial portfolio. Time and again they've demonstrated their ignorance about health policy, and it's quite clear to me from their other policies around housing, education and social supports that they have a very poor understanding of the social determinants of health. Their response to drug and alcohol problems seems to me one of blame and punishment and really very little fundamental understanding of health as it evolves around addiction. Regardless of whatever spin those opposite attempt to pull off in this chamber today and in the outside world, you cannot trust a single word they say on health care. They've taken an axe to Medicare and failed to rein in soaring private healthcare insurance costs. The Prime Minister and this government have a very warped agenda for and perception of public health and indeed all social services. When the Liberal National government look at our public hospitals, Medicare and other health services, all they see is a stack of cash to raid and give to their mates. I cannot put this more succinctly: this is a twisted government, content to rip essential funding from our healthcare system only to throw it at big business and their mates. It seems completely paradoxical to me that this government thinks it's fine to give millions of dollars in tax cuts to some of our biggest companies such as Healthscope, Ramsay Health Care, Primary Health Care, Sonic Healthcare, Medibank Private, NIB and many more, yet not fund our public hospitals adequately to provide comprehensive public healthcare measures for chronic diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, et cetera. The profits go to these major companies, and they pay bigger dividends to their shareholders, but those requiring health support are left to wait. We get longer waiting lists, ballooning gap costs to see specialists for interventional care, and lack of funding for essential best practice services, yet businesses seem to be given a blank cheque. Our public hospitals are clearly in a state of crisis. I've worked in hospitals for decades. I see longer waiting lists in emergency and people unable to access the best care, and I worry about what's going to happen to my children and grandchildren. Only about 60 per cent of urgent individual patients presenting to emergency departments in my state are seen within appropriate time limits. I reiterate: health care in Australia is in a state of crisis. The minister is attempting to politicise many of the issues, particularly the PBS, and there is a lack of understanding of proper public health policy about chronic illness. Australians are furious with the current government over their handling of the healthcare system. The cuts extend all over Australia, particularly in areas of rapid growth, like Caboolture Hospital, which is getting almost $3 million cut by the coalition. In Longman, where I've visited— (Time expired) 16:07 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I'm pleased to speak on this matter today. I want to congratulate the Minister for Health and the Minister for Aged Care on the wonderful work they are doing in the health and ageing sectors. The Minister for Health demonstrates such care and compassion in speaking to patients suffering from conditions like endometriosis or chronic pain. It makes me very proud to be a member of the Turnbull government. The Minister for Aged Care has helped me convene and conduct several fora for my senior Australians. He is a truly inspiring senior Australian himself and is doing wonderful work to look after all our senior Australians. We, the Turnbull government, are achieving record funding for our healthcare system in Australia. We have record GP bulk-billing rates of 85.8 per cent, which in my electorate alone means residents can visit their doctor without any out-of-pocket cost, thanks to the introduction of an additional 22,000 GP services. In the 2018-2019 budget we announced a $2.4 billion investment for new medicines on the PBS, including $1 billion set aside for the provision of future medicines. In fact, since coming to government we have listed one new medicine per day on average—and these are often life-saving medications—with an overall investment of about $9 billion. These are things like treatments for stage IV clear cell variant renal cell carcinoma, which would otherwise cost one patient $129,000 per year—completely out of reach for most Australians. Through Kisqali, we're investing $703 million to support women with breast cancer. Otherwise, these women would have to pay $71,000 each to access this medication. The medication Spinraza, for spinal muscular atrophy, would cost patients $367,000 each per year. These are life-changing, life-saving medications that this government is funding. Unfortunately, those opposite have a terrible track record, whether it's the federal Labor Party or the state Labor Party in my home state of South Australia. I need to once again remind the House of the dreadful things that the now, thankfully, former Weatherill state Labor government did in South Australia. They cut $7.4 million of funding for public hospitals between 2015 and 2016 and a further $20 million of funding between 2014 and 2016. The state Labor government shut down the iconic Repat hospital. That was a devastating decision for veterans in our community, many of whom had been treated there. It was a devastating decision for my community, and I'm so pleased to see that the Marshall Liberal government in South Australia is already reopening services on the Repat site so that people in my community can once again use the hydrotherapy pool, for example, which is absolutely critical for rehabilitation services. I want to reflect on one of the incredible things that the Minister for Health has worked with me on and that I'm very passionate about, and that's the issue of endometriosis. Once again, because we are the party of responsible government, because we are balancing the budget, we've been able to begin to invest in finding cures and better treatments for this terrible disease that affects women. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Members on my left will cease interjecting. Ms FLINT 245550 Already we have committed $1 million in the May budget towards awareness and education within the medical profession because we know there are a lot of medical practitioners who are still not aware of what endometriosis is, the sorts of support and treatment that women need to access and how critical early intervention and treatment is. We announced a further $2.5 million from the Medical Research Future Fund, which will be used to accelerate research and make areas of endo research a priority once the National Action Plan for Endometriosis is launched, which will occur very soon. I'm very proud of our record in the health space. 16:12 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise today to speak about the government's abject failure to properly fund public health care for all Australians and its failure to control the spiralling costs of the private health insurance industry. Just this morning I read an article about the rising number of women who opt to use public rather than private hospitals to give birth because of the high out-of-pocket costs involved in the private system. This is just one more example of the soaring costs of private health insurance and the growing number of Australians who are choosing to ditch their cover in response to relentless price rises, unexpected out-of-pocket costs and growing exclusions. Australians are paying a lot more for their health insurance policies and getting a lot less. Ten years ago only 8.6 per cent of health insurance policies contained exclusions; now it's 40 per cent. These exclusions, often hidden in the fine print, mean that people are paying for insurance without being covered. It's turning health insurance into a con. I've had personal experience. We all have. My elderly mother-in-law has had lengthy periods in private hospitals with chest infections. She's paid her private health insurance premiums for decades, and we are always pleasantly surprised on discharge to be told we don't have to pay anything there and then. But, over the following weeks, the bills roll in—pharmacy costs, pathology costs and other tests not covered—to the point where we start to wonder when they will stop. I know this is a familiar story. We know that Australians pay some of the highest out-of-pocket costs in the OECD to the for-profit health insurance industry, which made around $2 billion in profits last year. Some of the biggest health insurance providers make a return of over 20 per cent. And, as we know and have heard in this House before, this is an industry that's holding about $6 billion over and above the legal capital requirement and gets $6 billion in taxpayer-funded subsidies each year. Still, despite all this, the industry continues to increase its costs, year after year. For decades, in fact, Australians who have opted to buy private health insurance have been getting hit with price rises double or even triple inflation from an industry that enjoys generous government subsidies, and this is just plain wrong. Labor, on the other hand, has a strong policy to cap premium price increases at two per cent for two years, effectively tying them to general inflation, a policy that will put $340 back into the pockets of Australian families. But private health insurance is a choice—a choice that more and more people can't afford. The article I read this morning about mums deserting private health insurance quoted Libby Nuttall, a 32-year-old mother of three, who said she'd heard stories about the private system such as that, when a doctor at 5 pm on Friday wants to go home and the woman's in labour, they will do a caesarean rather than let the pregnancy take its natural course. Of course, not all doctors and not all hospitals in the private system are like that. But it seems to me that the trust in the private system is waning. It is waning due to excessive out-of-pocket costs and poorer quality of care, and more and more people are turning to their trusted public health system. It tells us that our public health system is vital for so many Australians. We cannot afford to starve our public health system of funding. The Liberals have cut billions of dollars from our public hospital system, putting stress and strain on our hospitals and causing anguish for patients and their communities and for the people who work tirelessly in our public health system to keep it going. We are lucky indeed to have such a wonderful health system. I myself worked there as a nurse for years and totally appreciate the importance of the services. I congratulate our doctors, nurses, allied health workers and all the auxiliary staff who keep the system running with fewer and fewer resources, but they can't do it forever. They can't keep doing more with less. We need to reinvest in our public hospitals, and I'm proud to say that Labor will reverse the government cuts, giving vital resources to our hospitals, because we deserve a public health system that stays the envy of the world. As for our primary healthcare system and our beloved Medicare, out-of-pocket costs are beginning to become a barrier to people seeing their GP. What does that mean? It means that more and more people stay sicker and present to our emergency departments, putting more and more pressure on our public hospitals and, in fact, increasing costs, because, as we all know, our tertiary healthcare system is far more expensive than doing good, decent primary health care. The pressure on our public hospitals means that fewer and fewer people can get there. Fewer and fewer people will be receiving the care they need. Trashing the promise of universal health care exacerbates this. So the choice at the next election and in next month's by-elections could not be clearer: more savage cuts under the Liberals or record healthcare investment under Labor. 16:17 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman Obviously, we reach silly season at the end of a sitting week, and then out rolls the health MPI from the opposition. It's remotely disappointing to have to engage every third or fourth week, when they run out of agenda, in an industrial revolution debate about Medicare, because Australians sitting up watching today and Australians sitting in the galleries understand that we have an excellent GP-centred system. We've got public hospitals doing an incredible job under trying financial circumstances that they've had under any government, not just a blue or a red one. We have an independent and successful private health system. We have a functioning PBS and MBS that are the envy of the world. We can go back and engage in a 1970s debate about who founded Medicare and who is the defender of Medicare, but you can't debate the figures that were presented by my colleague just a few minutes ago—that is, big jumps in the number of bulk-billed services; 6.2 million more services in remote and regional Australia, an absolute priority for this government. These kinds of increases—1.19 million more bulk-billed specialist services—are the true indicators that access to medical professionals, be they general or specialist, is about the same as it has always been. We have new regional medical schools producing graduates who are staying in the bush—train in the bush; stay in the bush. That's heading in the right direction. No-one's pretending today that all the problems are fixed the minute you change the government or that we've massively changed the direction of health policy, but I tell you what: when there's a hard problem, increasingly, when you have a Labor government in place, they really don't do much about it. That is because, as I pointed out before, when a government is utterly fixated on how many dollars are pumped into the system, it actually loses sight of value and quality. What we're asking is that both sides of this chamber, as we debate the national direction for health, really focus on the quality of spend. But, no, we can't do that, because we have the industrial revolution mob over there, the Medicare Luddites, who think it's just about the total amount of dollars pumped into a system. Increasingly, as we look around the world at the quality of hospital and health performance, we see it's not all about the dollars. It's actually about how it's directed into areas of people's lives and into health investments that truly make a difference. We need both sides of the chamber to be engaging in that debate, and we simply don't have it. So, no matter how many times you sit in the gallery or turn on the television, you will simply hear this general traducing of each other at the end of a sitting week, but actually no engagement on what really matters, which is how we purchase with our dollars the best possible health outcome we can. No, it is not just about how many dollars we spend and how many services are delivered. It is about being responsible and talking to general practice about the rate of servicing. You can only look after patients at a particular rate before quality declines—when time becomes a proxy of quality. We've talked about GPs. Give them the incentive to stratify their patient population and say, 'These 200 people genuinely need my extra care and I need to be reimbursed for that extra amount of time.' Don't have them practising what we call 747 medicine—the person who had seen a single patient 747 times in a year. That can't be quality practice—it's never been engaged with over on the other side. What happens when the Labor Party comes into government? They scurry around in an almost rodentesque manner, seeking to do deals with individual sectors and governments, both in health and education. You're left with this farrago of health funding confusion, where there are tiny bits of money chucked in here and a bit more there and a bit of clever play with the numbers. But we know that the fundamental challenge of Australia's double-tiered health system—moderately unique in the developed world—is that there is a simple moral hazard: the more we put in, the more the states pull out. It is very simple. We write up four-year agreements and the states, to save money, simple turn the switch up or down. It was good to have the member for the Townsville area talking about the Townsville Hospital, because the Commonwealth contributions for Townsville just keep going up, up and up. But it is the state contribution that goes up, down, up and down again as they try to save a little money, because they've got an $80 billion debt in Queensland. State funding to Townsville has gone from $329 million to $346 million to $374 million and then down again to $346 million last week. So the health funding doesn't go up. The Commonwealth contribution to the Townsville region went from $166 million to $181 million to $200 million to $226 million. Clearly, the guilty party isn't down here in this chamber. But you've got the Labor Party completely unable to talk to their mates in Queensland and get a dollar-for-dollar contribution. If the state Labor money to Townsville was actually replaced and you still had the Commonwealth contribution, you'd have more doctors, more nurses and more services, and you'd have less stress on your ICU and a better functioning health system. But we don't sit here and nickel and dime that side of the chamber about whether or not there's an extra dollar, because we keep asking about quality. In the developed world and in the international contest on health quality, we know that the truly effective systems take hard decisions and don't focus purely on the money. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 75 Report 75 16:22 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I present a corrigendum to the committee's final report entitled Inquiry into crystal methamphetamine (ice). BILLS 75 BILLS Airports Amendment Bill 2016 75

Airports Amendment Bill 2016

Second Reading 75 16:23 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay I speak in continuation on the Airports Amendment Bill 2016. The lack of consultation is a key fact in anything this Liberal government does. My community knows that too well after the recent decision by the New South Wales state Liberal government to bulldoze their homes and then cause months and months of anxiety to these communities—500 people, in fact, having bulldozers come right through their businesses and homes—because the state government decided not to have any consultation with them and announced that there would be a new corridor, which was a complete departure from the 1,951 reservations that were made. When you talk about community consultation, you actually have to deliver on it. We see time and time again when it comes to Western Sydney Airport that there is absolutely no difference. We've had six days notice to attend a community meeting, with only two days notice to make an RSVP. That would hardly be considered a reasonable or amenable time frame to anybody. Some of the more outspoken members of this House who would like to be part of the FOWSA board, or the FOWSA communications directory, or whatever they call it—me; Susan Templeman, the member for Macquarie, which is up in my back yard; and the member for Chifley, Ed Husic, whose electorate is on the other side of mine and who is known to have been quite strongly opposed to this airport for a long time—were denied access. If you're denying access, you're denying consultation for those members and those members' communities—about 300,000 people. What we're going to see with this airport is a $10 billion investment. That's $10 billion of taxpayers' money that's going into Western Sydney. Ordinarily, we might be excited about that, but all it's going to do is add miles and miles of congestion. There is no plan for local jobs. There is no plan for people movement. Sorry, I must say this. Imagine how it was for me sitting there, reading the budget papers, and reading about the 'great' investment this government was going to make in the Western Sydney airport infrastructure and the rail line which will take people from the airport and move them onto a more congested line or an already congested line that is only going to get more congested with these extra passengers. Imagine my surprise when I read that there is only $50 million for another study. This government is not serious on delivering anything of any concrete value to my community, with $10 billion going into this. Maybe government members should come to Western Sydney occasionally. It might be hard for them to find where it is! The minister didn't even know which electorate this airport was going to be in. After he argued with me for five minutes, he then decided that I was right and that it was going to be in the electorate of the honourable member for Werriwa, the hardworking Anne Stanley, and not in the electorate of Angus Taylor, who is the member for Hume. If the minister doesn't even know where the airport is going to be, he's hardly the right person to be delivering consultation to the communities it is going to affect. We have $10 billion going into one single project to deliver goodness knows how many jobs. We heard 90,000. Then we heard 26,000. Then it went down to 9,000. Then it went back up to 26,000 again. Nobody has been able to come out and say, 'This is how many jobs will be created from the establishment of this airport.' People in my electorate have been told, 'This is going to be the greatest saviour you've ever seen.' This is $10 billion of taxpayer money going to a single project. If you wanted to know what that money might be better spent on in my electorate of Lindsay, you might look at some of my schools, which have some of the highest numbers of demountable classrooms. We have some of the oldest infrastructure. Every school in my electorate is bursting at the seams with enrolment. And we have brand-new suburbs in Jordan Springs being opened and people moving in without any new infrastructure in the schooling system whatsoever. So we've got a huge number of projects that you could essentially pick up and better spend that money on, and that's what the people in Lindsay want. They don't come up to me in the street and say: 'Can you hurry up on that airport, Emma? I'd like to get out of here a bit quicker or I'd like to get my freight delivered a bit quicker.' That's essentially what this airport is going to be for. They don't come up to me and ask about that. They ask about infrastructure for the train line. They ask about infrastructure for the roadways. They ask why they're paying tolls on the motorways again. They want their schools fixed and they certainly want a better hospital system. Every time this government talks about the Western Sydney Airport being the saviour for Western Sydney, without a curtsy, by the way, we are being told a furphy—every single time. We've never once seen a member of this government or a Liberal turn up with a shovel and a chequebook and ask, 'What does this community actually need?' That's what consultation would entail. It would entail asking, 'What does this community actually need, and what does it want?' When they arrive with their shovels and their chequebooks they could ask us, instead of ramming an airport down our throats or ramming an incinerator down our throats—which the member for McMahon well knows about—or rounding home some toxic waste that they wanted to bring in from Hunter's Hill and give us another toll perhaps. When they come with their chequebooks and their shovels and they're ready to give us what we want, there might be some more trust in our community for these Liberals on the other side and, quite frankly, also those on Macquarie Street. That is absolutely not what's been happening and not what will happen under this government moving forward. The government see Western Sydney as a place to take for granted and to deliver anything other than what we actually need. My community deserve to be treated as equals with those who enjoy the amenity over on the other side of Sydney. They deserve the opportunity to have a curfew put on their airport so that aircraft are not flying over their houses 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Minister Fletcher, who is miles and miles away from that sort of airport, has been on the public record whinging about aircraft noise in his own electorate. He is on the record whinging about that. Where the airport is going to be built will be far closer to many of the homes of the people I represent, but he has cut me out of consultation at every single opportunity and refuses to come out and front the people of Western Sydney or to allow me to be a voice for them in any kind of forum. I shouldn't be shocked, but I am. I live in a world of optimism, but I am constantly shocked by how this is the norm for this government and how a lack of consultation is going to lead to really poor outcomes and really poor decisions. We are already home to two million Australians and the third-largest economy. We're going to be home to three million Australians by 2050; there will be more people living west of Parramatta than will be east of Parramatta. There is no plan. There is no jobs target. There is absolutely nothing in this for the people of Western Sydney. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at the next sitting. Leave granted; Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 77 ADJOURNMENT Iraq 77 16:30 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon The week before last, I visited Iraq for a two-day trip, and I welcome the opportunity to report to the house. I had wanted to go to Iraq for a long time as a representative of so many Iraqi Australians in this place, having worked very closely with the Iraqi Australian community in my electorate, particularly members of the Assyrian and Chaldean communities as well as the Mandaean community, the Assyrians and Chaldeans being the Christian indigenous people of Iraq. I first visited Baghdad. When I visited Baghdad I was struck by the scale of the task of rebuilding Baghdad before the people of Baghdad and the international community all these years after the liberation of Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime. Baghdad is still, it's fair to say, in a very bad way and needs very considerable support to rebuild. I met with the vice minister for foreign affairs, Mr Nizar Al-Khairalla, in Baghdad and discussed with him the importance of ongoing international support for Iraq and, of course, received an update from him and other interlocutors on the recent Iraqi election and the implications thereof for Iraq. I had dinner with His Beatitude Louis Raphael I Sako, the Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and I have noted previously in the House that this week he is being made a cardinal of the Catholic Church in his capacity as Patriarch of the Chaldean Catholic Church. I did then visit, in Iraq's north, Erbil, a home of many Australians of Iraqi heritage. There I met with His Holiness Mar Gewargis III, the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East. I had a very lengthy conversation about him about the Christians of the Nineveh Plains and the potential for the rebuilding of the north. I visited the Hashem displaced persons camp, which is run by the UNHCR and several charities. I've visited many refugee camps over the years as a former minister for immigration. I know what to expect at these places and, even though I know what to expect, they nevertheless remain shocking. I met with a particular family in that camp who had been forced out of Mosul, Mosul of course being effectively destroyed by the scourge of ISIS. I met with the father, the mother and the two children. I had a very good conversation with them. I asked them a simple question: 'Can you return to Mosul?' The father said to me through the translator, 'There is nothing left.' Their house has been destroyed. Their entire city has been destroyed. Schools have been destroyed. There is nothing left—no future in Mosul. There are hundreds of thousands of people who are in a very similar situation to that family and, of course, while we celebrate the fact that ISIS is on the retreat, that ISIS is on the verge of defeat—certainly in Iraq—the scale of destruction that they have caused will last for a long time. It is not just the physical destruction, the destruction of important historical artefacts et cetera, but also the human destruction that they have wrought: the people they killed, the women they have raped, the families still suffering today, the little boys I met whose school was destroyed and no longer exists, their home destroyed. They're living in an old steel container from a container ship. They've made it very nice; they've got cushions, curtains and electrical wires up connecting the microwave, but that is their home, and they have little prospect, little plan for them to have a more permanent arrangement. As I said, I've seen these things before. I've visited many refugee camps around the world, but, when you're there and interacting with those people, it's nevertheless shocking indeed. But I must say that, at the same time, I saw hope and cause for optimism. In Erbil in particular the security environment was better than Baghdad. It was possible to walk around Erbil without the sort of protection that a visiting Western politician needs. I understand I'm the first member of parliament to visit the north of Iraq for very many years. That is understandable; it has not been safe to do so. In Erbil, I saw a thriving city. It had an economy that was very troubled. Construction which had been previously sought was not happening. Nevertheless, there was cause for hope. Iraq has artefacts and buildings which are older than the pyramids. It has the capacity for a tourism market, for people to go and visit the great religious and historical sites, but, until it is secure, the Iraqi economy won't improve. I want to thank the department of foreign affairs, the minister, the secretary, Ambassador Joanne Loundes and the deputy ambassador, Dr Chris Watkins, for facilitating the visit and for assisting me. It would have been simply impossible without their assistance. Despite the fact that I have no Iraqi heritage, it was nevertheless an emotional visit for me, having represented so many Iraqi Australians in this House for so long. I thank all those who made me feel so welcome on my visit to Baghdad and Erbil. Domestic and Family Violence 78 16:35 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise today to commend the Turnbull government on its introduction into the parliament of the Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties) Bill, which will, in specific and serious circumstances, prohibit the direct cross-examination of victims of family violence by the perpetrator or alleged perpetrator during family law proceedings. This is incredibly important reform, and I want to particularly commend the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Women for their support and leadership on this very important issue. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, a committee I chaired last year, which recommended this reform in its 2017 report A better family law system tosupport and protect those affectedby family violence. Directly facing a perpetrator or alleged perpetrator of family violence compounds the trauma of that violence and can also impact on the ability of a victim to give clear evidence in legal proceedings. As I said when our report was tabled, in every suburb, in every town and in every city across Australia, family violence is a scourge. It affects families and individuals in horrendous and insidious ways. Leaving a violent relationship is an overwhelmingly difficult process which may involve significant risk to those affected, including children, of financial pressures, relocation and emotional turmoil. Some people, of course, are unable to leave a violent relationship, and that can also lead to tragic consequences. This morning on ABC Radio we heard an interview with a woman who was still suffering the trauma of being directly cross-examined by her former spouse some eight years ago, a perpetrator of serious family violence. She is one of many women across Australia who feels that justice has been done. The law will be changed, and this will prevent many other women from enduring this sort of trauma in the future. The prohibition will apply where there are convictions, where there are charges or where final family violence orders are in place between the parties. Courts will also have the discretion to prohibit direct cross-examination in cases where family violence is alleged. If a court does not exercise that discretion, it will be mandatory for the court to apply other protections such as the use of video links or screens in the court room. In cases where direct cross-examination is prohibited under these amendments, cross-examination must be conducted by a legal representative. Naturally, parties will be able to obtain their own legal representation in these proceedings; however, they'll also have access to representation through legal aid commissions when that is not possible. The government is working closely with National Legal Aid regarding implementations of the bill. As I said, this is an incredibly important reform and it builds on the many other ways in which our government is taking very, very strong action to protect women in particular and to address the issue of family violence. Certainly, in the budget this year, the Turnbull government has shown zero tolerance to violence against women and is committing another $54.4 million to services for women affected by violence and for online safety initiatives. This includes $11.5 million for the national sexual assault, domestic family violence counselling service, 1800RESPECT, over two years. The 1800RESPECT service does an incredible job. There is $6.7 million to maintain funding for DV-alert to continue its domestic violence response training for community frontline workers and $14.2 million over four years for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace safe for women. I very much commend this bill, and I look forward to speaking further about it in the next session of parliament. Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service 79 16:40 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh The ABC and SBS belong to every single Australian—and that has been the case from the day that the public broadcasters were established. Since the ABC was launched in 1932, it has been a part of the shared history of this nation. It has made its impact on generations of Australians, including our generation. It has grown from a single radio service into a multimedia platform operation. SBS was launched in 1978, with its radio station, and it established its television presence in 1980. It has provided us with digital TV content since 2001. SBS was built on the values that, regardless of an Australian's geographic location, age, cultural background or language, they have the opportunity to access quality, independent Australian media. This is very important, because time and time again we've seen this government seek to undermine our public broadcasters. Since 2014, $282 million has been cut from the ABC, with nearly $84 million lost this year alone, and that includes 800 jobs and the loss of Australian content and services. The ABC and SBS have never been the government's to sell. As I said, the public broadcasters belong to the Australian people. Every day, the ABC continues to support members of our regional areas—rural and remote communities. It keeps us connected by producing local content and providing emergency information in times of disaster. The ABC has been with us for decades. It has been with us through fires, floods and other disasters. It is the first to notify the Australian public of such events. SBS has an audience that reaches over 13 million per month via TV only, an extra seven million online per month and 1.3 million via radio per month. They tell us stories that make a difference. We've all seen the wonderful production series and documentaries they've done. This government may have conveniently forgotten its promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS, but I can ensure you that, on this side of the House, we haven't forgotten. I haven't forgotten. The opposition haven't forgotten. Labor will continue to stand for the people's broadcasters. I value what our public broadcasters have so generously given us. They have supported Australian voices, Australian content and Australian ideas. More than likely, we are able to hear our own Australian accent continuously on both the SBS and the ABC. They have provided opportunity for local content to get off the pages of the novels, magazines and books that have been written and to find an audience through their TV and digital programs. They play an important role in connecting Australians with one another and with the world. Just last week alone, we saw SBS coming to the rescue with the FIFA World Cup—and I congratulate them for it—when the broadcast by a private company reverted back to the public. We have had no issues with the broadcast of all the football games that we have been seeing every night. The people's game for the people's broadcaster is what it is. SBS CEO Michael Ebeid has said on the record that the broadcaster had been unable to secure the entire rights following budget cuts in recent years. Whose cuts? This government's cuts. Content from Australian public broadcasters is so important. It builds good relations with our neighbouring countries and the region. We are a global citizen that can contribute, and the government would be crazy to give that up. It is so important to support the ABC and SBS, who support local industries and create jobs. As I said, with those cuts that we've seen just recently, 800 jobs are to go from the ABC. That's 800 people who were contributing towards our arts, towards our TV programs and towards all the ways information is given to us. It is so important. I cannot put that more seriously. It is absolutely imperative for us to have a voice with integrity, so that the public can trust that the content is put through in an impartial way. That's what the ABC has been doing for many, many decades. Dunkley Electorate: Infrastructure 79 16:46 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Infrastructure is a critical component of the Australian economy, and a matter of great importance for my constituents in Dunkley. With such a vast country, yet with such density in our cities, it is important that we invest in the infrastructure that we need to grow and function as Australians deserve. Few major cities around the world do not have a train line to the airport, for example. Melbourne's sprawl makes it more important that we are get to where we need to go sooner, due to the fact Melbourne is to be more populous than Sydney by 2030. It is important to keep businesses functioning; to allow tourists to move between places; to allow people to visit relatives, family and friends; and to allow access to more services, opportunities, and education. Importantly, the service that would be created through the Tullamarine rail link between Melbourne City and the airport means that people can maximise their time with family and friends and those who matter most. Professor Peter McDonald from the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health told news.com.au: When a city reaches five million people, it only performs effectively with the best public transport systems and infrastructure. Infrastructure planning and delivery has to be a long-term vision. I raised in my maiden speech that it is important to invest in infrastructure, not only in the inner cities but also in outer metro areas and in regional and rural Australia. When you build the infrastructure, you allow industries to grow, you allow jobs to be created and you allow people to move to locations and stay in locations, and, therefore, to assist their families. At the same time, we have been more reliant on cars as our public transport network has been placed under increasing strain, particularly in cities like Melbourne with growing populations. Through the recent budget, work has been done on rail infrastructure investments, such as the Tullamarine rail link, and on investment in my electorate. Dunkley is in an interesting position in this point in time, with a massive investment in infrastructure of $228 million that was budgeted in the recent budget to connect Frankston to Baxter—to extend the metro rail line from Frankston to Baxter via Frankston Hospital, Monash University, Karingal and Langwarrin. The Frankston Hospital and university stations will mean an estimated 20 per cent increase in enrolments in the local university and help free up the parking issues at Frankston Hospital, increasing accessibility for people using health services and visiting others in hospital. There will be a train station servicing Karingal, right next to Jubilee Park, where I'm currently working with the minister to move $5.2 million into a major sporting infrastructure investment. In addition, there will be a Langwarrin station, along with park and ride for at least 1,000 cars. This will provide service to a region with about 37,000 people who currently don't have a metro rail service and who haven't had a train station since the 1980s. Lastly, Baxter will also be connected by metro rail and will also have park and ride there. That means people all down the peninsula and in Frankston will be connected to a rail station closer to their homes. It will mean the freeing up of parking at Frankston, Seaford, Kananook and Carrum stations. But it will also mean there's an opportunity for the state government to change its mind on building stabling yards at Seaford because this provides the opportunity to move the stabling yards further down the line. One example of a business that would be impacted by the stabling yards in Seaford is Page Bros Jayco. This is a business that's been there for 50 years and has 50 employees. They will soon be subject to a compulsory acquisition by the state Labor government in order to put stabling yards in their place. This is terrible for those employees, but it's also terrible for the other six businesses and the 200 employees in total whose jobs will be at risk. I also note, from the federal level, that Page Bros Jayco has a turnover of between $40 and $45 million, so on 1 July they'll go down to a tax rate of 27.5 per cent. If Labor comes in, it's proposing to move them back up to 30 per cent. Not only will they have their land taken away and their 50-year-old business and 50 employees put at risk; they're also going to suffer the consequences of Labor's proposal, if Labor ever gets into government, of increasing their taxes at the same time. We definitely need to stop that. We need to invest in infrastructure. We are managing the budget well on this side of the House so that we can invest in essential services and infrastructure and, at the same time, lower taxes for individuals and businesses. Labor needs to get on board with our plans. We are the ones who are managing the economy, nationally and in Dunkley. Loneliness 80 16:51 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Tonight I want to talk about loneliness and propose that we talk more about it in this place, that we work to better understand its consequences and that we do better to prevent it, as individuals and collectively. I'm in politics to help build a just society. This requires social inclusion as well as economic opportunity, and this is a challenge which ultimately rests on relationships—economic relationships, relationships of power, all the ways in which we relate and connect to one another, how these relationships work and what happens when they don't. Research shows us that loneliness is a growing concern in Australia and for Australians. A survey by Lifeline in 2016 found that over 80 per cent of respondents thought the feeling of loneliness was increasing in Australia. Two-thirds said that they often felt lonely. Relationships Australia also found, in a 2017 survey, that 34 per cent of respondents said they often felt isolated and 43 per cent said they felt lonely some of the time. When the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes took a look at this issue in 2007—the last major research on this question in Australia—they found that loneliness was a serious problem for people of all ages. This survey pointed to an alarming incidence of loneliness amongst younger Australians and raised the question of the impact of social media on this. It's time this research was updated, not least because it appears that technology is driving a trend away from face-to-face interaction and engagement. Loneliness is a major public health issues. Dr Michelle Lim of Swinburne University of Technology noted the relationship between the emotional and psychological effects of loneliness and the physiological effects, such as the negative impact on brain processes, the regulation of stress and the severity of mental health symptoms. She says, strikingly, that it can be as bad for us as smoking or obesity. Loneliness can be a killer. A Stanford University study found that older people who are socially isolated experience poorer health and have a risk of death that is 31 per cent higher than those who are not isolated, but its impacts are less appreciated than they should be. Another leading academic in this field of research is Professor Alex Haslam from the University of Queensland. In February, together with a number of other academics, Professor Haslam published research in the journal Social Science & Medicinethat found that, while the majority of people were well aware of established health risks such as smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, and alcohol consumption, there were few who saw social factors, particularly loneliness, as of the same level of importance. In a recent address broadcast by the ABC, he highlighted the extraordinary positive impact on wellbeing of involvement in social networks. On this, in the town of Frome in the UK, a project launched by a local GP found that, by providing support from community groups and volunteers, the lives of socially isolated people with health problems were significantly improved. Over a three-year period, emergency hospital admissions in Frome fell by 17 per cent. Loneliness cannot simply be tackled through a single type of response. We need to also build up a conversation in our communities about the importance of being socially connected and the negative impacts of being isolated. There are some profound questions we need to address about how we relate to one another and how we sustain communities. This is affected by increasing inequality. As gaps in life experience increase, so does the scale of this challenge. This has been recognised by many of my Labor colleagues: the member for Franklin, the member for Fenner sitting beside me here, Senator Louise Pratt and the member for Moreton in particular. They have all contributed to fighting loneliness in the communities they represent and across our society, as have many in civil society, such as those in the Australian Coalition to End Loneliness, whose work I acknowledge in this place. I think I can say they share my view that there's much more to be done. I take heart and inspiration from the work of the Jo Cox Loneliness Commission. In 2017 the commission published the Combatting loneliness one conversation at a time report, challenging the May government to step forward and lead a renewed push to tackle loneliness. It did, through ministerial appointments, supporting community groups, developing a strategy on loneliness that will bring together governments and service providers, research on the impact of various initiatives to tackle loneliness, and establishing indicators for loneliness so that there's a consistent measure for this. Along with the member for Berowra I have moved a private members' motion calling for a national response from the Australian government. This has to be a bipartisan concern, and I'm pleased that I might have the chance to work with the member for Berowra and colleagues from different political traditions on this issue. A good society lets no-one slip through its cracks. As individuals we can and should all reach out to those around us, but as a country we must make ending loneliness a priority for our national government. Health Care 81 16:56 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I confirm for the people in my electorate that health funding continues to go up year in, year out. From 2018 to 2019 health funding from the federal government will increase. From 2019 to 2020 it goes up again. This is great news for local people. Whether you're relying on drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, on bulk-billing to see the doctor or on well-funded public hospitals, it's important that funding continues to go up, because of the growing population in our area, the Moreton Bay Region and the City of Brisbane. I confirm that, under our government, it does. We're able to do this because of record jobs and economic growth, some 420,000 new jobs, which means more income tax for the federal government, and we're putting that not just back into your pocket with tax cuts but into health care and other essential services. It's the nature of politics to disagree at times with your opponents; however, in recent years state and federal election campaigns run by the Labor Party and some of their union heavyweights have taken a particularly disappointing turn. The bullying and personal attacks by left-wing organisations like GetUp!, the ETU and the CFMMEU are just some examples of this. Elections should be fought and won on the ground, on truth and on issues that are relevant in each electorate. Scare campaigns based on lies shouldn't be part of our democratic election campaigns, either now or into the future. As you know, Mr Speaker, the real master of scare campaigns is the Australian Labor Party. You only have to look at their dishonest 'Mediscare' campaign from the last federal election to see how manipulative it was. They were desperate for a way to win more votes, so they decided to play on the public's vulnerability. Our healthcare system is the envy of the world. We have access to world-class services in every corner of the country, and it's something all Australians are incredibly grateful for. The Labor Party's 'Mediscare' campaign in 2016 was a desperate and appalling attempt at politics, and it's no surprise that they're at it again. This week, constituents in my electorate received a typical Labor fake news flyer. It stated that the coalition government was ripping $29 million out of local hospitals—'ripping' was the word they used. We know that is absolutely rubbish—literally, that flyer is worth throwing in the bin. Every fact on this flyer is completely false. Ironically, it's the Queensland Labor government who is cutting funding from local hospitals in my electorate. It's the federal coalition Liberal-National government who has increased funding by $120 million to the Metro North Hospital and Health Service, including Redcliffe Hospital, and it's the Labor state government who has cut some $21 million from the Metro North Hospital and Health Service, including Redcliffe Hospital. It's the federal coalition who have increased funding for hospitals in the metro north region by 38 per cent. That's almost 10 times more, percentage-wise, than what the state Labor funding increase has been. The coalition government has made a rock-solid commitment to Medicare, with an additional $4.8 billion investment, meaning more doctors, more nurses, more services for hospitals and more drugs listed on the PBS. And it is not only that; Petrie's bulk-billing rate is at a record high of 86.1 per cent, which means almost nine in 10 residents do not pay a cent to see their doctor. Some choose to see a particular doctor and pay a little bit. These statistics truly highlight the fact that Labor is once again running a dishonest campaign, and I urge residents to look at the truth. Under the new agreement that we have with the states, there will be an additional $7.5 billion over five years. As your federal member, I say to the people of Petrie: I'll continue to make sure health care is well funded. Question agreed to. House adjourned at 17:01 NOTICES 82 NOTICES

Thursday, 28 June 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ) took the chair at 10:00.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 84 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS The Barunga Statement 84 10:00 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari On 12 June 1988 during Australia's bicentennial year, Prime Minister Bob Hawke was presented with The Barunga Statement at the annual Barunga cultural and sporting festival at Barunga, about 80 kilometres south-east of Katherine. This year, over the weekend starting Friday, the 8th, there was a commemorative event at Barunga to mark the 30th anniversary of the presentation of The Barunga Statement. Present there, including me, were our leader Bill Shorten, Linda Burney, Patrick Dodson, Malarndirri McCarthy, Madeleine King and Sharon Claydon. I want to thank them for making the journey to Barunga to celebrate this historic event. Importantly, I want to read what that statement said: We, the Indigenous owners and occupiers of Australia, call on the Australian Government and people to recognise our rights— This was 30 years ago. It continues: • to self-determination and self-management, including the freedom to pursue our own economic, social, religious and cultural development; • to permanent control and enjoyment of our ancestral lands; • to compensation for the loss of use of our lands, there having been no extinction of original title; • to protection of and control of access to our sacred sites, sacred objects, artefacts, designs, knowledge and works of art; • to the return of the remains of our ancestors for burial in accordance with our traditions; • to respect for and promotion of our Aboriginal identity, including the cultural, linguistic, religious and historical aspects, and including the right to be educated in our own languages and in our own culture and history; • in accordance with the universal declaration of human rights, the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights, and the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, rights to life, liberty, security of person, food, clothing, housing, medical care, education and employment opportunities, necessary social services and other basic rights. We call on the Commonwealth to pass laws providing: • A national elected Aboriginal and Islander organisation to oversee Aboriginal and Islander affairs; • A national system of land rights; • A police and justice system which recognises our customary laws and frees us from discrimination and any activity which may threaten our identity or security, interfere with our freedom of expression or association, or otherwise prevent our full enjoyment and exercise of universally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms. We call on the Australian Government to support Aborigines in the development of an international declaration of principles for indigenous rights, leading to an international covenant. And we call on the Commonwealth Parliament to negotiate with us a Treaty recognising our prior ownership, continued occupation and sovereignty and affirming our human rights and freedom. That work has yet to be done. We have an obligation in this parliament to make sure we follow the lead from the voice from the heart to have a treaty and set up a national representative body to represent the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, as was demanded 30 years ago, and repeated recently at Uluru. Iluka Rowing and Aquatic Club, Ticknor, Mr Sam, Spillane, Ms Ann 84 10:03 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I'd like to congratulate the mixed 4s Iluka rowing team, who won their category at the Tweed rowathon this month. The crew were Ethan Davis, Duncan Fisher, Mitchell Johns and Kylie Duff, and Kylie was also the coach. Rosemary Bolton and Linda Kratzman, also from the rowing club, took part in the regatta, finishing fourth in their category of the masters female doubles. Well done to both crews. I also recognise the efforts of the executive: Betty Bogdenek, Julie Parlevliet, Catherine Scott and regatta secretary Brenda Loughman. Thank you to the coaches: Kylie Duff, Gayle Armour, Rosemary Boulton and Betty Bogendek for your commitment to the rowers of the Iluka rowing club. I'd like to congratulate Sam Ticknor who won the New South Wales state junior longboarding and junior logger titles at the New South Wales longboard titles held in Port Stephens recently. Fourteen-year-old Sam lives in Evans Head and is in year 9 at the Evans River K-12 School. He's been surfing since he was nine years old, and is part of the Evans Head Half-Tide Boardriders Club and the Evans Head Over 8's Malibu Club. The competition in Port Stephens is the first time he has come away with a major title. It means he can now compete for New South Wales in the Australian Surf Festival, to be held in Tweed Heads next month. Sam will be competing against top surfers from across Australia, who have also won their state divisions. His dad, Rob, his mum, Dorothy, and his brothers, Charlie and Max, will also be heading up with Sam to support him when he competes. Good luck, Sam. For nearly 40 years, Ann Spillane has worked diligently in the diocese of Lismore as a president of the volunteers who make up the Friends of St Vincent's Volunteer Service. Ann is also responsible for the management and staffing of the Catholic bookshop in Lismore and has set up the friends of the St Carthage's Cathedral. Ann's efforts were awarded with the papal Benemerenti Medal by the then Lismore bishop, Geoffrey Jarrett, in 2012. In the same year, Ann received the award Lismore Electorate Woman of the Year. In addition to Ann there are around 120 people who volunteer, some of them for a full 40 hours a week. To put a monetary figure on their value, that is about a $5 million contribution annually to our community. For Ann and her team, however, it isn't about money. The real message is about caring and for those patients in palliative care to be made comfortable all the way. I thank Ann and her whole team. Lalor Electorate: Health Care 85 10:06 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor The Werribee skyline has changed of late. The Werribee Mercy Hospital is being completely overhauled, with a multilevel development four floors above the McAuley subacute-bed unit. This is a welcome addition to our community that has experienced and continues to experience sustained and rapid population growth. The Werribee Mercy Hospital, led by executive officer Professor Linda Mellors, does incredible work to support the medical needs of my community by providing care and life-saving treatment. But, like all services in my community, it struggles to keep up, let alone get ahead of the curve in terms of demand. I welcome the state government's commitment to the hospital. I welcome the $87 million redevelopment that's about to open in my community. The redevelopment will provide an extra 64 in-patient beds, an ICU unit for the first time, which has been so desperately needed for so long, and six new operating theatres. My state Labor colleagues have demonstrated that they understand the local needs and growth—we're now a city of 250,000. The same cannot be said for the federal government, however. Our new hospital building will open without the support it needs from the federal government, without the recurrent funding that will ensure it can be staffed and can operate at its full capacity from day one. We need to note that 93 babies are born in my community every week, not all of whom can be born at our local hospital. The new redevelopment won't cater for a massive increase in the number of babies being born locally, because this government is starving our state government of funds for hospitals. That's because across the next few years we're going to be $6 million short across the Mercy public hospital sector. If a Labor government is elected, we will commit $2.8 billion over six years. This is much needed and will mean that hospitals like ours will get the coverage and the funding that they need. Further to this, Labor has committed to investing $80 million to boost the number of eligible MRI machines and approve 20 new licences, meaning 500,000 more scans will be funded by Medicare over the course of the first Labor budget. I recently met with MRI service providers in my community—they do 500 scans a week. We do not have a licence at our local hospital, so they are being done by a private provider. Our hospital is putting patients in ambulances to drive them across the road to get their MRI scan done—I've experienced this with my own mother. It has got to stop. I can't imagine the waste of money and the inefficiency. We need an MRI licence for our local hospital. I call on this government to join Labor in committing to increasing the capacity for our local hospitals to provide this service. Pasto, Ms Kirsty 85 10:09 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Yesterday in the chamber I spoke about the importance of having facilities in Dunkley that match the calibre of our local sports men and women. Today I want to tell you about one of the people who are driving our local sporting success. Earlier this month, over a coffee, I caught up with Kirsty Pasto, who is a leader of engagement and governance with Equestrian Australia. Kirsty has received a federal government grant of $3,000 to go towards a resilient leadership course at Melbourne Business School through the 2018 Women Leaders in Sport program. It was great to meet Kirsty and to learn about competitive and recreational equestrian, a sport you don't hear about as frequently as football and netball but still one with its own governing bodies, its own competitions, its own sponsor programs and its own identity. The resilient leadership course will deliver outcomes and skills that will support and assist Kirsty to further her leadership and the resources of Equestrian Australia to continue to train and mentor many people. Kirsty works with Equestrian Australia to help monitor and regulate equestrian and liaises with various organisations across the country to ensure consistency and access. I was incredibly impressed with not only Kirsty's engagement and knowledgeable representation of the challenges and opportunities facing equestrian at the moment but also the depth and complexity particularly of competitive equestrian. The level of access for disabled riders is noteworthy, and I learned that equestrian is the only sport where men and women can compete on an even playing field, if you will pardon the pun. Many of us will have seen equestrian and dressage in the Olympics or the Paralympics, and there is a huge international competition later this year. The World Equestrian Games in North Carolina in September will help to go towards selection for the Olympics team for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo. But competing internationally has its challenges as well. The financial and emotional cost of transporting the horses can be overwhelming for both riders and horses respectively. Kirsty's goal is that her participation in the resilient leadership course funded under the federal government will help her and Equestrian Australia to continue to mentor many rising stars of the sport and will help Kirsty herself with development opportunities to reach her leadership potential within the equestrian code. I'm grateful to the Minister for Sport, Senator Bridget McKenzie, and the Minister for Women, Kelly O'Dwyer, for their support and work to help Kirsty with this opportunity. I look forward to hearing about her success. Adult Migrant Education Program 86 10:11 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide As I know you are well aware, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, the Adult Migrant English Program is the Australian government's largest program to assist settlement when people arrive in Australia. It is vitally important that we get it right and that we ensure that this critical support is operating as it should be. I know that my office has been contacted on several occasions now by people expressing deep concerns about the current operations of this program. I've been contacted by a number of teachers who have asked to remain confidential but have asked that the parliament hears the concerns about the program at the moment. Teachers are saying that the Australian Core Skills Framework is in fact diverting the program from its core business of integrating English language learning with migrant settlement. If we don't address this, if these concerns are valid, then we will see the consequences of this for decades to come. One teacher told me: 'I feel seriously demoralised in my position. There is an overload of bewildering documentation, scores of forms to fill, assessment criteria and evidence. The depth and extent of details required by assessment go beyond what is adequate documentation about student proficiency and progress.' Another has said, 'It is extremely frustrating and counterintuitive to have to ignore many of students' real needs in order to meet the artificial ones that the new administrative regime demands. A huge part of our lessons are now by necessity just sessions to prepare students for specific assessments and then for carrying out those assessments. It's very narrowly focused, not allowing time and space for global learning and orientation.' Emails are being sent—I'm sure to many members of the parliament about this issue—and they all seem to be raising the same concerns. Another has said to me: 'This is the first time I've ever contacted a member of parliament, and I sincerely hope that you will raise these concerns in parliament, that those responsible will make the necessary modifications to the contract so that, once again, we can provide a student-centred settlement and language service to our newly arrived migrant and refugee AMEP students.' Take the concerns to the parliament I have. To all of the teachers who are concerned, I can assure you that we have raised this issue in Senate estimates. Senator Cameron has ensured that there have been questions placed on notice. I don't think this is a partisan issue, but what we're doing is asking the government to investigate these concerns so that, as a parliament, we can all be confident that this critically important program is operating the way that it should and that we're supporting the migrants who will be the future of this great nation. Thomson, Mr Peter William, AO, CBE 86 10:14 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I rise to pay tribute to Peter William Thomson AO, CBE, who sadly passed away this month. Peter lived in my electorate of Higgins and is of course remembered as a champion golfer. He was the first Australian to win the British Open and went on to win a host of other titles during his career. Between 1954 and 1965, he won the British Open a staggering five times, including three times consecutively. Fellow World Golf Hall of Famer Gary Player described Peter as 'a true ambassador of the game and one having, without question, the greatest record of any Australian golfer'. Australian golfers often debate whether the title of Australia's greatest golfer belongs to Peter Thomson or Greg Norman. What did Peter think, though? Ever humble, he believed that the title in fact belonged to Karrie Webb, who herself won seven major titles in her career. Peter instead made light of his obvious talent: 'It's just whacking a ball, for goodness sakes,' he once said. Golf always loomed large in Peter's life. He served as president of the Australian PGA for 32 years, designing and building courses in Australia and around the world. And his feats were much lauded. In 1979 he was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire for his services to golf. In 2001 he became an Officer of the Order of Australia for his contributions as a player and administrator. In 2016 he was named Australian golf's first 'Immortal'. But Peter was more than just a great sportsman. He was also a great champion of the Liberal Party and its values and considered Sir Robert Menzies one of his idols. Peter made a strong contribution to our party over the years, including an unsuccessful tilt for the state seat of Prahran in 1982. It was, of course, a very rare defeat in a lifetime of victories, although one that his wife, Mary—even though she shared his great passion for the Liberal Party—tells me she was not deeply unhappy about! Peter and Mary passed on their passion for our party to their son, Andrew. Andrew was of course the member for Wentworth between 1995 and 2001, as well as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and then Minister for Sport and Tourism during the early years of the Howard government. Peter's life will be celebrated today in Melbourne, and I am deeply sorry that I cannot be there to celebrate with the family. I extend my sympathies to Mary; Peter's children, Deirdre, Andrew, Pan and Fiona; and their children. Vale, Peter Thomson, a great Australian. You will be forever remembered in our hearts. Braddon By-Election 87 10:17 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I spent last weekend on the beautiful west coast of Tasmania with Justine Keay, Labor's candidate for the seat of Braddon. It was great to be there and to see the warm response to her evident everywhere I went, particularly in the towns of Zeehan and Queenstown, where I spent a lot of time with Justine doorknocking, at community functions and engaging with community members. I think this reflected the deep appreciation by people on the west coast of Tasmania of Justine, her determination, her compassion, her care for constituents right across north-west Tasmania, her attentive listening and her resolve to solve problems big and small. As everywhere in Australia, there is evident on the west coast of Tasmania a lot of cynicism towards politics and its possibilities. I think the way in which Justine went about her job on the weekend, and how she went about it while she was in this place, proved a great antidote to that cynicism. She showed very, very clearly her determination to fight for everyone in Braddon. The contrast with her opponent in the by-election could not be more stark. Brett Whiteley in this place actually stood in the way of his constituents' interests. Of course, he supported the 2014 budget of the member for Warringah and Treasurer Hockey and all of its savage cuts—cuts that impacted with particular savagery on the communities of the west coast of Tasmania and that constituted a deep attack on our social compact. This issue, and particularly his support for the GP tax, was raised often with me on the weekend. Too many people on the west coast of Tasmania are doing it tough. This was particularly and painfully apparent to me in Zeehan but also in Queenstown, despite a fantastic win by the Queenstown Crows—only 154 points!—over Somerset. I take this opportunity to congratulate them and to thank them for the warm welcome that they extended to us in their clubrooms after the game. What was made clear there, as it was everywhere I went, was that people on the west coast of Tasmania need a government on their side—a Shorten Labor government. They also need a fighter as their local representative in this place—a sincere, hardworking, passionate and effective local MP, as Justine Keay has showed she is and as she will be after 28 July. St. George District Athletic Club, St Joseph's Riverwood Sports Club, Picnic Point Public School 87 10:20 Mr COLEMAN ( 241067 Banks — ) ( ): On Saturday, 9 June I attended the St. George District Athletic Club AGM and annual awards presentation to present the Banks Outstanding Sporting Achievement Award. It's always good to go to the St George District Athletics Club AGMs. They're always very well organised and well attended, and this year was no exception. The outstanding sporting achievement awards recognise people in our community who go above and beyond—who go the extra mile in pursuit of their chosen sport. This year I was able to present the award to Kai Hammond. Kai has had a huge number of achievements during the year, including competing at the New South Wales all schools championships, Australian all schools championships and Athletics Australia national cross-country. I congratulate him very much for his achievements and sportsmanship. I'd also like to thank club president Chris Stratford, vice presidents Alan Staples, Ray Russell and Colin Wilson, Secretary David Kistle, Treasurer David Beck and everyone else who makes St. George District Athletic Club such an important part of our community. On 22 June I attended the 50th anniversary celebration for St Joseph's Riverwood Sports Club. St Joseph's Riverwood Sports Club started out as part of St Joseph's school at Riverwood, but over the years it has expanded. It now has about 300 kids involved in the club, many of whom don't actually go to St Joseph's but who are still benefitting from this fantastic club. There are more than 30 teams in the club, in cricket, netball, T-ball, touch football and oztag. It's a club has a particularly strong sense of camaraderie amongst the parents. It's a very close-knit group, and it was good to chat with the parents on the night. I would like to acknowledge the club president Robert Keeling, vice-president Dean Tandek, secretary Brett Puckeridge and treasurer Ryan Cole for their many contributions to our local community. I'd also like to acknowledge Matt Carr, who was award a Banks Volunteer of the Year award this year for his fantastic contributions to the club. On 9 June I attended the Picnic Point Public School P&C meeting. There's a very active P&C at Picnic Point Public School. One of the very important issues there at the moment is the need for a pedestrian crossing on Thomas Street. There is no pedestrian crossing there, and there should be one. There was an accident recently on that street, and that has underscored the need for a pedestrian crossing to be put in place. I look forward to action being taken on that topic. Thank you to the P&C for inviting me. I also want to thank principal Ben Walsh, P&C president Tim Hickey, vice-presidents Richard Shun-Wah and Steve Hancock, secretary Patty Tobar, treasurer Maria Musumeci and everyone involved in the P&C. National Broadband Network, Laugh Your Head Off 88 10:23 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton I want to raise two issues in this discussion. One is a very important issue for the electorate of Barton, and that's the quality and rollout of the NBN. The National Broadband Network was an initiative launched by Labor in 2007, aiming to deliver high-speed internet and to bring Australia into the 21st century. Ten years later, the coalition is delivering a second-rate NBN, and Australians are paying the price for it, particularly in the electorate of Barton. In early 2017, Labor called on the government to abandon the copper rollout where possible, and we asked them to adopt fibre to the curb. I recently met Steve Re of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association in Bexley in my electorate. Steve tells me that his business is very dependent on high speed internet. They waited some 15 months for the NBN. Out of frustration, Steve turned to a private fibre connection provided by Telstra. This means his business is spending an extra $8,000 a year on an alternative connection while he waits for the rollout in his area. Other suburbs in my electorate, such as Hurstville, Beverly Hills, Bardwell Park and Bardwell Valley, are also desperately in need of a decent NBN. They will receive the slower and older HFC technology. Between 2017 and 2018, suburbs in the electorate received an average of a five-month increase in their reported availability time. This only adds further frustration and uncertainty to residents and businesses in the electorate. I will continue to fight for fibre in Barton, because a first-rate NBN is vital for jobs, education and quality of life. I wanted to mention an initiative in Barton called Laugh your Head Off. Officeworks in Carlton is raising funds for cancer support by donating a portion of each of its sales. Officeworks will give customers the option of rounding up their purchases to the nearest dollar. This amount will be donated to the Laugh Your Head Off campaign, which is a charity that raises funds for cancer research and support. It will be raising funds for the Sydney Neuro-Oncology Group. Its founder, Martha Rice, has been battling cancer since she was a teenager. Despite her very significant hurdles, Martha has dedicated her life to raising awareness for cancer research. I'm thrilled to see that such a simple but clever initiative can help make such a difference. It is fantastic to see local businesses team up with the community and come together for this great cause. Congratulations to Martha Rice and Officeworks at Carlton. I wish them every success in this very important fundraising endeavour. Parkes Electorate 88 10:26 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes As we speak, the electorate of Parkes is in the grip of a major drought and it is impacting on pretty well all the farmers in the half of New South Wales that I represent. However, it's not all bad news in my electorate. Last year, the electorate of Parkes had the third biggest drop in unemployment rates: the electorate-wide unemployment rate now is under four per cent at about 3.8 per cent. More importantly, the city of Dubbo has an unemployment rate of 2.2 per cent, which is very close to being full employment. There are great opportunities in western New South Wales at the moment for people to come and get a good, high-paying quality job with the very strong possibility of a magnetite mine going in at Broken Hill—1,500 jobs for construction and 500 permanent jobs; the cobalt mine at Fifield down near Condobolin—another large number of jobs; and the expansion of the Vickery mine by Whitehaven at Gunnedah—another 450 jobs there. The construction of the Inland Rail will bring thousands of jobs into the area from construction but, in a more permanent way, we'll see a real growth in the economy and businesses moving there for jobs. It's a very positive place at the moment, and quite often that message doesn't get out. The Murray-Darling Medical School will mean that Sydney University will now be offering end-to-end training for students and specialisation for medical students in Dubbo. If you have skills and qualifications in any of the trades, whether it's welding, fabrication or sheet metal work, or you're a diesel fitter, mechanic, aged-care worker, health professional, educationalist or transport operator, there are great opportunities to be had in New South Wales. We are a great community at welcoming people from overseas—skilled workers. I firmly believe that migrants who come to the bush have better opportunities. They're welcomed and become part of the community much faster. I would encourage people who live in the cities to look over the range: come to a place where you can own your own home; where you're five minutes from work; where your kids can ride a bike to school; and they can play sport on the weekends—a quality of life that you can only dream about. All that could happen, and so the electorate of Parkes is, apart from the drought, in a very good place at the moment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT If there are no members present who object, I will allow member's constituency statements to continue for a further half hour. Arts 89 10:29 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler One of the marks of nationhood is artistic expression that reflects our national culture. This week a delegation came to Parliament House under the theme 'Make it Australian: our stories on screen'. This group included Judy Davis, Richard Roxburgh, Deborah Mailman, Philip Noyce, Gillian Armstrong, Andrew Knight, Ellie Beaumont, Jo Porter, Anita Jacoby and Michael Tear. What we have there is the best of Australian creativity. We need to make sure that Australian stories can be told and seen. Recently, I saw the movie adaptation of Tim Winton's novel Breath, an amazing movie that should be seen by all Australians. The stories that we see on TV, like SeaChange and Rake, tell the story about who we are and what we are as a nation. They help us look at ourselves. They help us laugh at ourselves, which is of course the Australian way. Australia has a rich artistic tradition that began way back, tens of thousands of years ago, with the great art of the First Australians. The oldest art in the world is on rocks and on bark right here in Australia. Today, that tradition continues, along with those who have made Australia their home since the 18th century. The government have a critical role in supporting the arts sector. This is important for our economy but important also for our culture. A delegation of industry figures asked us to support their industry. They want us to maintain quotas for locally made children's programs and drama. They want us to impose local content obligations on streaming services. They want us to continue to provide adequate funding for public broadcasters and screen agencies. I'm very proud that Labor have announced that we will reverse the cuts to the ABC and we'll stop the attacks that have occurred on the ABC and SBS. The fact is that culture is important, and the culture of this island continent is different from the rest of the world. The stories of the melting pot that is Australia need to be seen and need to be told, and through the arts is how we do that. I'm very proud that I represent an electorate that has a very high proportion of creative artists from across the sector—writers, actors, producers and others involved in the arts. I call upon the government to recognise the need to support that sector. Berowra Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 89 10:32 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The Order of Australia is awarded to Australians who have made a significant contribution to the lives of their community or who have made outstanding achievements in their given fields. Since it was introduced by Queen Elizabeth II in 1975, the hard work and achievements of more than 30,000 Australians have been recognised and celebrated. I'm always delighted to have the chance to reflect on the hard work, service and diverse accomplishments of Australians. Several Berowra constituents were recently inducted into the order, and today I'd like to take the opportunity to recognise their service and offer my congratulations. Dr Philip Thompson of Kenthurst was honoured for his outstanding achievements in biomedical science research, as well as for his service as a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Among his many achievements, Dr Thompson was a founding member of the Australian Cleft Lip and Palate Association, and he helped establish the Monash University medical school in Malaysia. Dr Peter Cowie of Beecroft was honoured with the Order of Australia medal for his service to the chiropractic profession. Dr Cowie has operated the Westleigh Chiropractic clinic for many years, and through his expertise and dedication he has made an important contribution to our community. I want to recognise the work of Mr Rosario Colosimo of Annangrove, who was awarded an Order of Australia medal for his many years of community service, including founding and managing the Hills District community trust and the Memento Hospitality Group. Mrs Meredith Anne McVey of Asquith was honoured for her service to the Medical Benevolent Association, supporting doctors across New South Wales. Congratulations go to Mrs Betty Stevens, who was awarded the Order of Australia medal for her extensive service to the community, including decades of service to Girl Guides Australia, Mothers' Union Australia, the Woodlands Retirement Village, the Hornsby Shire Historical Society, the National Council of Women and the Cheltenham ladies bowling club. In the military division, Chief Petty Officer Benjamin Keith Bryan was honoured for his service in our Navy. He took roles as the high-voltage authorised person in control, and as the electrical maintenance work centre manager on HMAS Adelaide, and his performance was considered outstanding. Also for service to the Navy, Warrant Officer Scott James Shipton was honoured for his dedication to training and mentoring Navy personnel. He contributed to the implementation of the revised patrol boat crewing strategies and the restructure of the mine warfare and clearance diving force. While he's not a resident of Berowra himself, I'd like to acknowledge Mr Phillip Heath, the headmaster of Barker College, who shapes the lives of many young people in my electorate. Mr Heath was recognised for his devoted service to education and, in particular, for creating greater opportunities for Indigenous students. Finally, I want to acknowledge and recognise Jeanette Farrell of Northmead, who, again, isn't a Berowra local but who worked for my predecessor Philip Ruddock and, through him, for the people of Berowra for many years. Congratulations to Jeanette, and thank you for all you've done with your hard work in serving the people of Berowra. All these people have made a significant contribution to our nation. Some are local heroes and others have had an impact globally. All of them are inspirations, and I'm very pleased that their achievements have been acknowledged in this particular way. Charles Darwin University 90 10:35 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon We all know that Mr Turnbull's coalition government doesn't care about Darwin and the Northern Territory. It was just last week, in fact, that he was shamed by the NT News, who ran a front page saying, 'Simply does not care'. For a while there, I thought it was just neglect or low priorities—we've seen no City Deal for Darwin, and there's been inaction on much-needed infrastructure for Northern Australia—but I'm starting to think, with the lack of support now for Charles Darwin University, that it goes much further than this. Let's look at CDU, Charles Darwin University. With more than 24,000 students spread across 11 campuses, CDU delivers training in more than 170 locations across the Northern Territory. CDU is one of the five top Australian universities for graduate employment and salary outcomes. Each year CDU teaches over 4,000 Indigenous students. CDU employs the equivalent of 1,500 full-time people. And the Turnbull government have cut $30 million from CDU. I'll say that again for those opposite: the Turnbull government have cut $30 million from our great Charles Darwin University. The vice-chancellor, Professor Simon Maddocks, was here in the House yesterday with his colleagues, pleading the case. He reconfirmed what a massive impact this is going to have on our young university, which hasn't got the financial depth and flexibility of some of our older, sandstone universities in the southern capitals. This funding cut will mean CDU will have fewer government-funded places to offer and will have to take fewer students, cancel some courses and travel less to reach the students in distant and remote parts of the Territory. This will have a crushing effect on our regional and remote areas. CDU is an incredibly important part of our community, and it goes beyond skills and training, important as they are. Without a viable, active university, our young people might seek to go elsewhere for their education. Whole families might leave or not even come up to the far north. So it's a real concern for us. I'm thankful that the shadow minister for education, the member for Sydney, visited CDU recently to talk with the staff and the students. We know that this side of the House will support CDU into the future. I call on the federal government to reverse the $30 million of cuts to our university. River's Gift 90 10:38 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It is my great pleasure to rise and celebrate the incredible work of River's Gift, which was founded by Alex Hamilton and Karl Waddell, the parents of River, who tragically died of sudden infant death syndrome in November 2011. Alex and Karl and their two other children live in Geelong, in my electorate of Corangamite, and they have made all of our community incredibly proud of the efforts that they have taken to promote the importance of research into SIDS and to raise money. River's Gift has now raised almost $1 million. It has evolved into a global movement, with many thousands of supporters across the world. Alex and Karl were declared world ambassadors at a recent SIDS conference in Scotland, and they are doing incredible work. One of the very important pieces of research funded by River's Gift involves the University of Adelaide, which has uncovered a developmental abnormality in babies—especially in premature babies and boys—that for the first time is directly linked to cases of sudden infant death syndrome. Researchers believe that this abnormality in the brain's control of head and neck movement, breathing, heartbeat and the body's responses to deprivation of oxygen supply could be the reason why some babies sleeping on their front are more at risk of SIDS. The research was conducted by Dr Fiona Bright and Professor Roger Byard of Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, in collaboration with the Harvard Medical School and the Boston Children's Hospital, and investigated some 55 SIDS cases in the United States. While the exact cause of death in SIDS has still not been identified, multiple studies have pointed to a subset of SIDS babies that are not entirely normal before death, and these infants have been found to have some sort of underlying vulnerability, exposing them to increased risk. This research work is incredibly important in uncovering the cause of SIDS, which takes the lives of some 100 babies every year across Australia. It is still a very deep issue in our community, and many families are suffering from the loss of a child through SIDS. I commend the incredible work of River's Gift. Alex and Karl, we salute you for your work for our community. NAIDOC Week 91 10:41 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle In just 10 days time I'll be joining my community of Newcastle and many other people around Australia to celebrate NAIDOC Week. The 2018 theme is 'Because of her, we can!' This is a fantastic opportunity to take part in celebrations of the essential roles that women have played and continue to play and to celebrate women who are active and significant role models in the community at local, state and national level. At the outset, I want to pay tribute to three women who have influenced me at the national level. The first is June Oscar, a Bunuba woman from Fitzroy Crossing who I had the honour to live and work with for many years. She is now, of course, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and is undertaking the most extensive consultation of Indigenous First Nations women in Australia for the last 30 years. I'm very excited about what her consultations will deliver for us in parliament and indeed for the entire nation. The other two women are contemporaries and colleagues of mine, but I want to put on the record my profound thanks to both the Hon. Linda Burney, who sits with us in the House of Representatives, and is the first Indigenous woman to do so, and Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. The generous spirit of both these women, their profound experience, their depth of knowledge and the expertise that they bring to our parliament cannot be overstated. The difference that these women make in the Australian parliament, day in and day out, is a great thing for our nation. I'm so fortunate in the Australian Labor Party. I get to work with both those women very closely, but they have a profound influence on the nation as a whole. It's great to pay tribute to them both. Back home, I want to give a shout-out to women like Aunty Sandra Griffin, Aunty Colleen Perry and Aunty June Rose, as well as Maree Edwards and Lillian Eastwood, who drive so much work in local government. These are all women who have led our communities as strong role models, as women have done from time immemorial. Bionics Queensland 91 10:44 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I take this opportunity to raise awareness about a local Brisbane organisation, Bionics Queensland. BQ has been established to advance research and commercial endeavours across the broad spectrum of human bionics in Queensland. The organisation promotes and advances the use of human bionics in the treatment of disease, disability and disorders for the benefit of the community. BQ is looking for intersections in diverse fields by acting as a conduit to identify synergies and to help unlock commercial opportunities. Fundamentally, Bionics Queensland will link people, science, technology and resources that have not been connected before. Without BQ's interests, these individuals may have continued working in silos. This is true innovation using an innovative approach. Through a strategy of connecting, creating, collaborating and commercialising, BQ will build the human bionics industry in Queensland to deliver beneficial outcomes for so many people: from advanced bionic ears—think cochlear implants—bionic eyes, artificial organs and implantable sensors and diagnostics. The future of human bionics will result in greater health outcomes for illnesses and ailments once considered untreatable. BQ was established by my good friend and 2018 Queensland Senior Australian of the Year, Dr Dimity Dornan AO, and is yet another example of the world-leading, high-quality work being undertaken in Queensland. There is no-one better to lead BQ than Dr Dornan, who some may also know is an international leader in paediatric hearing impairment. Dr Dornan's vision is for the human bionics interface network to become a globally recognised driver of human bionics research and start-ups—opening the door to a global pipeline of research and development, translation and commercial enterprise; fast-tracking new technologies, products and services; and enabling millions of children and adults with previously untreatable medical conditions to lead fulfilling lives. I recently met with Dr Dornan and Chris McCarthy, the chair of First Voice Australia, to further discuss the cohesion within the sector as well as the unique collaborations. First Voice is an alliance of six world-leading early childhood intervention centres across Australia and New Zealand which provide life-changing support for more than a thousand children who are deaf or hearing impaired. As champions for deaf people's rights to listen and speak, the collaboration between Hear and Say and First Voice Australia is integral in part to the human bionics movement we're currently experiencing. Dimity Dornan is a true inspiration, a leader and role model. Her work with the Hear and Say centre is invaluable, and I look forward to hearing of Bionics Queensland's many successes. Thanks must also go to Chris McCarthy and his team at First Voice. Without such organisations the world of silence would be a reality for many young Australians. Workplace Relations 92 10:47 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton This Sunday is 1 July. It marks a couple of things. I think it's Canada's national day, and it's the first day of the new financial year, but for 12,791 workers in my electorate of Moreton, it will deliver a slap in the face as their penalty rates are cut again. And this cut is even deeper than the last one. For those 12,791 workers in Moreton, it will mean they won't have as much take-home pay as they did last week. This means one in six workers in Moreton won't have the same money to pay their bills, to put food on the table and to put petrol in their tanks. What sort of heartless government allows low-paid workers to be hit with another pay cut at a time when wages growth has actually hit record lows? This is the same out-of-touch Turnbull government that today is trying to give big business an $80 billion tax cut that would include the big banks pocketing an extra $17 billion in this bizarre tax giveaway the Liberals are committed to. Governing is all about priorities and the choices you make. The Turnbull government's priorities are all about the top end of town, a sector that is actually doing well at the moment. This out-of-touch government does not understand the difficulties facing working families and young people who rely on penalty rates to help pay their bills. It is not a luxury—they pay their bills. The Liberals think it is commendable to cut penalty rates. One coalition MP even famously said it was 'a gift for our young people'. These cuts to penalty rates affect industries where the majority of workers are female, such as retail and hospitality. Women who already suffer from a gender pay gap will further be hit by cuts to penalty rates that they rely on to pay their bills. I talk to people all over my electorate, and I know how hard it currently is for low-paid workers to make ends meet. It's going to get even harder for the more than 12,000 workers in my electorate from this Sunday, 1 July. That is why the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, introduced into the parliament this week a bill that would actually protect penalty rates. Labor's bill would stop the cuts to penalty rates and ensure they can never be cut again. Labor 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. I and all of my Labor colleagues support this Labor legislation, because we support penalty rates. If the Prime Minister really cared about low-paid workers, he would bring our bill on for a vote. He would join Labor and vote to stop this cruel cut to penalty rates, but he won't. This LNP coalition government doesn't care if Australian workers get a pay cut. They only care about giving big businesses an $80 billion tax cut. They say they care—they put out information saying they care—but they actually do nothing. Caring is doing. I will always support Australian workers. I will always support penalty rates. The Labor Party will always stick up for people in low-paid work. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, NAIDOC Week 92 10:51 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Earlier this year the House heard from the Prime Minister about the important work being done by AIATSIS, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. That was one of many commendations that prompted me to visit AIATSIS here in Canberra and I visited, along with the member for Indi, a few weeks back. AIATSIS is a true national treasure, and we saw the good work that they are doing to preserve and promote the unique collections they hold of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, language and art, including audio recordings and videos of dances, song and even records of languages that are now sadly lost to us. The member for Indi and I were able to congratulate the dedicated team at AIATSIS, and we came away wanting to do more to raise awareness of the collections and the great work being done there to help the study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and culture. I'm pleased to inform members that we intend to establish a parliamentary friendship group to foster more collaboration between parliamentarians and AIATSIS, and organise for more members and senators to visit and raise awareness of the priceless collection of cultural and resource materials that they hold and care for. Through a parliamentary friendship group, we'll be able to involve representatives and stakeholders to advance this discussion around studying and celebrating these languages and cultures, because they are amongst the oldest continuing cultures on our planet—that's a fact of which Australians should be very, very proud. I'm sure we will be joined enthusiastically by the member for Dunkley, who once worked for AIATSIS, and I'm confident we'll also be joined by the member for Sturt, who was very energetic about AIATSIS in his previous portfolio when he was able to secure its future through additional funding and support. Today in the parliament there's an exhibition celebrating the work of AIATSIS. It's in the parliamentary exhibition area. I encourage all members to visit the exhibition, because it celebrates National Reconciliation Week in the lead-up to NAIDOC Week. It will be NAIDOC Week in just two short weeks. It's an event that's obviously celebrated every July, and it's a time for all Australians to come together and celebrate the First Australians and the contribution they make to our country. There will be numerous events around the country and, in Brisbane, where the traditional owners are the Turubul and Yugara people, I will be attending the opening of the International Education Services Indigenous sculpture exhibition at Spring Hill. There'll be the unveiling of the new formal sculpture completed by Lockhart River Indigenous artist Fiona Omeenyo. This will form the centrepiece of the school's campus following a very proud tradition at IES in making Indigenous art a focus of its campus environment and curriculum. Again, I encourage all members to consider signing up to the parliamentary friends of AIATSIS. Western Sydney City Deal 93 10:54 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I was very interested to learn that in March this year, with much fanfare, we had the announcement by the federal and the New South Wales Liberal governments of a Western Sydney City Deal. I've heard a bit about these city deals, and I was very interested to learn what this would end up delivering. The media release said: The City Deal is a 20 year agreement between the three levels of government to deliver a once-in-a-generation transformation of Sydney’s outer west—creating the 'Western Parkland City'. So they're giving the area a new name and they're talking about 'six priority domains', including 'Connectivity—connecting the Western City by world-class digital infrastructure'. As I read through this I learnt that part of it includes trialling 5G mobile technology. It goes on to talk about the importance of 5G and includes a statement that the New South Wales government and local governments will develop a 5G strategy for the 'Western Parkland City', which includes partnering with a carrier to deliver a trial of 5G technology. How exciting is this? But, as we learnt soon thereafter, unfortunately, Western Sydney apparently doesn't include Blacktown, according to this government and the New South Wales Liberal government. So I'm not surprised that the front page of my local paper was: 'Anger at 5G snub.' Indeed it is a snub. I quote: BLACKTOWN will be bypassed as trials of a revolutionary new wireless technology will be held in Western Sydney. Local government areas included in the Western Sydney City Deal are set to have widespread access to 5G before anyone else in Australia. But it doesn't include Blacktown. It's news to me and news to my constituents that they're not part of Blacktown. It's fine if this government again seeks to pursue an agenda of not understanding the needs of Western Sydney. That follows in the footsteps of the current Prime Minister, who, when he was communications minister and also shadow communications minister, did not understand at all the needs of Western Sydney when it came to having high-speed broadband. Just as my local paper described, and as I predicted, Blacktown has become 'an NBN town divided'. We've got the Prime Minister, who at the time, before the 2013 election, said: Speeds of fibre to the node is more than sufficient whether it's movie downloads or e-commerce. The reality is that three in four fibre-to-the-node customers cannot get access to top speeds. The bad judgement of this Prime Minister is on display in his past portfolio of communications and currently with 5G technology bypassing Blacktown. It is an absolute disgrace. Calare Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 93 10:57 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to salute the citizens of Calare named in this year's Queen's Birthday honours list. Adjunct Professor David Goldney has been named a Member of the Order of Australia for his service to tertiary education in the field of environmental science and to conservation through resource management committees. Adjunct Professor Goldney started his career as a lecturer in 1972 at what we now know as Charles Sturt University. He rose to become an associate professor and then foundation head of the Environmental Studies Unit. He went on to receive an honorary doctorate and then to be made adjunct professor. He has contributed to numerous areas of resource management, including as a scientific member for the Lower Macquarie-Castlereagh vegetation management committee. He has also been a lay preacher in the Uniting Church since 1958, has worked as an adviser and voluntary consultant with the Rahamim Ecology Centre and is the principal consulting ecologist with Cenwest Environmental Services. He is truly a worthy member in the Order of Australia. Anthony Wells of Bathurst has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to cricket. Tony started his cricked coaching and administration career in 1970. He's been a coach of the Bathurst junior cricket association since it was formed four decades ago. A life member, he also performed a range of executive and administrative roles over three decades. He's coached locally at the CMA cricket club and then at the Rugby Union Cricket Club, where he served as juniors coordinator for 20 years. Congratulations to Tony Wells. Shane Kearney of Kelso has been awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal. He has been with Fire and Rescue New South Wales for 29 years, and throughout his career he has played a critical role in building the capability of the Kelso fire brigade. He has led the brigade into the modern era of preparing and responding to fires, natural disasters, hazardous material incidents and motor vehicle accidents. He has consistently promoted brigade members to compete in firefighter championships, encouraging them to hone their skills and build teamwork and camaraderie. All of these commitments have been made on top of Shane's responsibilities to his family, so congratulations to Shane. Eva Matiszik of Robin Hill has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to the community of Bathurst. She has been a pioneer in Bathurst accommodation sector, and has been involved in the establishment of numerous businesses, including the Bathurst Explorers Motel, the Abercrombie Motor Inn and the Panorama Motel, as well Evie's boutique and Noble Hardware store. Over the decades, she has been involved in many community activities, including the P&C committees of Bathurst Public School and Bathurst High School. I'd also like to congratulate Sister Patricia Powell of Bathurst, who has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to the Catholic Church and also her community. She has an extensive history of community service. I would like to congratulate all Queen's Birthday 2018 honours recipients and thank them for their service. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. ADJOURNMENT 94 ADJOURNMENT Citizenship 94 11:00 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I've spoken before, and I need to speak again, about the shocking crisis that is the delay in citizenship applications that we're seeing. We've had private members' motions. We've had the issue raised in adjournment and grievance debates, and other statements to the House. I've lost track of how many letters we've sent to the minister, and the garbage we get back. But even I was shocked at the responses to the questions on notice that I received last week, where, finally, the government fessed up that this is now affecting hundreds of thousands of Australian residents. For three months, I didn't get answers to the questions, but they did come last week—and it is an unbelievable mess. I'd also note that I've spent time reconciling the answers received last week from Minister Tudge with those received from Minister Dutton, and this is showing all the signs now of a cover-up between the two ministers, and I'll explain why. The numbers are important. When this government came to power, it had 20,000 to 30,000 people in the citizenship queue—so, about 20,000 to 30,000 a year. In 2015-16 that went up towards 50,000. In 2016-17 it hit 106,000. The latest figures provided, as at the end of February, are that 188,848 people, permanent residents of this country, are waiting for their citizenship applications to be processed. When you pro rata that for the year, the government are on track to have, by the end of this week, 283,272 applications hanging around in the minister's black hole of a department. That's a 10-times blowout of the queue since they came to office. These are not just numbers. These are people, permanent residents, living in Australia for years, working and paying taxes. They're parents, workers and carers. They've fallen in love. They've married Australians. They've come here on skilled visas, business visas, humanitarian visas and spouse visas—you name it. They are people who want to formalise their commitment to this country. We should expect them to do so if they've been living here for that long. We should expect it and we should welcome it. The impact of the delay in human terms is appalling. Citizenship delays are one of the big four, as we call them in my electorate office: Centrelink stuff-ups, NBN stuff-ups, migration problems and citizenship problems. They are now the bread-and-butter issues in my electorate. Every week, in the foyer of my office, we have grown men crying. That is not an exaggeration. They come in in a state of hopelessness and despair— Mr Evans interjecting— Mr HILL 86256 You may laugh, Member for Brisbane, but I challenge you to come to the office and look into the eyes of the man who's been here for 10 years without the ability to go home, without the ability to see his family, without the ability to study and to complete his degree. You may think that's funny; I do not. It is disgusting. It is absolutely disgusting. How can you honestly defend a system where, in a government department, you have 288,000 pieces of paper queued up, with no end in sight? What we get told by the minister is that this is a caseload issue. Well, put some more resources on it. We get told there's an identity issue. Most of them are not complex; they're routine. Then we get told it's a security issue. They live here. They are permanent residents who live here. If they're so bloody dangerous, why don't you just chuck them out—or process their citizenship applications? Is it incompetence? It could be, when you have a look at the performance of the minister's department. It could be cruelty, with Hanson having come into the parliament. It could be disenfranchisement, a secret agenda, or part of your agenda to create a two-class society of people living in Australia but never being able to fully participate as Australians. You're happy to take their labour, you're happy to see them exploited in the workplace, you're happy to take their taxes, but you won't let them formalise their commitment to this country. Shame on you. Most vulnerable workers in Australia—indeed, all Australians who migrated here—learnt last year what you really think of them, with your racist university-level English language test. And, yes, I say 'racist' because of the little carve-out for the Anglosphere—your much beloved Anglosphere. If you come from a white country, that's okay; you don't have to sit the test. If you come from anywhere else, university-level English grammar for you. Disgusting! There's real anger by Chinese Australians in particular. They know now that the Liberal Party wants to stop Chinese people from coming to Australia or becoming Australians. You're happy to line them up at your donor functions with the election on the rise, telling them how much you love Chinese Australians. You'll take their money, but you won't let them become Australians. Well, they're warming up to you. The final thing I'd note is there's a worrying sign of a cover-up. In a 2016 Federal Court case, Minister Dutton's evidence was: 'There are 10,000 applications that require thorough analysis or further assessment.' He said the same thing in an answer to me on 9 May 2017. Yet last week Minister Tudge suddenly claimed: The department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question. What's going on? It stinks like a cover-up, and if it's not you should fix it. (Time expired) Superannuation 95 11:05 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane Earlier this week I spoke here about the personal income tax relief that's going to be received soon by more than 75,000 of my constituents and hardworking and aspiring Australians right across the country. Thousands of small to medium businesses in Brisbane are already enjoying the benefits of our business tax relief implemented last year, and this relief is giving 30,000 small and medium business owners in Brisbane the confidence that they need to employ more Australians and to deliver those opportunities and the prosperity that we want to see. That's why we saw, in 2017, a year of record jobs growth—the highest jobs growth recorded in Australia's history, with over 1,100 jobs a day, on average, delivered across Australia, the vast bulk of them full-time jobs. About half of Australia's workforce works in those small and medium enterprises, the 30,000-odd that I mentioned in Brisbane among them. The government's strong economic plan means that all of the workers in those thousands and thousands of small and medium enterprises now have more confidence, more job security, more opportunities. In Brisbane, many of these workers are ambitious young people who are juggling both study and work, aspiring to get ahead. This government wants to do everything that it can to support their aspirations, to support the opportunities that they need to realise their dreams. These aspirational young men and women are one of the reasons why I often return to talk to the important subject of savings and superannuation. Last week, I had a meeting with the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services to discuss the changes the government is making to ensure that the superannuation system works as well as it possibly can for young Australians, including all of those young aspiring men and women in Brisbane that I'm here to represent. We want to make sure that these young people can get the very best out of their superannuation investments to support them and the future lifestyle that they aspire to. Over the last almost two years since having been elected, I've been listening very closely to people in the mobile offices that I hold, week in, week out, in every suburb around Brisbane. I've been listening to many of the stories, the hopes, the dreams, the aspirations, including those of the young people in Brisbane, and that's why I'm so pleased to share some of the important news and the reforms that are coming forward in the space of superannuation. From 1 July, next week, young people who voluntarily contribute to their super fund will be able to withdraw up to $15,000 to use as part of a deposit on their first home. This First Home Super Saver Scheme is a commitment of this government, and it's intended to empower young people to secure a stable financial future. It's part of the new tranche of reforms that have been passed by our government. There are a number of policy areas where Australians, myself among them, have been disappointed by the damage done by those opposite when they had their hands on the levers of power down here in Canberra. Superannuation is, sadly, one of those areas where the policies of those opposite have caused hundreds of millions of dollars or maybe billions of dollars to be ripped out of young people's retirement funds due to a number of glaring problems with the superannuation system. So I'm really pleased that these reforms of this government are going to cap administration fees on low-balance accounts, ban exit fees for people wishing to switch funds and more proactively reunite people with lost super accounts. By making it easier for people to consolidate their super, we will help hardworking and aspiring Australians to gain even more financial confidence in their future. And we're also taking steps to protect the financial future of young Australians by removing compulsory and expensive insurance policies that young people may not wish to specifically opt into. At the end of the day, we want to support young people and protect their hard-earned savings, because it is, after all, their money in their superannuation accounts, and we want to do that by making sure that the superannuation scheme will really work for all Australians as it's intended to do. (Time expired) Centrelink 96 11:10 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat If you want an example of the glaring inequality that's occurring in this country and if you want to see some case studies showing what this government has done in regard to people trying to access social security payments, then look no further than our own electorate offices. I've been a member in this place for some 17 years, and, in that entire time, I have never seen the sorts of cases that are coming into my office in regard to accessing social security payments via Centrelink. I don't know whether Liberal MPs are experiencing this. Certainly, I have been approached by a number of people from outside of my electorate who are not represented by Labor members saying they have been told by Liberal MPs offices to go away. My office is assisting them, but we are absolutely inundated. The most common request for assistance that my office receives is from people who are waiting for their income support claims to be processed by Centrelink. On average, my office receives more than one new request for assistance every single day. Last year, the government axed nearly 1,200 jobs from Centrelink in the budget, and the number of unanswered calls to Centrelink increased from 29 million to 55 million. Because they did such a sterling job with this, in this year's budget, they've now axed a further 1,280 jobs from Centrelink. The Nationals were conducting an inquiry and trying to say, 'Let's get more government jobs into regional centres.' How about replacing the ones that you've actually axed so people can access government services? That would be a good start, National Party! Centrelink needs permanent full-time staff who are familiar with, and equipped to deal with, often complex circumstances facing income support recipients. But what this government is doing is replacing long-serving, dedicated, knowledgeable and experienced staff with labour hire staff who are being sent here, there and everywhere in attempts to patch up gaping holes in the system. And the situation for labour hire workers is that they're employed in insecure work contracts, they receive none of the workplace entitlements that are afforded to full-time workers, such as sick leave or annual leave, and they're often in the frontline, bearing the brunt of dealing with increasingly frustrated Centrelink customers. The government is forcing the casualisation of the Centrelink workforce by stealth, and they're wasting taxpayer money on contractors to do the work that should be done by permanent staff. If this isn't bad enough, a report released by Anglicare this week showed that the government's digitisation and automation of the Centrelink system is making it more difficult for Australians to access Centrelink because there hasn't been sufficient effort put in to actually transition to that support. I want to particularly focus on a couple of case studies from my own electorate. A perfect storm is developing. Processing time for the age pension has increased from a medium wait time of 36 days to 49 days, and this translates to older Australians, after working their whole lives, being made to wait for access. Over the past month, we've received a large number of calls. I know one of them, in particular, is from someone who has been waiting for well over six months. It's a similar situation with the carers payment. A woman came to my office recently, frustrated by the lack of progress with her carer's payment. She is the carer for her mother. She first applied in November 2017, but, after months of delays with Centrelink, she'd finally had enough and contacted my office. Luckily, we were able to intervene and get that processed more quickly. Young people are also experiencing significant delays with their payments to assist them with their income for university studies. I had a young woman who recently emailed my office out of desperation. She's the first in her generation to attend university from her family. She's been waiting five months for her youth allowance claim to be processed. Her income comes from a part-time job, which only covers around half of her accommodation expenses on campus, let alone food or other expenses. In May she found herself thousands of dollars in debt because of failure to pay her rent because she didn't have the money, and she was contemplating withdrawing from university to try and work full time to back pay the rent that she owed. This is an example of the real-life consequences of the decisions of this government. This government does not understand the real life of working Australians. It does not understand how tight people's budgets are. It does not understand what it's like to be on a government payment of some sort. It certainly has no interest in actually fixing this problem. It seems to want to cut Centrelink staff even further. The processing times are an absolute disgrace. Combined with that is this government's attempt to put $80 billion into the top end of town. It should be ashamed of itself. Dairy Industry 97 11:16 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay I said in my maiden speech that when it comes to agriculture, big business needs to play fair and farmers deserve to receive a fair price for their product. I also said I was concerned about the devastating impact the ongoing Coles and Woolworths milk price war is having on the dairy industry. When $1 milk started in 2011, Coles and Woolworths forced down the price with their processes. Parmalat then forced a price cut of 3c a litre on dairy farmers and Lion cut their price by 3c a litre courtesy of their contract with Coles. Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation estimates that since $1 milk started the number of dairy farms in Queensland has plummeted from 566 to 380. Milk production has fallen by 3.1 per cent between 2012 and 2017, and now around 160 megalitres of milk is imported into Queensland just to meet demand. Dollar milk forced down the price to farmers in 2011 and it has kept it down ever since. In real terms, farmers have copped a fall in price year on year, irrespective of the true market value of their milk. I don't see how $1 in 2011 can be worth the same in 2018. A litre of discounted $1 milk from 2011 should, based on inflation, now be selling for around $1.16 at least. Bottled water is more expensive than the humble litre of nutritious milk. The purpose of business is to make a profit, and if they don't they soon vanish. Coles and Woolies are out there to make a profit for their shareholders. Likewise, farming is a business and farmers are there to put food not only on our tables but also on their own tables. They can only put food on their tables if they make a profit. In Wide Bay, many of my dairy farmers are not. They are vanishing. Dollar milk is not only having a devastating impact on the viability of dairy farms; it's also impacting on the farmers' wellbeing and, very sadly, on their mental health. It must end. I've met with Woolworths to hear their side of the story and I'm yet to meet with Coles. Woolworths points to international factors, the processors, inquiries, the ACCC and court action, but they've failed to convince me that dairy farm gate pricing is beyond their influence. When will the $1 milk price war end? There must come a time when $1 milk is no longer a loss leader for Coles and Woolworths but becomes straight-out market manipulation. When will the ACCC use the powers that it has to intervene on the effect $1 milk pricing is having on the dairy milk industry? As legislators we cannot stand by and allow our dairy farmers to be used as slaves to Coles and Woolworths. Coles and Woolworths say they don't set the farm gate price; the processors do. Their $1 milk effectively puts a cap on the price retailers pay processors and processors pay farmers, and this also puts a ceiling on the price processors sell their branded milk for. If Coles and Woolworths paid the processors a fair price for milk, the processors could pay a fair price to the farmers. Coles and Woolworths would continue to be profitable and be able to supply householders with affordable groceries if they ensured farmers receive a fair price for their products. But $1 milk, sold at the same price as it was in 2011, is not sustainable. Every day the price war continues, it fires another shot into the heart of Queensland dairying. So long as Coles and Woolworths continue with their unethical $1 milk, milk processors will dance to their tune while the dairy farmers get screwed. If Woolworths charge 15c for a plastic bag, then surely they need to charge more than $1 for a litre of milk. I will do everything it takes with the tools that I have at my disposal to get a fair deal for our farmers. At the moment dairy farming in Wide Bay is at the top of the list. My local dairy farmers are feeling like Third World forced labour at the hands of the practices of Coles and Woolworths. Simply put, $1 milk is unfair. It takes large amounts of money out of the dairy supply chain. Local dairying businesses are the ones who are paying the price, and it must stop. Infrastructure 97 11:21 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair The Turnbull government has failed my home state of Queensland on infrastructure. Ninety per cent of federal infrastructure funding in the budget won't be invested in Queensland for at least four years. What this means for Queenslanders is that they have to re-elect the Turnbull government not once, but twice before most infrastructure funding flows into our home state. Good luck with that for the M1 upgrade, good luck with that for the Bruce Highway upgrade, and good luck with that for the duplication of the North Coast rail line. One important project in my electorate is the Cunningham Highway upgrade from Yamanto to Ebenezer Creek. While I'm pleased the Turnbull government has finally agreed to put $170 million on the table as part of the funding necessary to do the job, it is much too late and after much procrastination. It matches only what a Shorten Labor government has announced previously already. I congratulate the Willowbank area group for their advocacy for this project. When I saw the budget, I thought, 'Good—finally it's going to be funded.' But I had a look at the 2018-19 year. Much to my disappointment, no money was allocated for the 2018-19 year for the Cunningham Highway upgrade. In 2020-21 it is $15 million and in 2022-23 it is $40 million. We're talking about only 32.5 per cent of the whole project being funded across the forward estimates. The rest of the money is put off into the never-never, as the member for Grayndler has said in relation to much of the lack of infrastructure funding for Queensland and elsewhere. I looked at the budget papers 1 to 4. There are lines across everywhere on infrastructure funding. Apart from the second range crossing for Toowoomba, there are no funding projects currently underway in Queensland by this government. All the projects were previously funded by the former Labor government. There are no initiatives by this government, apart from the support and bipartisan commitment in relation to the second range crossing. Priority needs to be given to projects in Queensland. Certainly the Cunningham Highway project was on the priority list in the most recent Infrastructure Australia report. The business case for evaluation was lodged by the Queensland government back in 2017. Why is this project important? Well, 2,700 heavy vehicle movements per day go through the Cunningham Highway on the 4.75 kilometre stretch. Congestion costs have been estimated at $45 million per year. It's a pinch point. There is a high level of congestion during peak hours. If you go there from 6 am in the morning and from 4 pm in the afternoon you'll see the 8,500 people on the RAAF base at Amberley trying to get in and out. For the people who live in the Willowbank and Deebing Heights area in my electorate, it's a big challenge. The intersection at Willowbank is congested. We've got the winter nationals at the Willowbank Raceway, so it gets even more congested during this weekend. We need additional capacity in relation to this problem. There needs to be a new service road between Coopers Road and Yamanto. We're spending a billion dollars on the RAAF base at Amberley. It's got Army units there. But the road infrastructure adjacent to and proximate to the base hasn't been done. The Turnbull government has been in power for five years and has failed across this space. We need also this road to be upgraded as soon as possible to kick start an aerospace precinct for those aerospace companies that are currently located on the base and that need to be relocated adjacent to the base. I have been involved with this project over three Queensland governments—Labor, LNP and now Labor again—and have spoken to various representatives of those governments. This is just so typical of the Turnbull government: announce great things but underdeliver. We've seen with major road projects a 21 per cent underspend; black-spot funding, a 41 per cent underspend; the Bridges Renewal Program, a 21 per cent underspend; nationwide an underspend of $4.7 billion; and in my home state of Queensland over the last four budgets an underspend of $1.1 billion. Announcing big but delivering little; that's so much the Turnbull government. It announces great projects but doesn't put the money on the table. It expects Queenslanders to re-elect it not just this time but another time before the money starts properly flowing. I call on the Turnbull government to do much, much better for the people of Ipswich and the Somerset region. Twin Cities FM 98 11:26 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore In contributing to this debate, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Communications to the professionalism of my local community radio station, Twin Cities FM 89.7, which services the northern coastal suburbs of Perth, and make a strong case for the station to receive an equitable share of the $15 million of recurrent funding per annum which the federal government provides to the Community Broadcasting Foundation for distribution to community radio stations each year. Last year, the Community Broadcasting Foundation distributed more than $14.3 million in funding to support 226 community broadcasting organisations. I strongly make the case for Twin Cities FM 89.7 to be considered for a grant under this federal funding stream, based on its track record as a respected radio station in our community. Given the professionalism of its operations, the station should qualify for recurrent funding on its own merits. Twin Cities FM 89.7 commenced broadcasting on 16 November 2001. It was granted a permanent community broadcasting licence in 2002. The licence area takes in an audience of approximately 340,000 people, giving 89.7 FM a unique presence on the Perth radio spectrum. The station moved its operation from the city of Wanneroo depot to Edith Cowan University's Joondalup campus in May 2008—the studio is currently located on level 4 in building 18. The station broadcasts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week across the twin cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo, live streaming online and mobile content, as well as providing on-demand playback features for favourite programs. It offers free on-air promotion for community groups and not-for-profit organisations, serving the local community by providing an accurate, timely and entertaining broadcast. This includes local news, current affairs and valuable information such as bushfire and emergency warnings, which affect residents within the broadcast area. In addition, the station endeavours to broadcast music from local WA artists and unsigned and alternative Australian artists. Twin Cities FM 89.7 is a member of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. The station is run by a group of committed volunteers in the community. In particular, I make mention of the dedicated committee members, Sue Myc, Benjamin Connors, Grace Borrello, Stefan Thomas, John Logan and Matthew McKenzie. The community radio station offers opportunities for locals, media students and amateurs to gain their first experience in radio broadcasting. A larger team of administrative volunteers work in the office on marketing and sponsorship activities to keep the station functioning. The station is staffed by volunteers and is currently sponsored by the cities of Joondalup and Wanneroo, Edith Cowan University and the Joondalup and Wanneroo business associations, as well as a number of local small businesses. A recurrent source of state and federal government funding is urgently required to meet the operating costs and licensing fees required to run the station, and to maintain and upgrade broadcasting equipment on a long-term, sustainable basis. I am pleased to work with the committee members in raising awareness of the radio station with a view to securing corporate sponsorship and a share of the existing, recurrent federal government funding. Community radio stations play an important role in the diversity of the Australian media and broadcasting sector, drawing on the skills and expertise of thousands of volunteers. There are over 440 community radio stations in Australia transmitting to more than five million people each week. The size of the network makes community radio Australia's largest independent media sector. The government's investment in the community broadcasting sector allows continued development of content, training for workers, transmission infrastructure, online services and broadcasting of Australian music. Funding for community radio also ensures the production of content for Indigenous and ethnic communities. In concluding, I draw the attention of the Minister for Communications to the professionalism of my local community radio station, Twin Cities 89.7 FM, and express my strong support for an equitable share of the $15 million in annual, recurrent federal funding to be allocated to the station. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Moore and congratulate him on his support for community radio. Timor-Leste 99 11:31 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Australia bugged East Timor's cabinet rooms during the 2004 bilateral negotiations over the Timor Sea Treaty. The operation was illegal, unscrupulous and remains unresolved. The perpetrator was the Howard government, although the Rudd, Gillard and Abbott governments are co-conspirators after the fact. I can explain today that the scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse, because the Turnbull government has now moved to prosecute the intelligence officer who blew the whistle on the secret operation, along with his legal counsel, Bernard Collaery. When the ADF went into East Timor in 1999 there was great public sympathy for the people of that troubled country. But what the Australian people didn't know was that behind the scenes the Howard government was also grabbing East Timor's oil and gas—as evidenced in March 2002, when Foreign Minister Alexander Downer withdrew Australia from the maritime boundary jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea because he didn't dare let any independent umpire determine where the maritime border should be. The Howard government then had the Australian Secret Intelligence Service install listening devices in East Timor's ministerial offices to eavesdrop on East Timor's deliberations and put Australia in a vastly superior negotiating position. In effect, Downer, and by implication Australia, one of the richest countries in the world, forced East Timor, the poorest country in Asia, to sign a treaty which stopped them obtaining their fair share of the oil and gas revenues, and that's simply unconscionable. This episode was obviously appalling in itself, but what makes it even worse is that around this time the Howard government released its white paper on terrorism in which Muslim extremist terrorism was mentioned more than 50 times and Indonesia about 100 times. But, for Howard and Downer, national security was an alibi, not a goal as they diverted precious ASIS assets away from Muslim extremism in Indonesia and instead targeted Catholic East Timor in order to grab its oil and gas. Crucially, the ASIS operation occurred at the same time Islamic terrorists bombed the Australian embassy in Jakarta in September 2004. What makes this matter even more scandalous is that, some months after all of this happened, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ashton Calvert, retired and joined the board of directors of Woodside Petroleum, which was the main financial beneficiary of the ASIS operation; and Downer, who had been responsible for ASIS, worked as a lobbyist for Woodside after leaving parliament in 2008. Commendably, the head of ASIS technical operations complained about the operation to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and eventually obtained permission to speak to the ASIS-approved lawyer, Bernard Collaery, a distinguished lawyer and former ACT Attorney-General. Collaery determined, after 2½ years research, that the East Timor operation had been ordered in violation of the Intelligence Services Act and took steps to have his client give confidential evidence at the tribunal at The Hague. Importantly, by this stage, the former ASIS officer would have been making a perfectly legal disclosure in confidential proceedings, and that is what the government feared. On 3 December 2013, ASIO raided the former ASIS officer's home and the office and home of Collaery. They seized documents and data, and cancelled the former ASIS officer's passport. The head of ASIS at that time was David Irvine, who had been the head of ASIS when the bugging took place. Regrettably, that wasn't the end of it, and today I can inform the Chamber of a dramatic development: the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has filed criminal charges against Collaery and his client. This is obviously an insane development in its own right, but an insane development made all the more curious by Australia's recent commitment to a new treaty with East Timor. It seems that, with the diplomacy out of the way, it's time to bury the bodies. The bottom line is that spying on East Timor was indeed illegal and unscrupulous. Although it was the Howard government's initiative, the crime has subsequently been covered up by all governments ever since, and now this government wants to turn the former ASIS officer and his lawyer into political prisoners. But that's what happens in a pre-police state, where, instead of a royal commission, they lock up people who more likely deserve the Order of Australia. Thank you. Page Electorate 100 11:36 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Last week eight students from Maclean Public School had the opportunity to play at the Sydney Opera House. Sabrina Bowly, Hayden Fisher, Leah Jenkins, Sarah Jenkins, Ethan Fisher, Ethan Moore, Jocelyn Menzies and Caidence Purcell took part in the annual Festival of Instrumental Music after the school's bid to attend the festival was successful. Sabrina also auditioned with over 100 vocal soloists for the opportunity to sing on stage and was one of just four vocalists to be selected. Her performance on the Opera House stage was accompanied by recorders and a string ensemble that was collectively made up of the public school students who were at the festival. The audience was 1,000-strong and, in the words of Jocelyn Menzies, it wasn't bad 'for a cool Scottish town on the mid-north coast where all the telegraph poles are painted in tartan'. Thank you to teachers Elizabeth Moore and Vanessa McMahon for giving these students such a wonderful life experience. I would like to highlight a very special person who, against the odds, is winning in his chosen sports. Malachi Canning is nearly 12 years old and is in year 6 at Blue Hills College in Goonellabah. He has had plenty of hurdles to overcome. He is mentally delayed, has a hearing problem and needs to wear glasses. He takes medication, but none of these issues have stopped Malachi from achieving his goals. For the third time, he was recently awarded the New South Wales Government State Representative Award—the first time was for his performance as a para-athlete at the 2016 nationals for cross-country; the second time was for the 2016 Pacific School Games in athletics, and the final award for the Pacific Schools Games in Adelaide. Malachi's most recent achievement nearly didn't happen when he was delayed at Ballina airport on his way to the New South Wales cross-country championships. The officials were literally calling his name when he and his mum, Annette, jumped out of the taxi and raced to the marshalling area. He ended up winning gold in this event. His parents, Malcolm and Annette, and brother, Malcolm, are understandably very proud of him. Congratulations, Malachi. I recently had the honour of opening six new bridges in the community of Kyogle, and one of them has been named after respected local legend Jack Hurley, who passed away in 2007 at the age of 90. The name Jack Hurley is synonymous with the Kyogle community thanks to the trucking company the World War II veteran started with Alan Brown in 1946. For the last 72 years, Brown and Hurley has grown from a humble garage to a multimillion-dollar business with nine branches across Australia. Jack and Alan's families formed a tight-knit bond that is still evident today as the third generation has continued to run the established company. Jack was also one of the driving forces behind the Lions Road project, the upgrade of the Summerland Way and was a very strong supporter of the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Service. He was an avid golfer and his charity event, the two-day Brown and Hurley golf tournament, celebrated its 44th year in 2017. Since its inception, over four decades ago, the event has raised over $400,000, which has been returned to the North Coast through numerous charities. At his funeral, Jack was described as a man of great joy, a man who loved life and a man who loved a joke. Naming a bridge after him as a symbol of keeping the community connected seems to be an appropriate way to honour him. Five special-needs judo athletes from Casino recently competed in the Australian National Judo Championships. All five of them took home medals. Zosia Seikot-Avgoulas won gold medals in both the women's over 78 kilograms division and the open women's division. She has now claimed the title of national champion for all weight divisions in the female special-needs category. Alison Rose won a silver medal in the women's over 78 kilograms division. Nicholas Pickett took away the silver medal in the men's over 78 kilograms division. Onica Gaudry won bronze in the women's over 78 kilograms division, and Aleah Gaudry took the silver in the women's 65 kilograms division. Kitsune judo coach Melissa Seikot is extremely proud of her students, and the Kitsune Judo Club now holds all the medals in the women's over 78 kilograms division as well as having the national title holder. Melissa also praised all of the other athletes who competed, for their outstanding performances. I congratulate them all on their fantastic results and wish them all the best in the future. Eden-Monaro Electorate: Health Care 101 11:41 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro In my time as member for Eden-Monaro, a constant theme of the issues that constituents raise with me has been health and the deficiencies of health in rural and regional areas. It is the No. 1 issue in surveys that I conduct as the local member, so it was a major focus for my efforts when I was a member of government—getting the new South East Regional Hospital built and getting millions of dollars committed to a number of primary health provision services, including two wonderful superclinics, that have done a tremendous job in improving health services throughout our region. That is because I was listening to my community and to the health workforce. We have seen that the coalition has a tin ear on health matters. The Abbott government came in promising no cuts to health and education and immediately trashed the National Health Reform Agreement that we entered into with the states in 2011. My predecessor in Eden-Monaro, between 2013 and 2016, also demonstrated a tin ear on these issues. Now we have Senator Molan, who has clearly been appointed by the government to be the official white-anter against me instead of listening to the community, providing health to the community, meeting with constituents, as I do on a daily basis, or conducting health forums, as I do. There were no members of the coalition at the massive rally at the Bega civic centre last year, where there were over 400 people who were deeply concerned about the effects that were being felt in the South East Regional Hospital. There was no-one there other than me that day to listen to them and take on board their complaints. I get correspondence regularly about these issues, so it was ridiculous to hear Senator Molan get up last Monday and say that everything is sweet, everything is hunky-dory, in the health scene in our region. This is just one piece of correspondence—that I received last night—from a constituent in relation to the South East Regional Hospital. This is from Mary, who gave me full permission to read this to this chamber: Why oh why has this hospital been built when it can't afford to be staffed with experienced Surgeons Doctors and nurses. The staff that are there are really doing there best but run off their feet, a lady who had a stroke and broke her arm four days ago is still waiting for a doctor to look at it to get fixed. She is worried now that it will have to be pinned because it has been so long. For myself I am told by the Orthopaedic surgeon that he has referred me to Canberra Hospital as they don't do re- do of hip replacement in Bega. It has been nearly 2 months now and still haven't received an out patients appointment from Canberra Hospital. I had my hip replaced when I was 49years old and has lasted me 22years. As it has only just started to go I was hoping It could be replaced before it became too severe. Unfortunately I have been told it will be at least Two years in which time it will have deteriorated quite badly. I am a very fit person and look after my weight and exercise regular. You have a brand new hospital in Bega and unfortunately cannot service all the surrounding areas efficiently. Therefore we ask you to really look into more funding for this hospital. We are just a couple, but know that there are more. To get sufficient funding which is desperately needed would be greatly appreciated by all the surrounding areas. That's not one isolated piece of correspondence. It's just an example. Those are the voices that Senator Molan is not listening to, demonstrating his tin ear. These are the official statistics that I have from last month in relation to this hospital. These are from the Bureau of Health Information and show that waits for elective surgery are still among the longest in the state. The medium wait for elective surgery is 206 days. Ten per cent of patients waited 368 days for elective surgery. There are 825 patients on the elective surgery waiting list at the South East Regional Hospital, an increase from the 756 a year ago. Of the 825 patients, there are 430 for orthopaedic surgery, 214 for total knee replacement, 85 for cataract surgery and 66 for hip replacements. The median wait for orthopaedic surgery is 206 days, cataract removal is 180 days, knee replacement is 248 days and hip replacement is 246 days. That's the reality that Mr Molan doesn't appreciate, and this is why Labor has introduced its plan to refund our public hospitals and to refund the issues of elective surgery and MRIs, particularly aimed at helping the situation in the rural and regional health scene. I'm listening to this community. I delivered for them before and will deliver for them again. Mr Molan needs to start opening his ears and talk to real people, real doctors and real nurses. Parliament 102 11:46 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher As we look to wrap up for the parliamentary recess, I just wanted to take the opportunity to just reflect on the last two years. It's been almost two years since the class of 2016 was elected, and I thought this was an appropriate opportunity to look back on what we collectively and individually have achieved in those two years. I want to start by saying that there's been no greater privilege in my life than being elected the federal member for Fisher. Apart from my marriage and the birth of my children, this is the pinnacle of my professional adult life. I believe there is no greater way that we can serve our fellow Australians than by being in this place. And I think sometimes we need to take a step back and look at how very fortunate we are to be here. Every day when I drive up to this place and see that flag on the flagpole—even after two years—I have to pinch myself to realise how incredibly fortunate we are to be able to represent our home electorates in this place. There's no greater honour. My mission as the federal member for Fisher is to make Fisher the place to be for education, employment and retirement. It's a cradle-to-the-grave-type philosophy. The seat of Fisher on the Sunshine Coast is a remarkable place. We have many, many people, just a bit over 300,000 people living on the Sunshine Coast who call that place their home, and chances are they have come from somewhere else. In fact, very few people who live on the Sunshine Coast were born there, but such is its beauty that people want to live there, and why wouldn't they? As the federal member for Fisher, I see my role as an enabler to help people get to where they want to be. To me, politics is all about listening. Politics is a bit like salesmanship, actually. It's a bit like selling a house or a TV or a policy—it's the same sort of thing. Selling is not telling. Selling is all about listening to whoever your target audience is and finding out whatever it is that they want to buy—whatever is important to them. It's about listening to that and then trying to meet those demands and objectives. I think it's important that we all in this place do whatever we can. There's the old phrase 'the good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth, and we should use them in that ratio.' Over the next few weeks, as we go into the so-called parliamentary recess, I will be conducting a lot of listening posts in my electorate. The first listening post will be on Saturday at the Kawana markets. I find those are a great opportunity, where people can just rock up and tell me what they think of either the government or me personally! But it's a terrific opportunity for me to hear what's important to people. In the following week, I will be conducting similar listening posts in Alexandra Headland, Sippy Downs, Little Mountain, Palmwoods, Montville, Kawana again, Mooloolaba and Bells Creek. But it's more than just holding regular listening posts. I think it's important for us to be able to get the advice that we need. No matter how clever you might think you are, in this place no one person has all the wisdom to be able to do this job, and that's part of the reason why I've gathered a number of advisory councils. I have a seniors council, a business council, a commercial fishing council—Fisher has the largest commercial fishing fleet on the eastern seaboard of Australia; I bet you didn't know that, Mr Deputy Speaker Gee—a youth council, a tourism council and a defence industry council. All these things are vitally important, and they give me the opportunity to listen to stakeholders and listen to experts, and that helps me bring these ideas into this place and help drive policy. Child Sexual Abuse 102 11:51 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide I rise today for two main reasons, the first being to remind members and, indeed, all elected representatives and community leaders, that it is our most important task to try and protect our community—in particular, I would argue, to protect the safety of the children that live in our community. The second reason is to pay tribute to people in the community of Adelaide, which I represent, who have successfully stood up and fought for greater protections from convicted paedophiles in our area. I'm not one to beat the traditional 'law and order' drum, which I know politicians are accused of doing in the search for votes sometimes. I rise to speak on this matter because I find it absolutely unthinkable that we would subject our neighbourhoods to having to live constantly looking over their shoulders and making sure no-one is peering over their fences or looking at the local playgrounds, local childcare centres and local schools because they know that a convicted serial sex offender has been released to live in their neighbourhood. But it is just this threat which my community has faced twice in recent years. In March 2006, the South Australian Supreme Court ruled that convicted paedophile Gavin Schuster be released to live in the area of Kilburn, an area I'm so proud to represent. This was despite the fact that the court heard that he was deemed unwilling or unable to control his sexual instincts and that he had almost a lifelong history of child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court announced that he should be granted release. We found out that Kilburn was going to be his home, despite there being schools and playgrounds and despite it being a very young neighbourhood. The local community stood up and they spoke out, and I was proud to stand alongside them and call on the then state Labor government to intervene, to appeal the decision and, if required, to introduce legislation to ensure this didn't happen. There was an appeal and that appeal was successful, and Gavin Schuster remains behind bars to this day. But then, earlier this year, in March, we learned that Mr Colin Humphrys, who has a history of child sexual abuse over three decades long, would be released from prison to live in Brompton, another suburb in the electorate of Adelaide which I represent. Now, this was deeply troubling, particularly because the Supreme Court heard that Mr Humphrys posed a risk of reoffending if released into the community, and his release was opposed by both the Parole Board and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Again, we had a scared community speaking up, begging to be heard, saying that they did not want to have to live in constant paranoia and in fear for the safety of their children. I was pleased to speak up on their behalf. Along with their state representative and the leader of the state opposition, Peter Malinauskas, we wrote to the state government and said, 'Please appeal this decision, but please legislate to ensure that this doesn't happen.' In fact, the now state opposition released draft legislation themselves to say, 'We will pass laws through the parliament so that we can ensure that this doesn't happen again and that the community can be safe.' Whilst initially labelling those draft laws as a stunt, the now state government did indeed introduce legislation, and that legislation has passed the South Australian parliament. What this means is that people who have stood up and fought for the community's interests to be put first over those sick predators who have attacked children in the past have succeeded. I would like to particularly acknowledge Sean Fewster, a journalist at the Adelaide Advertiser, who has worked tirelessly to promote this cause as part of the Right To Know campaign. He himself stood up in the court and opposed the suppression order on where Mr Colin Humphrys would live. Particularly for Mr Humphrys's victim who's gone by the name 'XX' but has spoken out publicly, I can only imagine how hard it was for him to relive his trauma to speak out against the release of Mr Humphrys. That would be the case for many victims. I also acknowledge Jodi Daniels, one of my constituents, who led the campaign efforts. Also, to Peter Malinauskas, John Rau and indeed Vickie Chapman, who have passed these laws: thank you. Let's keep our children safe. Central Queensland 103 11:56 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Central Queensland, as many in this place would be surely tired of hearing, is the engine room of our nation's economy. We are home to the fundamental industries that keep our people fed and clothed and keep the lights on at night. These are the industries that not only produce jobs and wealth for our region, our state and our nation but produce commodities and goods that travel the world, providing the same to dozens of trade partners across the face of the globe. The most notable of these industries are the local giants, the coal industry and the beef industry. Rockhampton, the undisputed beef capital of Australia, has a proud history of production and of processing the bovine protein needs of a vast section of the carnivorous community of Australia. With two long-running abattoirs set on the north bank of the mighty Fitzroy River, one of the state's largest saleyards at Gracemere and six magnificent bull statues along the Bruce Highway route, Rocky locals have always been aware of just how important the grazing industry was and is to the region. Prime cattle do not get to these abattoirs or to saleyards by magic. Nor are we still in an age where animals would be walked along stock routes to market. Today's beef industry relies on trucks, especially road trains and B-doubles. It's remarkable how the needs of one sector can so closely resemble the needs of another. The coal sector is a remarkable force within the Central Queensland economy. From one little black rock, formed from organic matter under the pressure of time, we derive so much. Extracting this rock requires a great deal of heavy industry, as scores of metres of so-called overburden is displaced by some real big boys' toys. These toys don't come cheap, and thousands upon thousands of man hours are poured into each machine, many of these at Rockhampton's Hastings Deering workshop or at any number of fabricators and repairers across the city. Huge machines and their parts are delivered, new or used, even abused, to people who are skilled and trained in preparing and fixing them, and fix them they do. I may be biased, but I've seen what our workshops are capable of, and I reckon we have some of the best tradespeople in the country. We need to give them the infrastructure they need to grow and to develop. As I said, the thing that links these industries is their usage of heavy transport: road trains, B-doubles, low loaders, floats—they all need good quality roads, roads that can not only handle heavy traffic but ease congestion and improve connectivity for our industries. That's why projects like the Rockhampton ring-road are so important. This is a major project, a great example of real job-creating infrastructure. This is a chance to drive Rockhampton forward, to create jobs, to unlock potential, to give CQ a chance. It's a billion-dollar project, but I am passionate about it and I won't be deterred from fighting for the funding we require. The funds for Rookwood Weir did not just appear; they were drawn out of government by perseverance. I am backing our region to go ahead, and this is one of the projects we need to make it a reality. For the doomsayers already banging the drums, I remind them this isn't a bypass; it is a ring-road. It is a way to get so much of our heavy traffic off congested bridges. It is a way to connect our industrial areas at Parkhurst and Gracemere without driving through town. Just think of the 'big stuff' that comes out of Parkhurst, with businesses like SMW, Humes and Coxon's Radiator Service not having to trek through the middle of town just to get to the mines they are destined for. And it's a way to connect these zones with our city's greatest asset—our airport. This is a project that can work. This is a project that will work. It is a project for all of Central Queensland. It's a project we deserve, it's a project for our future and it's a project I will work to the bone to see realised. So to those back home, I say: get ready for the future. To the ministers in earshot, I say: look out, because here I come. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:01