2018-08-15 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 15 August 2018

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

MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Migration 1 09:31 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I seek leave for the Leader of the Opposition to move the following motion at 10.30 am today: That this House: (1) acknowledges the historic action of the Holt government with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy; (2) recognises that since 1973 successive Labor and Liberal-National party governments have with bipartisan support pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national and international benefit of Australia; and (3) gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never explicitly or implicitly be among them. Leave granted . DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Selection Committee 1 Presentation 1 09:32 The SPEAKER 00APG I present Report No. 28 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 20 August 2018. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Joint Committee on Publications 1 Presentation 1 09:33 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Presiding Officer's response to the report of the Joint Committee on Publications on its inquiry into printing standards for documents presented to parliament. BILLS 1 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 1

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:33 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements measures that it will make it easier for regional, rural and remote students who have to move away from home to study to get youth allowance. Youth allowance is subject to partner, personal and parental income testing. 'Independence' for youth allowance purposes means that a student's payment is not reduced by parental income testing. The bill will improve access to youth allowance for regional students who must relocate to study and responds to the Halsey review of regional, rural and remote education. The independent review identified that young people in regional Australia are half as likely to have completed a university degree as their city counterparts. The independent review's report contains 11 recommendations to improve the quality of education and training for students in regional, rural and remote Australia, including: improving the availability, affordability and accessibility of vocational education and training for regional, rural and remote students; reducing the financial burden for regional, rural and remote students who move away from home for further study and training; supporting regional, rural and remote students to make successful transitions from school to university, training and employment; and reviewing income support that is available for regional, rural and remote students who must move away from home, to ensure they are able to commence tertiary study immediately following school completion. This bill directly addresses these particular recommendations. The youth allowance regional workforce 'independence' criteria were introduced in 2011 to address lower participation rates of regional students in tertiary education. These criteria enable students from regional, rural and remote areas to qualify as 'independent' for youth allowance purposes if they support themselves through paid work. In 2016, the government announced it would reduce the period or periods of employment for regional, rural and remote students under the youth allowance regional workforce 'independence' criteria from 18 months to 14 months. This reduction responded to stakeholder concerns that the 18-month period was resulting in regional students taking two years off to work in order to earn their 'independence' status prior to attending university. Reducing the period to 14 months has meant students can satisfy the youth allowance regional workforce 'independence' criteria by taking a single gap year, rather than having to take two gap years. For example, if a student finished school in November 2016 they could commence university in February 2018, following their gap year, and receive youth allowance payments. To be assessed as 'independent' under these criteria, students must also: be required to live away from home to undertake full-time study; their combined parental income must be less than $150,000 for the appropriate tax year; and the student's family home must be categorised under the remoteness structure as inner regional Australia, outer regional Australia, remote Australia, very remote Australia or on Norfolk Island. The $150,000 parental income cut-off to access these criteria was set in 2011 and it has remained at $150,000 since its introduction. In addition, this parental income cut-off is the same regardless of family size. This doesn't reflect increasing wages or the extra costs associated with raising a larger family. This bill will increase the parental income cut-off from $150,000 to $160,000. In addition, it will introduce a $10,000 'per child' amount, which will increase the parental income cut-off for larger families. This means that for the average two-child family the parental income cut-off for the youth allowance regional workforce 'independence' criteria will be $170,000—a significant increase from $150,000. If this bill passes, these increases will commence from 1 January 2019. In addition, feedback from some students has indicated that when they finish school their parental income may be under the cut-off, but by the time they have completed their self-supporting period their parental income may have increased, thereby preventing them from qualifying as 'independent', resulting in these students feeling they have effectively wasted a gap year. This bill will provide students with the option to make the year in which the parental income is assessed the financial year preceding the beginning of the self-supporting period. With this change, students will know before they decide to take a gap year whether their parental income will be under the cut-off. As a result of all these changes, it is expected that the number of students who qualify for youth allowance under these criteria will increase by 75 per cent from 3,029 to over 5,300. I'll just repeat that: from 3,029 to over 5,300. Secondly, this bill allows for the implementation of a component of the 2018-19 budget measure acknowledging '50 Years of ABSTUDY'by making some technical amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. These amendments address minor legislative anomalies relating to the Maintenance Income Test reconciliation process and the calculation of the Maintenance Income Test Reducible Amount. Schedule 2 in this bill makes a minor amendment to strengthen the rules relating to courses approved for student payments. The amendment is technical in nature and reflects current arrangements for student payments. Courses approved for student payments are outlined in the Student Assistance (Education Institutions and Courses) Determination 2009 (No.2) (the determination) which is made under the Student Assistance Act 1973. Schedule 2 will broaden the legislative instrument making power for the determination. This will better allow student payment recipients undertaking courses that lose approval for student payments to retain access to their payment until they finish their course. The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen the minister's power under subsection 5D(1) to provide for students to continue receiving student payments if their course loses approval part-way through their study. This will provide greater certainty, as it will allow for students to continue being eligible for payment until the end of the course, unless there is a break in their payment entitlement. This ensures that students are not unfairly disadvantaged if their course loses approval for student payments. This bill will provide greater certainty to all Australians who want to undertake study, particularly those from regional and remote communities. It is important that we provide these students with the opportunities to further their education and find work. Debate adjourned. Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 3

Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Tobacco use is a leading cause of preventable and premature death and disability in Australia. Australia is a world leader in tobacco control and was the first country to introduce tobacco plain packaging. The plain packaging measure remains an important element of Australia's tobacco control measures. The government is committed to reduce the number of people taking up smoking and to assist those already smoking to quit. While progress has been made, 12.8 per cent of Australians aged 14 years or older still smoke daily, and, every year, smoking kills an estimated 19,000 Australians and costs the community $31.5 billion. Under the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, plain packaging compliance and enforcement activities are undertaken by authorised officers. Authorised officers must be persons appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999or a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police. A person is appointed as an authorised officer in writing by the secretary of the Department of Health, who must be satisfied that the person has suitable qualifications, training or experience. The bill proposes to expand the range of persons who can be appointed as authorised officers for the purposes of undertaking compliance and enforcement activities. The bill will allow the secretary to appoint as authorised officers Commonwealth officers not appointed or engaged under the Public Service Act 1999, state and territory policer officers, and state, territory and local government officers with responsibilities for health or tobacco control matters. The secretary must still be satisfied that any person appointed as an authorised officer has suitable qualifications, training or experience. The bill will enable the government to respond more flexibly to non-compliance with the tobacco plain packaging legislation. The bill will provide the Department of Health with access to a wider pool of officers eligible for appointment as authorised officers, providing greater flexibility to respond to any organisational and administrative changes which may occur in the future. This will also provide more opportunities for authorised officers to cooperate and respond to potential noncompliance. This bill does not change the plain packaging requirements and will not impact the obligations of tobacco manufacturers, distributors or retailers. Consultation was undertaken with each state and territory agency in which officers may become authorised officers in the future as a result of the amendment, and with each state and territory local government association. The bill will improve plain packaging compliance and enhance enforcement capabilities to support the government's tobacco control measures. Question agreed to. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 4 Report 4 09:45 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled, Report 180: Peru FTA; EU Framework Agreement; Timor Treaty-Maritime Boundaries; WIPO Australian Patent Office; Scientific Technical Cooperation: Italy and Brazil. Mr ROBERT HWT by leave—Today, I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 180. The report deals with seven treaty actions including the Peru free trade agreement, the Timor maritime boundaries treaty and two scientific technical cooperation agreements. The Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a cracker of an agreement, and it's a great pleasure to be able to be in here to see that ratified. It's intended to open new trade and investment opportunities for Australia. Negotiations for PAFTA were entered into in the wake of the collapse of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and in tandem with the negotiations for what we colloquially call the TPP-11—11 because the US decided to withdraw. The committee is currently also reviewing the TPP-11 and it's great to be able to conclude PAFTA now, in the wake of that. PAFTA is expected to provide better market access than TPP-11, which in itself is extraordinary. We found that many of the issues raised in this inquiry were also addressed in the TPP-11 inquiry and we have chosen to review those common issues in more detail in our report on the TPP-11, but it is a great pleasure to see this government deliver another free trade agreement with our great friends in Peru. With regard to trade agreements, the committee acknowledges the ongoing concerns caused by the continuing proliferation of these agreements with the same partners. The complexity of entering these markets—some call it the 'noodle bowl effect'—may be hindering businesses from taking full advantage of the opportunities presented, because opportunities are covered under numerous agreements. We as a committee will continue at a bipartisan level to encourage DFAT and other relevant departments and organisations to continue developing and providing practical assistance to assist Australian businesses to understand and access these markets. In that respect, some of DFAT's web-based services are excellent in helping Australian businesses work out which free trade agreement or which market access it's best for them to submit their goods and services under. The EU Framework Agreement formalises a range of existing bilateral cooperation and dialogue processes between Australia and the EU. Although this appears to be an aspirational agreement, the committee recognises the need to reaffirm commitments to high-level political dialogue, shared values and the common principles that underpin that bilateral relationship, to allow further extensive trade negotiations to build on that. The committee welcomes the finalisation of the treaty between Australia and Timor-Leste establishing our maritime boundaries. The agreement settles a permanent maritime boundary between Australia and Timor-Leste, bringing certainty after some fifty years of controversy. The committee has taken a continuing interest in the issues raised during this inquiry and notes that, despite reservations, both parties appear to be satisfied with the outcome—certainly, Australia is. The area is economically important to both countries and we urge the government to fully support the ongoing development of the transitional arrangements designed to support businesses operating in the area. The agreement with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization ensures that the Australian Patent Office remains an international authority. The committee acknowledges the important work done by IP Australia and the Australian Patent Office, for both Australian and international clients. Finally, the two agreements on scientific technical cooperation, one with Italy the other with Brazil, reinforce Australia's commitment to international cooperation in scientific and technological fields with two important partners. On that note, of course, the time is coming to an end for our ambassador from Brazil to Australia. We will be sad to see him go, but it is important and well recognised that he goes on a high with this treaty being ratified. The agreements provide formal frameworks to support strong and productive scientific and technological relationships. They also set out principles for the management of collaborative activities, including cost sharing and allocation of benefits. The committee has recommended all of the six treaty actions be ratified and binding treaty action be taken in each case. We note that the termination agreement for the previous Peru-Australia investment treaty will happen automatically when PAFTA comes into effect. The report also contains the committee's review of four non- or minor treaty actions, including a further extension to the agreement with the Netherlands for the purpose of responding to the downing of flight MH17. This agreement ensures that Australian personnel can continue to carry out their important work in that area with regard to that incident. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House. BILLS 5 BILLS Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 5

Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018

Second Reading 5 09:50 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 makes a range of technical amendments to two key pieces of federal legislation—the Legislation Act 2003 and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. It also makes some other consequential amendments to other federal acts. The main purpose of the bill is to harmonise and streamline the operation of sunsetting provisions. The sunsetting framework is designed to ensure that legislative instruments only remain in force for as long as they are needed by stipulating that they are automatically repealed 10 years after commencement. The changes to be made by this bill implement the recommendations of a committee that last year conducted a review of sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act. The committee was made up of three senior Commonwealth officials—Mr Iain Anderson, who also chaired the committee; Mr Peter Quiggin PSM; and Ms Alison Larkins. The committee made 45 recommendations in its sunsetting review report that was tabled in this House on 23 October 2017. In its report the committee noted: Sunsetting is an important mechanism for the Australian Government to implement policies to reduce red tape, deliver clearer laws and align existing legislation with current government policy. The sunsetting framework commenced in 2003. Since then 2,024 legislative instruments have appeared on sunsetting lists tabled by the Attorney-General under section 52 of the Legislation Act. Approximately 60% (1,215) of those listed instruments were either allowed to sunset (413 instruments), were actively repealed (340 instruments), or have been replaced (462 instruments). The sunsetting framework has played a key role in keeping the statute book up to date. I'd take this opportunity to note that the kind of consultation process undertaken for this bill is the kind of consultation that ensures that legislation is fit for purpose when it is introduced to this House. I note with concern that the Abbott and Turnbull governments have been willing to consult on technical legislation with almost no impact on the lives of Australians, such as this bill, but have often refused to consult on far more complex bills with potentially very significant impacts on the rights and freedoms of every Australian. The consequence of the Abbott and Turnbull governments' refusal to consult with the Australian people on many important pieces of legislation that they have introduced is that those bills are introduced in a shocking state, riddled with deeply troubling and often unintended consequences for the Australian people. Such flawed bills must then be substantially amended before they can be passed. In the case of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (Charges Imposition) Bill 2017, introduced by the Prime Minister on 7 December last year, the bill was so massively flawed that the final version that this House passed in June this year had little resemblance to the bill that the government had introduced. I do acknowledge that that particularly flawed bill was the handiwork of the former Attorney-General, former Senator Brandis, perhaps with the assistance of the Prime Minister. Fortunately, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, along with the current Attorney-General, were able to work together with Labor to hammer that bill into a form that was fit for purpose. To return to this bill, this bill complements guidelines issued by the Attorney-General's Department to improve the management of sunsetting for legislative instruments. Key measures in the bill include that it broadens the scope of the Attorney-General's power to defer sunsetting; it removes the restriction on the parliament's power to roll over the sunsetting dates of a legislative instrument; it provides a carve-out to ensure that the rules made by federal courts are not subject to the sunsetting framework; it clarifies the definition of 'sitting day' for the purposes of disallowance under the Legislation Act, consistent with current practice; and it clarifies 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 to the contrary, subject to a prohibition on any retrospective effect that adversely affects the rights or liabilities of a person other than the Commonwealth. Labor supports this bill, because the sunsetting framework helps to keep the statute books free from redundant instruments. I note that the sunsetting framework put in place by this bill does not apply to acts of parliament but only to regulations. However, this bill is primarily about improving housekeeping of statute books, rather than reducing regulation as the government has suggested. I commend this bill to the House. 09:56 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank honourable members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 improves and streamlines the operation of the legislative framework for Commonwealth acts and instruments. These amendments contribute to the government's regulatory reform agenda by ensuring that Commonwealth laws are up to date, are clear and align existing legislation with current government policy. 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 require legislative action. The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to the Legislation Act and the Acts Interpretation Act to clarify their operation and resolve inconsistencies. I thank the members for their contribution and commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 6 09:58 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 6

Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 6 09:58 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I rise to speak on the Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. I want to make it clear from the outset that Labor will be supporting this bill, because it makes a number of mostly technical changes, favourable changes, to superannuation arrangements for public servants, judges and Commonwealth parliamentarians. I want to go to the broader aspects first and then more specifically to some issues regarding the superannuation guarantee. The first part of the bill deals with taxation of judges' pensions. It allows members of the Judges' Pension Scheme to meet their division 293 tax liability requirements through a lump sum payment. Some members currently can't meet their liability, and this change rectifies that. It's consistent with other Commonwealth schemes, and we support it on that basis. Another aspect of the bill is the reversionary super benefits payable to children. This bill provides some certainty for the children of members of several Commonwealth super schemes, specifically around what happens to members' super balances should they pass away. These schemes will be standardised and modernised when it comes to reversionary super benefits paid to children of deceased members of schemes. The amendment increases the minimum age test for children to be in full-time education from 16 to 18, and it removes the requirement for an eligible child to not be employed. These changes reflect the fact that most kids don't leave formal education until they're at least 18, and that part-time and casual employment is very common. The next set of issues are around the Commonwealth Super Board. The bill reduces the board's size from 11 to nine directors and modernises the governance arrangements. We support that aspect of the bill as well. We also support the fact that the bill gives the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting and allows other actuaries, not only the Australian Government Actuary, as it is now, to provide advice to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. Again, this is consistent with other Commonwealth schemes, and we support it on that basis. The main issue I wanted to pick up on, though, is around payments under the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 and whether or not they meet the minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. The Australian Government Actuary found there were some limited circumstances where this could be an issue—all hypothetical and unlikely scenarios. Nonetheless, we support this measure to ensure that super guarantee contribution requirements are met. While supporting the cleaning-up of that part of the bill for those narrow circumstances, we have a broader issue in this country about unpaid super for workers who are not in these Commonwealth schemes that we are discussing today. For many of them, the issue of unpaid super isn't unlikely or hypothetical; it's very real—and it's unacceptable to have so much unpaid super. Unpaid super is effectively wage theft in this country, and it's a big and growing problem. Industry Super Australia estimates that 2.4 million workers are losing $5.6 billion in SG payments each year. So, for the broader Australian workforce, unpaid super is a massive problem. This bill deals with the small sliver of the workforce in Commonwealth schemes, but I would encourage the government to get serious and to get real about unpaid super for the rest of the workforce right around the country. Super is part of a worker's pay and conditions. Every worker deserves to receive the superannuation they're entitled to. It's not voluntary super. It's a superannuation guarantee, and we can't take the 'guarantee' out of super. We can't take the compulsory aspect out of the super guarantee. We have a Prime Minister and a government that engage in all these other ideological frolics about superannuation and are prepared to quickly fix some of the issues that arise in Commonwealth super, but we need them to show the same dedication to unpaid super in the broader workforce that they're showing to unpaid super in that narrow sliver of the workforce. Unfortunately, the signs are not good. We shouldn't hold our breath waiting for the government to act on unpaid super. They've actually gone in the other direction. They've proposed a 12-month amnesty for employers who haven't made compulsory super payments to their staff since 1992. So dodgy bosses who haven't paid their staff super for a quarter of a century won't be penalised at all by those opposite if they pay it during the amnesty period. What's worse is that the SG charge would be tax deductible for employers, so dodgy bosses would get a tax break for doing the wrong thing. That is absurd and it's unfair. We don't support that aspect of the bill. The government are acting on unpaid super for people in the Commonwealth scheme but, with their inaction and their policies, making the situation much worse elsewhere in the superannuation system where millions of Australian workers are missing out on the SG. The specifics of the bill that I ran through are mostly technical. They won't affect the vast majority of Australians, as I've said. We support the bill. It is narrow and focused. We support the changes that guarantee that super guarantee payments are made in these instances and we encourage the government to go further for the broader workforce. We support the bill. We don't support other changes that are being proposed, or have been proposed, by those opposite. We don't support those moves to give bosses a get-out-of-jail-free card if they haven't paid super. We don't support the recent move by those opposite to undermine super by allowing people to access their account for a house deposit. We've never supported the coalition's historical attacks on super, including opposing universal compulsory super in the first place, voting against increasing the super guarantee above three per cent, trying to abolish the low-income superannuation contribution scheme, delaying the super guarantee increase to 12 per cent and trying to weaken penalties for employers who don't pay the right amount of super, before we won that battle here in these houses of parliament. We don't support any of those things. We do support the technical and non-controversial changes which are specific to this bill. 10:05 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I would like to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018. The bill includes four key changes relating to the superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians, judges and civilian employees of the Commonwealth. The first key change concerns a measure announced in the 2012-13 budget relating to a reduction in the tax concessions on superannuation contributions of very-high-income earners, which is known as the division 293 tax. In 2013, the legislation for several Commonwealth superannuation schemes was amended to allow a person to request that they be paid a lump-sum amount from their scheme to meet their division 293 tax liability. This is done using a division 293 tax release authority. The Judges' Pensions Act 1968 was not amended, as judges are exempt from the division 293 tax for constitutional reasons. However, there are a small number of nonjudges that have been granted the same status as judges for the purpose of membership of the Judges' Pensions Scheme. These non-judge members and any future non-judge members are subject to the division 293 tax. The bill therefore includes amendments to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 that are similar to those made to the legislation for other Commonwealth superannuation schemes. The second key change included in the bill is to amend the provisions in the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme to ensure that, in all circumstances, the calculation of any lump-sum superannuation guarantee safety net benefit meets the superannuation guarantee requirements. The actuary for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme has advised that, in certain limited circumstances, the calculation would not ensure that the benefit would meet the statutory minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. Under the current provisions of the scheme, this could potentially occur where the member converts a significant proportion of their pension into a lump sum and the member has very long service—noting that the main benefits cease accruing after 18 years—and/or the member is over 65 at retirement, in which case a lower lump-sum conversion factor applies, and/or the member's superannuation salary is significantly lower than the member's salary for superannuation guarantee purposes. The bill therefore includes amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to ensure that any lump-sum superannuation guarantee safety net benefit calculated under the scheme will meet the statutory minimum superannuation guarantee requirements. The amendments do not increase any parliamentary pension entitlements for any individual members. The third key change included in the bill concerns reversionary superannuation benefits payable to, or in respect of, children. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Judges' Pensions Act 1968, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922 provide for benefits to be payable to, or in respect of, a person who is the child of a deceased member of one of the schemes established by those acts. Generally, to be eligible for a reversionary benefit, the requirement is that the child must prove that, from the age of 16 and above, they remain in formal full-time education. In addition, in some schemes where the child is aged between 16 and 25, the child must also not be ordinarily in employment. The amendments increase the minimum age that a child will have to be to meet the test of being in full-time education from age 16 to age 18 and remove the requirement for an eligible child to not be ordinarily in employment. This reflects that a majority of current children do not leave formal education until at least the age of 18 and that part-time and casual employment is common. These changes are consistent with those that have already been made to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme. The fourth key change included in the bill is in relation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board. Under the changes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board will be reduced from 11 to nine directors. The bill also includes two minor amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. The first provides the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust with the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting. However, this flexibility is subject to the trust first determining in writing that it may make decisions without a meeting and setting out the way in which trustees are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. The second allows an actuary other than only the Australian Government Actuary to provide advice in relation to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme. The bill also corrects a misdescribed amendment relating to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968. Once again, I thank members for their contribution and commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 8 10:11 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 8

Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 8 10:12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member of Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Lyons in continuation. 10:12 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Before I was interrupted yesterday, I was saying how it's a disgrace that every bit of this bill is an affront to Australian workers. The government is actively seeking to replace Australian ships with foreign ships. The government is actively seeking to replace Australian workers with foreign workers. The government is actively seeking to replace Australian wages in Australian waters with foreign wages in Australian waters. They're not even being covert about it. They're being open about it. It wouldn't be acceptable on land. Could you imagine walking into your local Woolworths or your local Coles and being confronted by a worker who has perhaps come in on a visa and they tell you, 'Oh, by the way, we're getting much lower foreign wages than the Australian who works next to us.' It wouldn't be allowed on land. It should not be allowed on water. Why does the government think it's okay to have one rule for jobs on Australian waters and another rule for jobs on Australian land? It's just incomprehensible to me. The coalition members, in speaking to this bill, have been ignoring the fact that the very real impact of this bill will be the destruction of the coastal shipping industry in Australia. We've already got zero Australian ships transporting fuel around our coast, which is a national security issue—and I'll talk to that in a moment. What the coalition members are concentrating on is their desire to see superyachts come to Queensland, because apparently part of this bill takes GST off superyachts. We all want to see the economy go forward, but what concerns me is the cringing attitude of those opposite, which is that the only way to get the economy pumping, to get business moving, is to make things so easy and so inexpensive for not just the rich but the super rich—people who can afford at least $20,000 a week to charter a superyacht—in order to get them to come Far North Queensland and spend their money. That's their idea for economic recovery across the Far North Queensland area: encourage super-rich people to come and spend their money there rather than go to Fiji, Vanuatu or wherever. So it's a race to the bottom. You see those opposite trying to encourage the super-rich to get to Queensland. What's going to happen next? Fiji will make their fees cheaper so the boats will head back there again. Then what's going to happen? Queensland will have to go even lower and lower. All this is to make it so inexpensive for really wealthy people—not just wealthy doctors and lawyers but superwealthy businesspeople—that they're just not paying their fair share. The shopkeepers, the tradespeople, the nurses, the teachers, the cleaners and the civil servants of Queensland still have to pay GST. They still have to pay their taxes and charges. They contribute to the economy as well through the things that they buy and the things that they do. They still have to pay their fair share. But those opposite think, 'Let's make sure the super-rich don't have to pay anything extra, and that will encourage them to come here.' And that is in everything they do. It's not just in this bill. It's in the tax relief that they offer to the super-rich. We've seen those opposite introduce tax relief which will see those of us standing in this chamber, who are on very good money—let's not pretend otherwise; we are paid very good money to do this job—get a tax break in the coming years of $7,000 a year, when the average person in the street will get $500 a year. That's just not right. It's not right that we pay $7,000 a year less in tax when somebody on average wages pays $500 less. In everything those opposite do, it's about making life easier for those with money and making life harder for those without. I want to come to the issue of fuel security, which is a very important issue relating to this bill. What this bill does is kill off Australian coastal shipping. You would think that as an island nation we should have a really strong maritime fleet. We should be employing and training the best sailors, engineers, naval officers, technicians, boilermakers and engine operators in the world. Instead, our coastal shipping fleet doesn't exist. We don't have Australian ships transporting fuel around our nation anymore. This is not just a concern of those on this side of the House. I'll remind those opposite that one of their own senators, Jim Molan, a former chief of operations for coalition forces in Iraq who is now a Liberal senator, said that, if Australia's current stockpiles of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel ran dry, our military is effectively grounded. We don't have, in this country, the 90 days of fuel that is required under international conventions that we have signed. We don't have those 90 days of fuel. And you know what? We can't refine it here either. We don't have the capability anymore of looking after ourselves. We don't have Australians on Australian shipping routes anymore. It's a national security issue. It's not just about jobs for Australians; it's a national security issue when you don't have crews who have gone through all the background checks. To get a job doing Australian shipping routes, you need to do all the background checks. The government needs to know who you are. What this government wants to do is allow foreign vessels, with foreign crews, to sail in Australian waters, and we don't know who the crews are. We don't know where they're from. We're talking about fuel loads or cargo loads that include some pretty dangerous stuff—LPG gas and other flammable material which can be put to all sorts of uses. Australia needs Australian-crewed, Australian vessels on Australian waters. Let's be clear what this is about. Labor's proposal from 2012 allowed temporary licences for foreign vessels that were coming in and had to stop off at one port and then quickly hop to another port. We said that it doesn't make much sense to take everybody and everything off just to do one quick hop, so we allowed a temporary licence for a foreign vessel to do the occasional stop-off. It made sense. It was a practical concession. Those opposite, under the former Howard government and now in this legislation, have allowed a massive rort, where they granted those temporary licences carte blanche. Essentially, they locked out Australian vessels and Australian crews from Australian domestic routes all around the country. During the Braddon by-election over the last few weeks, it was the third anniversary of the sacking of the crew of the Alexander Spirit, the last Australian vessel to carry fuel. These Australians were sacked because they knew that, if they sailed their vessel to Singapore, they were going to be replaced by a foreign crew who would then ply exactly the same route they used to. That's what happens under this government. It's an absolute disgrace. Jim Molan has expressed his concerns. The member for Canning, another former military officer, has expressed his concerns about fuel security in Australia and how we need better fuel security and better reserves. If this is to happen, we need it to be done by Australian crews on Australian vessels. Everything about this bill is an affront to Australia and to Australian workers. I can't believe that an Australian government would put its hand up and say they are actively seeking to get rid of Australians in Australian jobs on Australian vessels. It's a disgrace. 10:22 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I too rise to contribute to this debate on Labor's amendment to the Turnbull government's shameful Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. If Mr Turnbull gets his way, this legislation will shut down an Australian industry, slash Australian jobs, threaten our maritime environment and decimate our maritime capacity. There couldn't be a surer marker of the very stark difference between Labor and Liberal when it comes to shipping than this bill. Labor believes that Australia needs a sustainable, competitive and growing domestic shipping industry for strategic, social, economic and environmental reasons, and the coalition doesn't. It's that simple. In fact, the very purpose of the legislation before us today is to get rid of what is left of the Australian flagged shipping industry and sack Australian seafarers. In a rare act of honesty about the true policy intent, the government isn't even trying to hide it. It's written in black and white in the bill's regulation impact statement: … the current framework makes it unattractive for foreign ships to enter the coastal trading sector … These amendments … will remove the barriers that currently face many foreign flagged vessels under the current system. At least the government is saying up-front that this is about making life easier for foreign flagged vessels. Those opposite want to get rid of Australian ships employing Australian workers and surrender these critical coastal trading routes to foreign operators paying Third World wages. We have seen this before in other sectors. Car manufacturing, scientific endeavours and renewables are all strategically important industries that have been sabotaged by this backward-focused, Luddite government, intent on destroying jobs and shutting down Australian enterprise. It's hard to imagine a policy more at odds with our nation's interest than this one. As the world's largest island nation, we will always be dependent on shipping trade. In fact, 99 per cent of our international trade is served by sea. That's a massive $1.2 billion worth of imports and exports every single day. Ten per cent of the entire planet's sea trade goes through Australian ports. But this is an industry in crisis. Australia now has only 12 coastal trading vessels, down from hundreds just a few decades ago. Shamefully, 12 vessels have been reflagged to a foreign state as a result of the uncertainty and instability created by the Liberals since they have come to power. We must have a strong local maritime skills base; but without a strong maritime industry, this simply can't happen. Every time we lose an Australian vessel, we also lose Australian jobs and risk our highly trained seafarers having to leave the industry entirely. While this is a travesty for individual workers, their families and their communities, the shrinking of our national maritime capability also brings very real national safety and security implications for the entire nation. For centuries, the merchant fleet has stepped in during times of war and national crisis to support our Navy. But if we have no local ships or local seafarers, what happens then? Consider the dire reality that Australia has only three weeks worth of fuel on hand. We are entirely at the mercy of sea trade to maintain those supplies. In the case of a national or global emergency, how can we be sure that foreign flagged vessels won't have other priorities ahead of ensuring the ongoing viability of Australian fuel supplies? We also need to consider the environmental implications of losing our highly skilled maritime workforce. When Australian coastal trading routes are surrendered to foreign crews, with enormously variable range of skills and commitment to environmental protection, there is a much greater risk of disaster occurring. It's no coincidence that every one of the major maritime incidents in Australian waters in recent decades has involved a foreign flagged ship with foreign crews. Whichever way you look at it, this bill is a shameful betrayal of our proud maritime legacy and our future strategic interests. That's not to mention the budgetary implications of privileging foreign flagged ships, which have zero obligation to pay their fair share of taxes in our country. There are few places in this country where the impacts of this sort of legislation will be more keenly felt than in my electorate of Newcastle. The Port of Newcastle has a history stretching back to the early 19th century. It's a critical link in our national supply chain, which manages the movement of more than 4,600 ships every year. Regrettably, the bill before us today isn't the only damage that the Liberals are doing to our port and our community. In fact, there is currently an ACCC investigation into the scandalous deal done by the New South Wales Liberal government when it privatised the New South Wales ports of Botany and Kembla. The agreement imposed a cap on the number of containers that could leave the Port of Newcastle before onerous penalties would apply. It was a blatantly anticompetitive stitch up designed to hike the port's sale price for the New South Wales state Liberal government at the expense of any future prosperity for Newcastle and the Hunter region. They've got their foot on our neck and are completely choking our port's capacity to grow and increase productivity and enterprise. Local jobs and local maritime opportunities are under attack again. This time, however, it's from the federal Liberal government. Labor won't be a party to this travesty. We will continue to support Australian industry and Australian workers. We refuse to sign the death warrant of our nationally vital maritime industry. Labor has been long concerned about the Liberals' treatment of Australian shipping, which has ranged from callous neglect to the blatant aggression that we've seen today. When Labor came to office back in 2007, we faced a shipping industry in dire straits, with the number of Australian flagged vessels falling from 55 in 1996 to 21 ships in 2007 under the Howard government. The former Labor government undertook a comprehensive four-year review and policy development process to deliver the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Bill 2012. Through this bill, we built a standalone legislative framework that recognised the special role of vessels trading around our country's coastline. For the first time, there was certainty and a stable regulatory environment to increase competitiveness and drive investment through a licensing system which created different conditions for Australian flagged and foreign flagged vessels. The fundamental principle underlying this legislation was that Australian shipping needs and deserves a level playing field. Foreign vessels, while they were catered for, were only allowed under the condition that no Australian ships were available and that they were to be paid proper Australian wages. We also made sure oil companies pay for any and all damage their ships may cause, and we developed Australia's first national ports strategy. We replaced a mess of confusing, often conflicting, state and territory based laws and regulations with one national regulator administering and overseeing a set of modern, nationwide laws. Labor were on the right path. We created a strong regime and incentives for companies to flag their ships in Australia and employ Australian workers. But it needed time to work. Regretfully, time was something we didn't have, and the Liberals came to power not long after the bill was passed. I seek leave to continue my comments at a later time. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 11 MOTIONS Migration 11 10:32 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong by leave—I move: That this House: (1) acknowledge the historic action of the Holt Government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy; (2) recognise that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National Party Governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia; and (3) give its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them. The three points in the motion are taken, word for word just about, from a motion that Prime Minister Hawke moved in this parliament on 25 August 1988, 30 years ago next week. I have to say, in this world, you have to be pretty outrageous to be condemned by everybody in the Australian parliament—but Senator Anning has managed to do just this—because the blight of racism and discrimination is not new. But truth is always the best defence against racism. There is no historical experience and no contemporary evidence that race determines bad behaviour—none at all. As I've said, this is not a new debate. Catholic and Jewish migrants had to deal with discrimination because of their faith, as did successive waves of Italians, Greeks and eastern Europeans after the Second World War and Vietnamese migrants in the 1970s and 1980s. Newly arrived Muslim and African communities are facing it now. The First Australians know all about the harm done by prejudice. The simple truth is this: we are a stronger, better country because of all of those who've come across the seas and joined their stories to ours. I move this motion today because we need to defend the great national convention of Australian politics: race is beyond politics. I'm asking the government—and I'm pleased that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs are here—to support a motion that reaffirms the great bond of our major parties, to defend our national sense of decency and our trust in Australia. I'm sure the Prime Minister will say comparable things, because I know that he is not a racist. This statement will be stronger if it is supported by the members of the House of Representatives. We should do this together. In the corrosive and fragmented climate of public debate, it's become unfortunately common for some to seek out attention by picking on minorities—the less powerful—by attacking in the most vile terms, normally, someone who cannot defend themselves. Around the world, right-wing extremists are turning this into a political art form. They say something hateful, or homophobic, or sexist or racist, something designed to humiliate and denigrate and hurt, and when their comments are condemned they complain about political correctness gone mad or the thought police stifling their free speech, all the while basking in the media attention. I have no doubt that was the cynical intention last night, and we have seen it again in a string of media appearances by Senator Anning this morning. I understand that, in one sense, there might be a reason to simply ignore it, to starve the stupidity of oxygen, to treat it as beneath contempt. But, as leaders, as representatives of the Australian people, as servants of diverse communities in our great multicultural nation, we cannot stay silent in the face of racism. We cannot ignore the kind of prejudice and hate that the senator sought to unleash last night. Free speech is a cherished value in Australian society, but it is not an unfettered right to hurt, to bully, to intimidate, or to make some Australians feel less equal than other Australians. We have to call it out. We must condemn it. We have to speak truth. We have to stand against it, strong and united. I acknowledge that as word has gone out on this speech many members and senators already have stood up and spoken out. I acknowledge their courage. It is time for the parliament to once again draw a line and say 'no more racism, no more crossing the street, no more turning a blind eye', and no more 'if we just ignore it, it will go away'. This is not commentary in social media, it is commentary in the Parliament of Australia. It is time for every serious parliamentarian and political party to show the courage to put candidates who advocate racism last. Malcolm Fraser knew this and John Howard got there. It is time for all of us to say 'enough—no more deals with racist parties, no more preferences for racism'. When it comes to opposing racism, Labor will not hold back. We will not play a straight bat, stay silent and hope for the best. We know racism fills the silences and discrimination thrives in the darkness. The only way to stop it is to haul into the light each of these hateful falsehoods and expose them for the harmful fictions they are. Labor is proud to be a party of multicultural Australia, a party of tolerance, a party to heal the nation. We weren't always there. From the time of Whitlam, Hayden, Hawke, Keating, Evans, Beazley, Rudd and Gillard, not once has the inclination of modern Labor altered. Yes, we can establish better processes for integration and, yes, a better promotion of understanding. But let us be clear that Australia won't achieve any of what our nation's great destiny can be by pulling the racist lever. As Senator Wong put it this morning: 'a nation that is divided is never safer'. I think it is important to quote the former head of ASIO, the respected David Irvine: … the tiny number of violent extremists does not represent the Islamic communities of Australia … it is grossly unfair to blame Muslims, who see themselves as a committed component of Australia's multi-cultural society— He went on to say: Our fight is with terrorism, not with Islam or with our Muslim community. … the strongest defence against violent extremism lies within the Australian Muslim community itself. Senator Anning needs to understand this. When he undermines our national harmony and says that some Australians are better Australians than other Australians, he risks weakening our national security. Senator Anning's speech boiled down to one big lie about Australia—that every challenge we face can be blamed on our newest arrivals, that all of our problems can be solved by turning back the clock and closing ourselves off from the world. But here is the truth about Australia: we are a nation made great by immigration. We are strong because we are diverse. We are a richer, smarter, more interesting, more prosperous destination because of people who have built a new life here. Many come here with just with the clothes on their back. They're people who've worked hard; started early; stayed late; opened businesses; built communities; looked after their neighbours; raised children; served in local, state and federal politics; cared for their elders; paid taxes; worn the uniform of our country. They're people from all traditions who've added their story to our own, people from every country who have made us a better country, people of every faith who share a common belief in Australia. What Senator Anning and Senator Hanson and some of the rest pine for is the supposed good old days of White Australia. But they're not just insulting new arrivals; they're denigrating everything that all Australians have put together in the last half-century, whether their families have been here for one generation, eight generations or 2,000 generations. People who seek to lecture others about Australian values need to know that racism is not an Australian value. As for the senator's use of the term 'the final solution', it's a phrase torn from the darkest pages of human history—two words which speak for the brutalisation and murder of millions, two words that evoke fear and grief and trauma and loss in diasporic families all over the world and many others. The senator ridicules his critics by saying these words need to be seen in their context. Well, that is exactly the problem. This wasn't a piece of Twitter stupidity composed in haste. It was a first speech nine months in the making. The context of these words is prejudice; it was a speech filled with prejudice. This, like everything else, deserves nothing but condemnation. It's always been easy for candidates who style themselves as outsiders or mavericks to blame minorities, to demonise difference, to try and divide Australia by putting the blame onto one particular group or another. Truth and consistency doesn't trouble these people. They say that migrants are bludging on welfare but that they're also buying all our houses. They say they're uneducated but they're filling our universities. The list goes on. Let's be very clear about this. Let's speak truth. Traffic jams on freeways and overcrowded trains are not an argument against migration. They're proof we need to build better roads and more public transport. Low wages are not an argument against migration; they're proof we need policies to boost pay, improve bargaining and restore penalty rates. The argument that people are locked out of the housing market is not an argument against migration; it's an argument for a fairer tax system and a level playing field. Crime is not a migration problem. Violence is not a migration problem. No-one on this side of the House is minimising the challenges that real people face in their daily lives. This parliament should put forward plans and policies to help. But we do not seek to insult the intelligence of the Australian people by blaming every problem in this country on decent, hardworking, law-abiding people who are just trying to make this a better place. In recent times, the great national convention of Australia—that race should be above politics—has been breached. Now it is time for all of us who seek to represent the national interest to support this motion, to prove that the convention has not been broken and to show that Australia's major parties stand against racism and prejudice. In conclusion, there is a lot of debate about the Australian identity and what makes a good Australian. But today I want to say that what makes a good Australian is not governed by the number of generations you've been here—2,000 generations, eight generations or one. What makes a good Australian is not what god you worship, where your ancestors came from or how much money you have. It is not your skin colour, your postcode, your occupation or your gender. What makes a good Australian is what is in here in your heart. What makes a good Australian is: are you a good neighbour? Do you raise your family? Do you pay your taxes? Do you obey the law? Good Australians are not just born; they can become good Australians by choice. Good Australians are people who stand up for minorities, for the less powerful, for the fair go all around. A good Australian is not dictated by skin colour or worship; it is not dictated by what faith you adhere to. It is whether or not you adhere to our laws and raise your family well. A good Australian is the kindness you show on another's trouble and the courage you show on your own. A good Australian is someone who adheres to our values, and our values include standing up for the less powerful. Thank you very much. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms Plibersek 83M I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:45 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I condemned the racist remarks of Senator Anning last night as soon as I heard of them, and I've condemned them already today, and I condemn them again here in this House. Let me say that we live in the most successful multicultural society in the world, and our success is built on a foundation of mutual respect. We have one of the most successful immigration programs in the world. We are a migration nation. Who could claim to have a better one? And we manage it on a thoroughly non-discriminatory basis. It too is built on a foundation of strong leadership and the control of our borders so that Australians know that people who come here do so because the government has agreed to them doing so; the peoples' representatives agree to them doing so. We've managed that program in a world where there is so much disharmony and where in many places in the world people of different faiths and different races had lived side by side reasonably harmoniously for hundreds of years and now seem unable to do so. Despite all of that, here in Australia, in the midst of our diversity, we live in great harmony. So we have so much to be proud of. But we can never take it for granted. We must always stand up for our commitment to an Australia that defines itself by reference to shared political values: freedom, democracy, the rule of law, a fair go. Those are our values, and they are accessible to people of every race, of any religion or none, of any cultural background. That is how we define our nation. Just a little while ago the Leader of the Opposition and I together launched a book by Emma Campbell called The Last Post. It tells 30 of the stories of Australian service men and women who have been honoured in the Last Post ceremonies at the War Memorial, which all of us have attended from time to time. It reminds us: when you fling open all the doors in this parliament from my office—the Prime Minister's office at the back—through the cabinet room, where the great decisions of government are made, and through the Members' Hall uniting the House and the Senate, and through the Great Hall, looking across the lake, what do you see? It's the Australian War Memorial. It reminds us, in its splendid simplicity, in its serenity, that every freedom we exercise here was hard won and today is hard held by the men and women of the Australian Defence Force—over 102,000 fallen Australians honoured there. They have come from every race, from every culture and from every religion—and none—from our First Australians to the most recent migrants, all of them united in their commitment to defending our values. The Leader of the Opposition acknowledges that it was not always so. It's true: it was in 1965 that the Labor Party abandoned, removed, the White Australia policy from its charter. And in 1966 Harold Holt, Liberal Prime Minister, repealed any legislation that enabled a White Australia policy or discrimination against migrants on the basis of their race or religion. That was a great Liberal achievement. And of course in 1967 we had the great referendum, long overdue but an enormously uniting statement of commitment to equality. Ever since those days, we have always stood against racism. The days of the White Australia policy are long, long ago. Our success is founded on our commitment to a shared national identity committed to those political values which unite us all. I want to refer to the remarks that have been made about terrorism. Let me say this: the vast majority of the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims. The Islamist terrorists are, in the words of my friend President Joko Widodo, the President of Indonesia, blasphemers. He says they are not Muslims. They are denounced and abhorred by the vast majority of Muslims around the world, and particularly here in Australia. Let's be quite clear: those who seek to demonise all Muslims on the basis of the crimes of a tiny minority are helping the terrorists. Let's be very clear about this. I say this as Prime Minister, whose most solemn responsibility is to keep Australians safe. I say this very carefully, solemnly, seriously. The Islamist terrorists' argument to other Muslims is: 'Your country, Australia, is not your country. They don't want you. They hate you. You're not ever going to be really Australian. Join the war on our side.' Those who try to demonise Muslims because of the crimes of a tiny minority are only helping the terrorists. The reference in Senator Anning's speech to the final solution is a shocking insult to the memory of over six million Jews who died in the Holocaust. Here in Australia, particularly in my city of Sydney and in the honourable member opposite's city of Melbourne, we have the largest number of Holocaust survivors outside of Israel. The reference to the final solution in that speech was appalling, and we condemn that and the insult it offered to the memory of those Jewish martyrs, just as we condemn the racism—the shocking rejection of the Australian values that have made us the successful multicultural nation that we are today. The Leader of the Opposition said perhaps we should not say too much about the senator's remarks at the risk that we give 'oxygen to stupidity'—I think those were the Leader of the Opposition's words. I believe it's important always to call out racism. We need to call it out. We need to stand up for what we are: a free society; the most successful multicultural society in the world, united by democratic values that do not distinguish between race, religion, colour, cultural background; a nation that is united in its commitment to mutual respect for people of every religion, of every race, of every background. We should be so proud of our achievement. In today's world it is remarkable. It is the envy of the world. We should all here be proud of this and condemn, as we have, racism and discrimination of the kind so regrettably expressed, so shamefully expressed, by Senator Anning. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 10:54 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for leading this debate. This motion we are debating today is almost word for word the same as a motion moved nearly 30 years ago during the bicentennial year. At that time we were celebrating 200 years of migration to Australia joining 60,000 years of continuous culture here in Australia. The motion at that time, as today, was both a celebration of the great success of our multicultural nation and a repudiation of those who would seek to divide us along the lines of race, religion or ethnicity. On that occasion we were not only celebrating the success of our strong multicultural nation but also confronting the rise of anti-Asian immigration sentiment in the Australian political body and in the Australian community. Today we reflect on the words of Senator Anning in the other place. On being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 the Jewish author, philosopher, humanist and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel said: … I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. While many in this place are in two minds about whether to engage with the words of Senator Anning, I think that it is very important to call out this racism, this divisiveness, for what it is, and it's important to do it as a united chamber here today. We must not stay silent, because we are not neutral when it comes to racism. We again assert the importance of an inclusive, non-discriminatory migration policy for Australia. Australians are born in almost 200 different countries. More than 300 languages are spoken in our homes. We celebrate more than 100 religions and more than 300 different ancestries. How proud am I of that? How proud are we all of what we've built from that diversity? We are a nation of nations. What does it take to be a good Australian? Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have addressed this question. For me, there is a simple and elegant way of determining what it takes to be a good Australian, and it's in our citizenship pledge, which every new citizen takes and every citizen—Australian-born, first-generation, eighth-generation or 1000th-generation—should be able to say from their heart: From this time forward— maybe 'under God'; maybe not, depending on your personal preference— I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey. You don't have to pledge loyalty to a government, a political party, a crown, a religion or a philosophy; you have to pledge your loyalty to Australia and its people. The significance of this pledge should not be lost on us. I've said for many years that I think Australian schoolchildren should learn the pledge but also that each of us should be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that this is what it takes to be a good Australian. In 1988, the year that the House originally passed the motion, former Prime Minister Hawke said: This is not to say that Australia has no central values. The reverse is true. Our democratic institutions, our belief in the freedom of the individual, our commitment to the rule of law, our recognition of the creative worth of entrepreneurial initiative and of the beneficial role of the state in assisting those who need assistance, our shared language—all these are fixed elements of the Australian community; values which we will not diminish. I could not be prouder to have been born Australian, but I was really struck by a conversation I had many years ago with a Halal butcher. In regard to his commitment to Australia, he said: 'When you have your first child, you think, "I can never love another child as much as I love this child. I will never love another child as much as this." Then you have your second child, and you realise that love is not divided; it is multiplied.' That's how he felt about his new country. He thought, 'I could never love another country as much as my mother country, the country I was born in,' until he came to Australia, and Australia gave him safety, prosperity and a future for his children. He said, 'That's how I feel—like my love has multiplied, not divided.' I don't think any of us should take this wonderful country for granted for a moment. We have to defend in every moment the multicultural, inclusive society that we have built, each one of us, through our contribution to this nation. And I think it was particularly offensive when Senator Anning wasn't focused on just on race but also on religion in his speech, because Australians of all different religions have contributed. He focused on Muslims and made some completely unsubstantiated remarks about jobs, welfare and extremism and so on that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have addressed. But I want to say something about his use of the term 'final solution'. There are Holocaust survivors alive in Australia today. They and their children and grandchildren would be devastated to hear someone in the Australian Senate using this language. And there are people who went to Europe and the Pacific to fight fascism, who lost their lives, whose children and grandchildren, alive today, thinking about the sacrifice made by those Australians, too, in fighting fascism, would be deeply offended by the use of this terminology. I am very pleased that we now teach about the Holocaust in the Australian curriculum, because I don't think it's acceptable that someone in the Australian Senate could claim to be so ignorant of the Second World War and the terminology associated with the Shoah that he could use that language and pretend it was an accident. It's a disgrace that he should pretend that that was an accident. Six million Jews were murdered in the final solution, 1.1 million of them children, as well as thousands of homosexuals. Two hundred thousand people were killed for having a mental or a physical disability during the final solution, as well as up to half a million Roma. To use that language by accident is beyond belief. He should apologise for his comments about Muslims, and he should apologise for his comments about the final solution. Nearly one million Australians fought fascism during the Second World War. Some 27,000 were killed in action or died, and 23,000 were wounded. Almost everyone in this place would have some connection to that history, would have a relative who fought or who was interned in a camp, would have lost a father or a grandfather because of this, would have a relative who left behind everything familiar, everything they knew—their family, their language and their culture—to flee persecution. Almost everyone in our Australian community would have some connection to that disruption, and Senator Anning ought to know better. As Elie Wiesel said: … to forget the dead would be akin to killing them a second time. 11:03 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I join with the fine speeches of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and support very strongly and without hesitation the motion that's before the House. We condemn racism, whether it's within this place or outside of this place or anywhere around our country. All of us unite together to fight against the scourge of racism. We always have and we always will. I've had a number of proud moments as the immigration minister and as the home affairs minister over the course of my time in this portfolio. One of the proudest was only a couple of months ago when I met again with the Sora family in Broadmeadows in Victoria. They were an Iraqi family. There was a mum and dad and two boys and a young daughter who had been born only a few months previously. It was an emotional catch-up, because I'd issued their travel documents to them in Oman 12 months earlier, and they were among 12,000 people from Syria and from Iraq whom we facilitated to travel to our country, to call Australia home—not to be ashamed of their heritage, not to ever forget their heritage, but to celebrate their heritage and to be a part of the Australian community, I hope forever. Their stories are replicated in the hundreds of thousands over the course of our very proud history. There have been periods alluded to by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition on which neither party would look back with great pride, but there are many on which we would. And there have been many moments when both parties have stood up at a time when they've needed to stand up, and it's been to the betterment of this country and has resulted in one of the greatest countries in the world, which we are very honoured to represent in this chamber. We say that because people have come from four corners of the earth. There are good and bad people who come from every race, every religion, every country, every part of the world, and we celebrate the good in our country. We make sure that we continue to be united by the values that have stood us through war, through peacetime, in drought and in other natural disasters. Those values will always be adhered to by us and by our successors, and we owe it to those people who have gone before us to make sure that we condemn that racism, as I mentioned. Senator Anning's comments have been properly condemned, and in a number of ways they have been touched on today—particularly, in my mind, with a focus on their impact and the comments that would be deeply offensive to the Jewish community and to many people within the Islamic community within this country. It is inconceivable that reference to the 'final solution' could have any other meaning, any other intention, and it should be condemned. I was at home the other night watching late-night television before I went to bed and flicked on to Schindler's List. Watching that movie would bring a tear to any person's eye, and I couldn't tell you how many times I've seen it. The horror that people went through during that period—part of the reason we stand up for the values that we do today is that we will never see that horror revisited, and it is important that we make strong statements to that effect today. I was interviewed recently about a Chinese family in my area who had gone on, having come here originally in the 1860s, to be a part of the Australian community for a long period of time. They created significant wealth. I worked in a butcher's shop that was a tenant within a shopping centre that they owned. During the interview I was asked about racism in Brisbane towards Chinese families when I was a kid growing up in the seventies. I am a proud Queenslander, but I'll be the first here to admit that Queensland doesn't have the multicultural past of a Melbourne or of a Sydney. Nonetheless, jumping a fence to share a Chinese meal with our neighbours was never influenced or coloured by any sense of racist suggestion or belief or view within our community. It was accepted that they were, like my family, a hardworking, middle-class family. Their kids went to our school, and it influenced me, as it did many people in this chamber, who had their own experience, and it does in electorates right across our country. We celebrate all those stories—going into shopping centres today, into a 7-Eleven, where you might have somebody from a Middle Eastern background or an Indian Australian working in a shop. They are tomorrow's millionaires. These are people who are entrepreneurial, who share our values, people who are prepared to work the night shifts, prepared to work on the weekends, prepared to sacrifice, prepared to go without the luxuries that many of us would enjoy in order to provide an education for their children. That is the celebration of this great nation, and it has been for generations. We will always make sure that we protect and defend that story and that message, because it is what has served us, as I say, in good times and in bad. It is a time for all Australians to recognise that we have a special responsibility. Part of the reason, I believe, that the government had strong support for last year bringing in more migrants to this country from offshore than at any time in three decades is because of the fact that we've been able to control our borders. There are aspects that are controversial and some aspects that are bipartisan. As people on both sides of this chamber know, you need to make tough decisions in this portfolio. But the reality is, you make decisions which result in providing the confidence that the Australian people can have in us continuing a strong migration program. There are people being rescued and people going to the bottom of the ocean in the Mediterranean as we speak, and we don't want that in our country. Some of the migrants who are the strongest supporters of Operation Sovereign Borders or of our migration program in this country are those people who have migrated most recently and want to see people come in an orderly, safe way to enjoy what Australia has to offer. We wouldn't be able to bring the 12,000 Syrians—or the Sora family, who I met in Jordan—if we didn't have, in my judgement, an orderly migration program. We must continue to make sure that we say 'no' to people—regardless of their race or religion—who have come here to seek to represent values that are inconsistent with those I've just detailed. We should never apologise for that. We need to make sure that we keep our country safe. There are plenty of threats from pockets of our community, from people who would seek to distort the Islamic religion and from people who would seek to otherwise cause harm for their own twisted ideologies. They must be called out for what they are, but they don't represent the majority in any community. It's blatant. To people who say to me, 'we should stop Muslim migration', or, 'we should stop people coming into our country', I say all the time that, intellectually, it is incompatible to have a migration program where we say that every person from a particular race or religion is bad or good. As I said before, the vast majority of people who come from many communities are good people who deserve to live in our community and will make a wonderful future. Those that don't, don't belong in our country. We are very clear about that, and the government's position won't change. Today we celebrate what is great about our country. We turn it into an opportunity to talk about the success not just of the Chinese migrants growing up in my community in the seventies but also of those people who have been here for generations before that. Regardless of their path or their means to our country, people have made a wonderful contribution. We owe them a lot for what they have contributed. We work with them shoulder to shoulder to protect our values and to protect our future. Today we call out that which is wrong, that Senator Anning has detailed as his view in the Senate. We work together and we renew our efforts to make sure that this country remains as great as it has always been. I'm very pleased to join with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the deputy leader and subsequent speakers on this very important topic. 11:13 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley There are often occasions when I can't believe I'm here. There are probably instances, with the way that I carry on, where some of you on that side and even on my side probably agree with that statement—they probably rushed a bit too quickly to agree to that, but I'll put that aside! The reason why it's hard for me to believe I'm here is because my parents were a product of poverty. I visited my mum's place in rural Bosnia and the house that she grew up in, which is probably no bigger than this area. There were eight people crammed into that house, and my dad's place wasn't much different. In fact, I took my dad back to Bosnia for his 60th birthday and he showed me this beautiful bit of land. He said, 'This was ours until my dad gambled it away.' They made it here in the late sixties, and Australia opened its doors to allow us to have the chance to be here. My old man got to work on the Snowy Mountains scheme. Dad worked with his hands. Mum worked at home to make sure that we had a family that was able to take advantage of all the great things in this country. I mention this to you because like many kids of migrants I carry around a debt of gratitude to this country that we were able to achieve. I got to go to university. I could count on one hand the folks in my family from my parents' generation that got to do that and Australia gave me the chance to do that here. I now get to serve in this place. Regardless of my faith, the commitment to my community is the thing that I'm judged on, which I'm very grateful for. I've learned in this place that you can always make yourself taller by standing on the back of someone else. As much as weapons wound, so do words, but actions mean more, the way that they bind us together. There are a few improbable things in this place. One of them that's remarked on from time to time is my friendship with the member for Kooyong. The two of us are probably the biggest dags in parliament—I don't know if that's parliamentary, but we are! There we are, joined at the 'unhip'. We are from different parties, from different parts of the country and from different faiths, but actions matter more in terms of being able to find common ground. In our contributions today, we can focus on the people who are trying to divide us or focus more on the things that bring us together as a country. This is a moment that is supposed to do just that. He used to be known as the member for Wentworth, and now is remarked as the Prime Minister, but I remember him calling me on my election here to congratulate me on my election, which I've never forgotten. We all in this place can recognise moments when we've taken a little bit of a step together as a nation. The things that bring us together matter more. The things that can allow us to be a better country are things that are worth celebrating. That's why I focus on these things today, not to focus on the things that divide us, that have caused great anger and annoyance and those that have sought to drive division or fuel fear, but to recognise that this is a moment that we on both sides will be judged on—not so much in terms of my words, but the actions of a Prime Minister or of a Leader of the Opposition in bringing the country together. They remind us that we've all got an obligation to make the place a better place. I will end on this observation. People ask me whether, because of my Muslim faith, I have a problem with the Lord's Prayer at the start of parliament. No, I don't. When you hear God's words, you hear God's words. They are good words—in particular, 'and forgive us for our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us'. It's not an exhortation for the moment; it is a reminder for us to live a better life that is not mired in the negative but in something that's better, and this is the moment that we can build on. There are a lot of people in different parts of the world who want to make their country great again. We've already got a great country. We can make it better, and we can make it better by working together and not focusing on the division and not focusing—if I can make this remark—on ignoring words that are used in a debate that have in times past caused great pain to people. When you use those two words 'final solution'—and I spend time with my great friends from the Jewish community, and I know the pain that they've gone through and that they've felt—you don't want that on anyone else, and you certainly don't want to remind people of the pain that they have been through. We are going to use this as a moment to recognise the great things about our country, but call out the times when we've made those missteps and say we can do better. 11:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I say: For those who've come across the seas We've boundless plains to share. With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair It doesn't take courage to stand and talk on this particular topic; it takes empathy, it takes humanity, it is being heartfelt, it is being decent, it is being honest. To the member for Maribyrnong: a fine motion and fine words. To the Prime Minister: you too. To the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection; to the member for Sydney, the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party; and to my great mate the member for Chifley: outstanding speeches. This is an important motion. Combined, we are united to condemn those words that were expressed last night in the Senate, unfortunately, wrongly and disrespectfully. I don't even want to mention his name. We are better than that—we are. The things that unite us are greater than those that divide us, and you can see it today, right here, right now, coming together as the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, and indeed the crossbenchers. The Greens—I'll even mention the Greens. You won't hear me praising the Greens too often, but thank you, Member for Melbourne, for coming in here. I will just share with you a couple of little stories. One of the greatest things I like to do is talk to schoolkids. The other thing is to attend civic receptions—not just civic receptions but indeed civic receptions for people who are new to our country, who have contributed to our country—and, going a little bit further back, to attend citizenship ceremonies. At a citizenship ceremony in Wagga Wagga recently, a lady from South Sudan hugged me when we gave her her certificate of citizenship, and she wouldn't stop hugging me, because her partner had been in a refugee camp. I had worked hard, along with the wonderful staff at my Wagga Wagga electorate office, to get him over here, and she was getting her citizenship. I'm privileged to have been born in Australia, but she came here by choice, and we got him here through hard work and determination so that he could share a life with his beloved. The tears were rolling down her cheeks. She was so grateful that the love of her life was here, that they could be a family again. But it was also being acknowledged that she was now a citizen of our great country. The mayor finally said, 'If you two could stop greeting one another, we can get on with the ceremony!' To see the joy in her face and to know I had played a little part in that—that's what being a member of parliament is about. I have to say that one day the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection phoned me about 55 homeless Yazidi families—250 people—whom we were going to accept as part of our refugee intake, the humanitarian program that is made possible when you have good border protections and security. He asked me: 'Do you think Wagga Wagga would take these people?' In a nanosecond I said yes. I rang the mayor and said 'We are going to get 55 Yazidi families,' and he said: 'That's fantastic. That is great.' Wagga Wagga is an all-embracing regional community, like so many others. I think regional Australia sometimes gets a bad rap for not welcoming people, but let me tell you that it does. In Griffith on Australia Day they fly 100 flags to represent all the people who make up that great multicultural city, and it is a fine city. It is in essence the cradle of multiculturalism. They don't all go there just to pick fruit. They go there to serve as our GPs, our lawyers, our nurses and our white-collar professionals. They go there to pick fruit, too, and the member for Watson knows this as he has been out there and he was greeted with great applause. We were there together, standing beside one another, protecting the water rights of that community. Mr Turnbull 885 Welcomed with great applause? Mr McCORMACK 219646 Acclamation maybe, Prime Minister! But let me tell you that that is a great community, just like so many others in regional Australia, whether it is the Mallee or Wide Bay. No matter where it is in regional Australia, they are welcoming to the migrants of this multicultural nation that we've become. When those 55 Yazidi families had settled in Wagga and were contributing to our city, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection visited. This is not always the most popular place for him to stand, right where I am now—and I see him, because I sit right behind him. I know that his words on this motion were meaningful and heartfelt and welcomed by those opposite. But when he came to Wagga Wagga—let me tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker—he was a rock star. They welcomed him with open arms, because he had given them new hope, a renewal. He had, as our nation had, given these people a new start in life, and they were so appreciative. He was there with his wife, Kirilly, and Wagga Wagga welcomed them. When that story came out in the local newspaper—the one I used to edit— Ms Plibersek 83M Did you get a good run when you edited it? Mr McCORMACK 219646 I got a very good run, and so did the National Party, so did the Liberal Party and, I have to say, so did the Labor Party, Member for Sydney. They did. I was a very independent editor. I was a very bipartisan editor. When it was first announced that Yazidi families were coming to Wagga, there was only one letter to the editor which was condemnatory of that happening. Let me tell you: the people of Wagga roundly condemned that writer—rightly, because Wagga Wagga is an embracing community. I know that each and every one of the people in this chamber and, I would say, just about every person in this nation today, is as one in condemning those words spoken with hate last night. To talk about the final solution—and I know the member for Isaacs would feel this particularly—was absolutely dreadful. I've just finished watching a documentary series on it. We've all watched The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. We've all watched Schindler's List, as the minister for immigration mentioned. Those atrocities that took place in World War II were not just felt then; they are still being felt today; and they will be felt for as long as decent humans walk this earth. It was atrocious. To even utter those words anywhere, let alone in this house of democracy, is dreadful. It is evil. We are a fine nation. We are the best nation on earth. The member for Chifley said: 'We don't need to make Australia great. We're already great.' This motion today proves that. 11:27 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan I came in here with a speech prepared. I came in here ready to roll up my sleeves and to fight and to defend, as I've had to so many times over the last 30 years. And I've sat here over the last hour and I've heard the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the member for Chifley and the Deputy Prime Minister speak on this motion. I'm tired of fighting. I'm tired. I'm tired of having to stand up against hate and against vilification, time and time and time again. I wrote in the speech that I had that I was proud to be a member of the Labor Party, that today honours the tradition of Bob Hawke when, in 1988, he stood up and put a motion to this parliament confirming Australia's non-discriminatory immigration policies. I'm also proud to be a member of this parliament that is united today in its condemnation of those terrible words that were spoken in the other place yesterday. But that pride is tinged with sadness. It's tinged with sadness that we've had to do this for 30 years. I once attended a seminar put on by young migrant kids in my electorate, and they all stood up and spoke about some of the challenges in their young lives. These kids were 15, 16, right up to the age of 18. I sat there listening to them and I started crying. I'm a big sooky-la-la at the best of times; let's just put that out there—weddings, funerals, speeches in parliament, everything. They came up to me and said, 'Anne, we didn't mean to make you cry.' I said, 'No, you don't understand; your challenges today are the same challenges I had 30 years ago.' I just want to know when it's going to change for our future generations, when it's going to get better for them. But today, this morning, I see hope, I see possibilities, I see opportunity, I see leaders on both sides who are willing to stand up and I see that I don't have to fight alone anymore. Honourable members: Hear, hear! Dr ALY 13050 Thank you for that. It means a lot. It means a lot to me. It means a lot to my kids. It means a lot to my mum, who was told to stand at the back of the line every time she went to get on a bus, while she struggled with two toddlers, and to repeatedly say her pleases and thankyous before she was allowed on that bus. This today means something. It means something to Australia. It means something that all of us here stand up against this racism, stand up against this hatred and stand up against the disgraceful use of that terminology. That neo-nazi, white supremacist terminology wasn't an accident. I won't accept that that was an accident. That was the deliberate use of a heinous term which brings back so many painful memories and sets a precedent for the future of our country that we need to stand up and stop. I just want to rise here today and say thank you. I'm not going to read any of this speech that I wrote. I just want to say thank you to our leaders for showing that leadership. 11:32 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I in turn thank the member for Cowan for her very moving words just now. As the final government speaker on this motion, perhaps I could summarise what I think is the very strong mood of this parliament on both sides—that is, we condemn Senator Anning's comments last night in his maiden speech. They are not views shared by the government, the opposition or any fair-minded Australian. We will always maintain a non-discriminatory immigration program. The whole of Australia should hear those conclusions loudly and clearly today as a result of the remarks of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and others. The Prime Minister is right when he consistently says that Australia is the most successful multicultural country in the world. We've welcomed people from across the world to our shores, and in the process we've all been enriched and have largely maintained incredible social cohesion despite our diverse intake. The thing which unites us is our core values, as the Prime Minister articulated, of freedom of speech, of the fair go, of equality between men and women. The rest of Australia welcomes with absolutely open arms people who want to come to Australia to adopt those values and make a contribution, regardless of where they're from, their racial background, their religious background, their heritage or anything else. That's the only thing that matters. When I look at the data, it not only backs up what the Prime Minister and other members of this parliament have consistently said; it does so categorically. If you look at the employment data, the unemployment rate for migrants is basically the same as that for those who were born here. That's very different to the EU, where the unemployment rate of migrants is six percentage points higher. When you look at the home ownership rate, it's very similar. When you look at education rates, migrants actually do better than the home-born. Across almost every single indicator, migrants do phenomenally well in this country, in part because we control the immigration process, we encourage people to do well, and we put migrants in the centre of the community, not on the fringes—and we've got to make sure that we continue to do that. My daughters attend a girls school in Melbourne. It's a school which is made up of, by far and away, students from a range of multicultural heritages, including Indian, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Vietnamese, Singaporean et cetera. When people see a class photo from my daughter's school, they will often say 'Jeez, that school is 80 per cent multicultural.' My response is always: 'You know what? It's 100 per cent Australian.' That is absolutely the case, and all of us in this chamber know that. When those girls get together at our house, it makes no damn difference where they're from or what the colour of their skin is; they all just play together and get along. I think that has been, by and large, a trait of the entire Australian community. This doesn't mean that our overall multicultural success and our social cohesion is God-given. Of course it's not. We've got to continue to work on this. We continually refine our immigration programs to ensure that we maintain our overall success as a nation. As the members of this chamber know, we abolished the 457 visa program last year, for good reason. We want to constantly work on ensuring that we guarantee our social cohesion going forward into the future. But Senator Anning's comments didn't contribute to any progression of Australia's social cohesion or address any of the challenges which we might face. To the contrary, I think they did the reverse. Many of Senator Anning's comments were factually incorrect. He made an observation about abolishing the 457 visas. We abolished them last year. He made an observation that international students take Australian spots in universities. Well, that's just factually wrong; if anything, they subsidise Australian students. He made an observation that the family reunion program should be exclusively maintained for spouses and children of Australian citizens. Well, again, I point out that 90 per cent of the family reunion program is maintained exclusively for them. He made the observation that many people come here and go immediately onto welfare. I point out, again: that's not the case. Nobody who comes here through the skilled migration program or the family reunion program is able to go onto welfare for two years, and we have a bill in the parliament to extend that to four. Many of Senator Anning's comments were factually ignorant, but there were other comments that he made that were deeply divisive, as members of this parliament have pointed out today. Then there was his final comment which was not just deeply divisive but very, very offensive and hurtful, particularly to members of the Jewish community—that is, the use of the phrase 'the final solution'. That is a phrase which should never be used when discussing immigration or citizenship or any other such matters. It should never be used in that context. I think that if Senator Anning had an ounce of character he would apologise for using that statement. He should rightfully do that, even if, as he maintains, he did not appreciate the context. We live in a terrific nation. It is a proudly multicultural country where we welcome people from around the world. We've got to work to continue to maintain this social cohesion, and I hope that all Australians today will hear very loudly the government, led by the Prime Minister, and the opposition, led by the member for Maribyrnong, calling out divisive comment and racially based comment, and saying that we will always maintain a non-discriminatory immigration program. 11:40 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I thank the Leader of the Opposition for moving this motion and I thank all of the speakers who've supported it. On behalf of everyone who lives in Melbourne and on behalf of the Greens, I wholeheartedly endorse it. I want to tell the parliament about Sondos. I met her a little while ago, when she was 11. She goes to Carlton Primary School in my electorate. She was running in the 800 metres in the athletics carnival and, halfway through the race, someone yelled out to her: 'You're a terrorist. Go home.' They yelled that out to her because she had a hijab. She broke down and was unable to finish the race. She went home and talked to her family. One of her fellow students told me that, in their family, who are Sondos' neighbours, when someone heard a speech from a member of parliament a couple of years ago about Muslims no longer being welcome here, they said, 'Does that mean that we have to move countries now?' That, of course, had been their experience before coming to Australia. When someone from a different political grouping to you gets into parliament, then it means you are no longer safe in your home and you might have to move. When I walk down the streets of Melbourne, I never have to worry about getting stopped and searched. When I walk down the streets with my friends, I never worry about people thinking that maybe we're a gang. When I get in robust political debate, I never hear the epithet thrown at me, 'Go back to where you came from.' But these things happen to people in Melbourne and right around the country every day, and they happen because of the colour of their skin or because of their religion, and, when they happen, they hurt. When those words are uttered by someone who is in parliament, that hurt is multiplied a thousandfold. What I wish the senator who made those comments realised—and perhaps he does, which worries me even more—is that, when he makes those comments, not only does it cause people and their families to hurt, to retreat and to shrink, but it opens the door to violence. Just over a decade ago, in Melbourne, there was a young man, and I'll call him an Australian. He was South Sudanese in terms of his family's origin, but he was actually an Australian citizen. His skin was black and he was in his 20s. He was beaten to death by a white Australian, who said, during the course of the attack, that he wanted to take his town back. And I've been hearing reports in recent times, from the outer suburbs of Melbourne, of people who are now finding themselves in hospital and whose assailants have said similar things to them. They say, in essence, 'I'm beating you up because you're black.' When people in parliament stand up and use, as has been said, what can only be described as white supremacist, proto-fascist, neo-Nazi language, and they start to say, 'We want a country where the only people welcome in that country are welcome on the basis of a certain race,' we open the door to hate and we open the door to violence. And it warms my heart no end to see this parliament uniting to send the strongest possible message to everyone sitting in their lounge rooms, their schools or their workplaces who are listening to and are hurt by the comments that have been made today. The message that is being sent is very, very clear. We stand with you. We do not accept what has been said. If you are hurting as a result of what you're reading or hearing today, know that the whole parliament stands with you. We hear your hurt, and we are doing everything we possibly can to stamp it out. We are entering, I fear and I worry, a potentially dangerous period in our country. That is why this is so important. We're entering a potentially dangerous period in which white supremacists are signalling to each other from our TV screens and our parliaments and making calls that they hope that other people will hear. You only need to look at what is happening around the rest of the world to see where that ends: it ends in hurt and it ends in death. Today's action—this motion and the unanimous support that it is receiving—is, I hope, a bulwark against Australia sliding down that path. I want to make a plea to the senator but also to everyone else: please tone down the rhetoric around African gangs—please. It is going to result in people dying. It has before, and it will again. As someone who has gone to many, many events in Victoria and in Melbourne over the years that I've been here, one of the things that I enjoyed the most and that warmed my heart the most was going to the events where, at the time, the state Liberal minister from the Liberal government would get up at the events and say, 'One of the good things about Victoria is that you'll never find people who will use race to try to win votes. We have differences of opinions about other things, but you won't find us using that.' I hope we can maintain that not just in Victoria but right around the country. If this unique moment in parliament gives us the opportunity to stop and reflect, I hope we can reflect on the things that we say over the coming months in the course of our political contests. I also want to, lastly, just say that we've been trading barbs about a number of things over recent weeks, but I listened very closely to what the member for Kooyong said this morning when he was asked about the senator's speech yesterday. He said a number of very, very good and important things. One of them is especially worth reflecting on. When asked about the use of the awful phrase 'the final solution', the member for Kooyong invited the senator to go to the Holocaust museum and perhaps have a discussion with people there. Amongst all the other things that the senator should do and that everyone should do, I think that's something that the senator should do and something that everyone should do. When you have spoken with someone who has survived the Holocaust, you know that the only way that this will never happen again is if every single one of us is vigilant in everything we say and everything we do and we stamp it out at the first sign of it happening. If they've done that, there is no way that words like that could fall from someone's lips. We are in a dangerous situation because, as we get to the point where the last of the survivors leave us, it opens up the space. Unless those of us in this parliament and everyone else continue to do the remembering, it opens up the space for people like that to be able to use those words and it not have the same kind of firm response, which is why I am so pleased with what this parliament is doing today. Lastly, I'd like to end by doing something that's often done at the beginning, which is to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land. To say that this galls me is an understatement: how can someone be so wilfully blind to this country's history as to talk about Australia being a white-only country when we have a black history? If the senator wants to talk about saying, 'Well, go back to where you came from,' he's probably included in that category as well, as is every one of us who's not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Many of them must be looking at the things that he is saying with the same kind of revulsion. I know that there's a lot of work going on between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and members of the African communities in my electorate and in Melbourne more broadly at the moment. But I think it's appropriate to acknowledge the traditional owners of this country and pay respects to them. 11:50 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison Picking up on the theme at the end of the member for Melbourne's speech, we did all come from somewhere else. In fact, even the very first Australians came from somewhere else, maybe 65,000 years ago when they made their way to the place we now call Australia. More recently, in 1788, the First Fleet—11 little, tiny boats—sailed into Port Jackson with over 1,000 people on board, including my great, great, great, great grandfather, was, to that point in time, the largest mass migration in world history. And, of course, since then there have been waves of all sorts of people—the Chinese in the gold diggings; many Europeans, including southern Europeans, central Europeans and others, in the postwar era; and, after the terrible wars in Indochina, the Vietnamese and the Cambodians. More recently, waves of people have made their way to our shores from South Asia and the Middle East. The result is that we are indeed one of the world's most remarkable and successful multicultural countries. I would challenge anyone to identify any other country in the world that has been so successful as a multicultural nation. The result is what I'd describe as being not unlike a mosaic. When you see a mosaic on a wall when you're out and about—and it's a beautiful mosaic with countless colours and hundreds of tiles—it forms a beautiful picture. But, as you walk towards the mosaic, you see that it's actually made up of many individual tiles, each of their own colour. That's how I would characterise multiculturalism in this country. It's not just a big melting pot where everyone's thrown in the pot and someone stirs it up and we get a grey mush. Instead, it's actually a beautiful mosaic, where we celebrate all of the people who have come to our shores and allow them to be what they are and to reflect on where they came from. When you look at all those little tiles in the mosaic and you see all of the different races and all of the different religions and all of the different cultures, I think it's self-evident that not one of those races or ethnic groups or cultures or mainstream religions is inherently bad. They are all inherently good. Whether it be people from Africa, from Europe, from North America, from South America or from New Zealand—from all over the world—they are all inherently good and all of the religions they practice are inherently good, whether it be the forms of Christianity, forms of Islam or anything else. The problem arises when a very small number of those people act in an extreme way. That's the problem. It's extremism. In fact, when I reflect on my life and the terrible conflicts around the world that I've paid particular attention to, I think of Northern Ireland—Christians killing Christians. When I think of the second worst terrorist attack in US history, I think of Timothy McVeigh, the white supremacist Christian who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995. No one race and no one religion has a monopoly on violence. It goes on all over the place from all sorts of people practising all sorts of faith. The problem is extremism. I don't know if Senator Fraser Anning understands the irony that he's the one standing in the other place acting like an extremist. He's the extremist—not the people he criticises, not the people he wants to keep out of this country. He's the extremist. He's the dangerous one. To pick up on the points made by the member for Melbourne so eloquently, comments like that from someone in a position like that will get people killed. They will inflame hatred in the community, when that hatred is unwarranted. I think it is unforgivable when members of the federal parliament, who first and foremost should be leaders who unite our country, so deliberately tap into the fault lines in our society for their own political gain. If that senator wants to act like that to get himself re-elected next year, then that's unconscionable behaviour. It's unconscionable behaviour that will get people killed, and he is being a really good example of what he criticises: a downright extremist. He should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I thank the House. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 23 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 23 Reporting Date 23 11:57 The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed by the Senate: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into PFAS contamination be extended to 25 October 2018. BILLS 23 BILLS Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2018 23

Family Law Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2018

First Reading 23 Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 23

Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 23 11:58 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I can't let this moment go by without wanting to associate myself with all of the speeches and comments made before the Australian parliament today. I think a moment that unites this parliament against intolerance and division is always worth noting, and I'm so very proud of our parliament today. I will continue my earlier comments with regard to the bill before the House today, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. I go back to some prior history, prior to this bill, back in 2015, when the Abbott government launched the first volley in its war on Australia's maritime sector through its thoroughly odious Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. That bill, which those of us on this side of the House remember being more aptly titled the 'WorkChoices on water' bill, scrapped the preference for all Australian flagged and crewed vessels and granted access to vessels of any nationality to work the Australian coastlines for a 12-month period. It also significantly prolonged for foreign vessels the exemption period from domestic wage standards. If this first bill had passed the parliament, 93 per cent of Australian seafarers would have been replaced with cheap foreign labour. Thankfully that wasn't the case. The government's own modelling revealed that more than a thousand seafarers would have been put out of work under what was then the government's preferred model. Moreover, the regulation impact statement showed that 88 per cent of the savings touted by the government were the direct result of bringing in cheap foreign labour rather than highly skilled Australian seafarers on proper wages. This bill would effectively be the death knell for Australia's maritime industry. That's why those of us on this side of the House have been so strident in our criticisms of the bill before us. Thankfully that 'WorkChoices on water' bill was refused. The Senate threw its weight behind the Australian shippers and the Australian workers, who were unified in their rejection of that legislation. Regrettably this bill before the House today is of exactly the same intent. It has the same endgame: the decimation of Australian industry and Australian jobs. If passed, this will undermine the integrity of the entire coastal shipping regime in Australia and make it all but impossible for Australian flagged vessels to compete with their foreign flagged counterparts. With my limited time available I will reflect on some of the critical, significant issues that Labor has with this bill today. One relates to the so-called tolerance limits. These define the acceptable range of loading days and acceptable variations in cargo or passenger volumes that apply. The second issue for Labor is the proposal to change variation processes for temporary licences. At the moment there are two ways to get a variation for a temporary licence. The first is for an authorised matter, such as a change to loading date or volume of a planned voyage, and the second is for a new matter, which authorises a completely new voyage. The bill before us today replaces both of these with just one single variation. The government tries to argue that this is merely streamlining the system, but the real impact of this change would in fact slash the time available for an Australian general licence-holder to apply, making it very difficult for operators to compete for work. This bill, like the previous bills from this government, is a full-frontal assault on the Australian shipping industry. We must oppose such bills. Those of us on this side of the House do so. I urge the government to reconsider its reckless behaviour. 12:04 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 is the Turnbull government's second attempt to wind back federal Labor's 2012 coastal trading reforms. Those reforms were introduced after a time, under the Howard government, when coastal shipping had basically been destroyed in this country. The number of ships and companies that were operating on the Australian coastline, carrying goods and providing jobs for workers, had been smashed by the Howard government. Who could ever forget, unfortunately, that this year is the 20th anniversary of the Maritime Union strike on the wharves, where the Howard government acted illegally? The Howard government broke the law in Australia—as determined by the High Court in a 6-1 judgement—when they illegally locked out a complete workforce and conspired with a large Australian corporation, Patrick Stevedores, to bring the military onto the docks and take those workers' jobs. We all remember the footage of the dogs, the alsatians, and the locked gates and the military-style operation that was undertaken. That was all illegal. The Howard government broke the law regarding the Australian workforce on the docks in the 1990s. And that's been their approach to coastal shipping and to this issue since then. The Liberals don't believe in protecting Australian workers' jobs in the maritime industry. They want to allow what they call flag-of-convenience ships—operators from countries that don't have the same safety standards as Australia does and that don't have the same wages and conditions for workers as Australia does—to operate on the Australian coastline and take Australian workers' jobs. This mob specialise in ruining Australian workers' lifestyles and jobs, and that's what they want to do with the passage of this particular bill here in this place. They call it the 'revitalising Australian shipping' amendment—wonderful Orwellian language for the title of a bill, because it does the exact opposite. It will actually destroy Australia's shipping industry and destroy those hard-fought-for jobs that provide decent incomes for people working under what are generally dangerous conditions. According to the explanatory memorandum, the bill's aims are to simplify coastal trading regulation, reduce the administrative impost associated with the current regime, expand the coverage of the Coastal Trading Act and provide clarity on a number of minor technical matters. Compared with the extensive consultation process that was undertaken prior to the introduction of the reforms Labor introduced in 2012, the consultation associated with the preparation of this bill has been, basically, non-existent. That is why it is opposed by everyone who works in this industry. Of course, the bill will only accelerate the industry's decline, eventually consigning Australia's status as a once-proud maritime nation to the history pages. It is a shocking result, but, coming from this government, it's something that we really shouldn't be shocked about at all. We've seen what this government are about when it comes to workers and their incomes—supporting the cutting of penalty rates for working on weekends in the hospitality and restaurant industries. They've supported changes to workplace relations laws that made it harder for workers to bargain in their workplaces to get a decent standard of living, wages and conditions. They've removed the obligation on employers to continue bargaining with employees when they can't reach agreement, and that now allows employers to basically put people back onto award wages and remove an enterprise agreement that operates in a particular workplace. That's why we've seen a dramatic reduction in the number of enterprise agreements that are negotiated in Australian workplaces at the current time, and it's one of the factors that's contributing to the very low wages growth that we've seen in this country over the past six years, which is deeply affecting household incomes in Australia, and it is putting enormous pressure on the cost of living for many Australian households. That's why they feel they're being left behind by this government when it comes to soaring electricity prices and increasing costs associated with education. Private health insurance goes up by whopping amounts every year. General insurance is always going up, but wages aren't going up. In fact, real wages are going backwards, and this government is cheering on from the sidelines with cuts to penalty rates and changes to workplace relations laws. If this bill were to pass the parliament it would undermine the integrity of the entire coastal trading regime that was put in place by the former, Labor, government. There are two sets of amendments that are particularly problematic. The changes would further deregulate what's already one of the world's most liberal coastal trading regimes. The proposed amendments would make it almost impossible for Australian GL vessels, Australian flagged vessels, to contest work, because their owner-operator would never know the actual volume or precise loading date. In responding to the discussion paper about the introduction of this bill, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers said in its submission: The ultimate voyage carried out may bear no resemblance to the original voyage for which the Temporary Licence was granted. AIMPE opposes this proposal.Maritime Industry Australia Ltd said that without the tolerances being meaningful—and remembering that these were expanded by the 2012 reforms from 10 per cent and three days to 20 per cent and five days—the system may as well be 'deregulated entirely'. That view is echoed by the Maritime Union of Australia: The MUA is strongly opposed to the proposed amendment. Such open-ended tolerance provisions would totally undermine accepted commercial arrangements and make it impossible for a GL holder to contest a cargo, as the GL holder would not know what they are contesting. The ability to position a ship when the loading date could vary by up to 30 days would be commercially untenable for a GL holder, as would be the unknown nature of the cargo volume. Operators of vessels involved in the coastal trade, including CSL, which currently runs Australian flagged vessels around the coastline, employing Australians, have also expressed their concerns about the changes to tolerance limits. This is the point: they can't even get the employers onside with what they're doing here. The employers oppose it. They say that the current date tolerance regime seems reasonable. Currently, there are two types of licence variations to an existing TL: authorised matters—a change to a loading date or volume and an existing planned voyage—and new matters, authorising an entirely new voyage on an existing TL. In the name of streamlining, as this government calls it, the bill proposes replacing the two types of licence variations with a single TL variation provision. However, reclassifying the addition of a new voyage to an existing TL from a new matter to an authorised matter would halve, from the current two days to just 24 hours, the time available for a GL holder to apply for that new voyage. Put simply, it would make it more difficult for Australian vessels and owner-operators to compete for work. The major peak body that represents Australian owned shipping operators and other Australian based maritime businesses, Maritime Industry Australia Limited, says: Any new voyage should be subject to the existing timeframes for GL holders to respond or else the integrity of the system is undermined as GL holders rights/opportunities are reduced. Another submission stated: This unreasonable competitive advantage arises as the proposed amendments allow foreign shippers to compete in the domestic freight market against land freight transport operators that have to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, exemptions would allow foreign ships to incur substantially lower wages, conditions and associated workplace relations costs when compared to rail, road and Australian-based coastal shipping companies. That is the voice of the industry. They are saying that they have concerns about what the government is doing here. Labor is not prepared to co-sign the death warrant of the proud Australian maritime industry, but that's exactly what we will do if this bill is passed by the parliament. Labor is not prepared to see Australian workers put out of jobs. We are not prepared to see Australian businesses, many of which have been around for centuries and have served the coastline of Australia in a very safe and dignified manner, providing jobs for Australians, put out of business. The bottom line is that there is a very real difference between the two sides of politics when it comes to shipping in this country. The coalition doesn't believe that Australia needs a viable, competitive and growing domestic industry. The Labor Party does and we will be taking a set of policies to the next election that will help rebuild Australian shipping and ensure that it is viable into the future. Simply put, we want more Australian seafarers and to see more of them crewing Australian flagged ships carrying more Australian goods around the Australian coastline. Our long-term national interest demands nothing less. What the government is attempting to do here is completely undermine that goal and that ambition for Australian shipping by allowing in foreign flagged vessels—vessels that come from places like the Philippines and countries in South America that are known as flag-of-convenience vessels—that specialise in going around the world and undercutting conditions that exist, through regulations, in domestic markets. Australia is an island nation. We rely on sea transport to get goods in and out of our country. The health of our economy relies on a strong maritime industry. It has been one of the staples of this country's economic development over the last couple of centuries, yet this government is willing to undermine that by allowing foreign operators, non-Australian vessels, to bring foreign crews onto the Australian coastline, putting Australians out of work—all in the name of deregulation and cutting costs—and undercutting the costs of Australian shipping providers and workers. Well, Labor won't allow it, and that's why an amendment has been moved by the shadow minister for transport. It's a very sensible amendment, and I urge all members of the House to support that amendment and reject this ridiculous notion, which has been put forward by the Liberal government, that will undermine the Australian shipping industry. 12:16 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, so I thought I'd take this opportunity today to teach those opposite a valuable history lesson and implore them to reconsider this bill, the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. When federal Labor took office in 2007, the Australian shipping industry was in decline. Our shipping industry had dropped from 55 Australian flagged vessels in 1996, at the beginning of the Howard government, to just 21 by the end of that government in 2007. The former Labor government then endeavoured to revitalise the shipping industry, spending years consulting with industry, unions and other key stakeholders about how to best support our shipping industry in Australia. In the interests of assisting my colleagues opposite, in case they weren't aware, we live on a continent that is, indeed, surrounded by the ocean—we are girt by sea—and where the vast majority of importing and exporting occurs in the hulls of ships. In fact, one-tenth of the world's sea trade flows through our ports. This is hardly insignificant. Yet, despite our nation's obvious reliance on the maritime industry, Australia's own merchant fleet and the skilled workforce it subsequently trains and employs are rapidly disappearing. At last count, 12 Australian vessels have been reflagged since the election of this Liberal government in 2013. One of these ships is the MV Portland, an Australian flagged and crewed ship that has been used to transport Alcoa alumina from Western Australia to the smelter in Victoria for more than 27 years. The name might ring a bell. The Portland's crew were forcibly removed from the ship in 2016, as they refused to sail it to Singapore, where it was to be scrapped. After they were escorted from the ship, a foreign crew was escorted on board and took control of the ship. Now a different foreign ship with a different foreign crew undertakes the same route, transporting the same volume of alumina, all to save a big business millions of dollars but at the expense of millions of Australian jobs. Then there are the CSL Thevenard and the CSL Brisbane, now proudly flying the flag of the Bahamas. We must prevent the demise of our proud maritime industry before it's too late. We must strengthen Australian shipping policy, and that will not happen should this bill be passed. Since the election of this government in 2013, the federal coalition has been committed to repealing legislation that was the culmination of a four-year process of consultation—legislation that sought to facilitate the long-term growth of the Australian shipping industry by levelling the playing field and providing the industry with a stable fiscal and regulatory regime that would encourage greater investment and promote international competitiveness. That legislation became law in July 2012. These measures were based on an extensive reform program that had already been implemented in other maritime nations, including the United Kingdom, Japan, China and Denmark, to keep their industries afloat. One of the policies brought in by the UK government was the introduction of a tonnage tax in the year 2000, causing its fleet to almost double in size in the seven years that followed. From the outset, this federal coalition government has been committed to repealing the legislation and deregulating our shipping industry. This would remove the preference for Australian flagged and crewed vessels, making it easier for vessels of any nationality to work the Australian coastline at the detriment of Australian jobs. Thank goodness that the Senate declined to give that bill, introduced in 2015, a second reading after it was realised that under that legislation 93 per cent of seafarer jobs on Australian vessels would be lost and the vast majority of the supposed savings that the bill was trumpeting would come from the abolition of Australian wage standards in favour of Third World 'standards'. You may think that this is being a tad melodramatic, yet a Senate inquiry heard that senior government officials advised a cruise company, in that same year, that the only way their company would remain competitive under the proposed legislation was to reflag their vessel to a foreign state, sack their Australian crew and hire a foreign crew with Third World wages. While that legislation did fail, the uncertainty it brought to the industry was successful in deterring investment in Australian vessels and shipping. The bill now before the House represents this government's second attempt to quash Labor's 2012 coastal trading reforms. Labor's coastal trading reforms in 2012 weren't just based on Australian jobs and skills. You can appreciate that that would have been, and is, sufficient motivation enough. These reforms were also based on national security and environmental concerns. There are significant synergies between our naval and merchant fleets. Indeed, defence experts will tell you that maintaining a domestic maritime workforce is vital to ensure that, if required, Australia has a pool of highly skilled labour that can quickly mobilise during times of war or national emergencies. Similarly, we know that Australian seafarers are subject to stringent background checks to assess any security threat. The same cannot be said for the inflow and outflow of overseas seafarers. You would think that this government would want to know as much as it can about who is coming in and out of Australian ports and waters. In addition to this, we know that Australian seafarers have a vested interest in protecting and respecting our world-renowned environmental assets, particularly the Great Barrier Reef and the Ningaloo Reef off Western Australia. The simple fact is that, in recent decades, all of the major maritime accidents that have occurred in our waters have involved foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign seafarers, not experienced Australian crews. It was in the interest of our nation's economic, national security and environmental future that the former federal Labor government set about rebuilding our Australian shipping industry after years of neglect under a Liberal government. How can this government possibly argue with this concept of more Australian seafarers crewing more Australian flagged ships, carrying Australian goods around the Australian coastline? But, alas, we stand here today in the face of this bill. We believe that instead of distorting coastal shipping laws, as in this bill, it would be more appropriate to address these concerns in new standalone legislation covering tourism operators, instead of this issue that has been flagged of trying to change GST operations for superyachts—but I will turn to that later. One of the numerous issues that have been put forward in this legislation is trying to remove red tape. It is red tape that the government says is hampering our shipping industries. But what we actually know is that we need to build bipartisan support for our shipping industry here in Australia. What's interesting is that at no stage before or after the release of the discussion paper that the government brought forward in relation to this legislation was the opposition consulted about the merits or otherwise of the proposed amendments. In the foreword of the discussion paper, the minister wrote: … regulatory certainty, ideally bipartisanship, is essential for investment to be made in the industry … For the benefit of the minister, I note that the definition of 'bipartisanship' is the agreement or cooperation between two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies. Maybe he got confused and was referencing his own party room's discussion on the NEG. This bill will only accelerate the shipping industry's decline into nothing more than a history lesson. This would be an unbelievable development in Australia, given that we are an island continent. Our import and export industries clearly rely on shipping. We also require shipping to move goods around and through our nation. There are two sets of amendments in this bill that are of particular concern, the first being amendments to the tolerance provisions. This amendment would make it almost impossible for an Australian flagged vessel to contest work, because its owner-operator wouldn't know the actual volumes or precise loading date of a foreign vessel. The MUA is strongly opposed to the amendment, as such open-ended tolerance provisions would totally undermine accepted commercial arrangements and make it impossible to contest a cargo. The Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers explains there would be no way of knowing what a vessel was carrying because the ultimate voyage carried out may bear no resemblance to the original voyage for which the temporary licence was granted. The second major concern we have with this bill is the streamlining of the TL variation process. Currently, there are two licence variations: authorised matters; and new matters. Through streamlining this, the authorised matter would halve the time available to a GL holder to apply for a licence, ultimately making it more difficult for Australian vessels, owners or operators to compete for work, putting Australian businesses at a disadvantage. Almost a year ago, the minister assured the parliament that this bill would make amendments to the existing regulatory regime rather than fundamentally restructuring it. However, looking at these changes, that is blatantly untrue. Maritime Industry Australia, upon hearing of this, told us: … there is nothing in the Bill to assist Australian shipowners to compete with foreign ships that have all but unfettered access to coastal trades. The Australian Maritime Industry is concerned that this bill will tilt the playing field even further in favour of foreign operators, and now other transport modes are feeling the heat, too. The Freight on Rail Group believes that this will also put them at a competitive disadvantage. Imagine that—changes to our shipping laws that will even put rail at a disadvantage when it comes to transporting goods across our nation. They say the proposed amendments have the potential to introduce 'an unreasonable competitive advantage to foreign ships that might choose to compete in the domestic freight market', and that: This exemption would allow foreign ships to incur substantially lower wages, conditions and associated workplace relations costs compared to rail, road and Australian coastal shipping businesses. Ultimately, how can we compete with Third World wages of companies from other countries? Well, we shouldn't. Labor is not prepared to sign the death warrant of this proud Australian industry, an industry that has made this country what it is today. We would not even be here—literally—without it. The bottom line is that there is a very real difference between our two sides of politics when it comes to shipping. The government doesn't believe in a viable, competitive and growing domestic industry. I think some would observe that shipping is only one of those industries that this government does not believe in. Federal Labor, on the contrary, will be taking a set of policies to the next election that will be about rebuilding this industry. I don't think it's too much to ask that Australian seafarers, the crews of Australian ships, and even those that are operating Australian ships have our support in carrying Australian goods—instead of us making life easier for other countries to benefit from our industries. When we look at the long-term national interest, it deserves nothing else. What is really interesting to observe about this, as I mentioned before, is that a number of other countries have gone through a process of strengthening their support for their local shipping industries. When we look around the world, the trajectory of local shipping is being supported by all of our competitor nations. Economically competitive nations around the world are supporting their shipping industries. They ensure that it's only their countries' ships that are able to have access to port-to-port coastal trade in their nations. Yet, for some reason, our government has decided to do exactly the opposite. We talk about trying to support jobs in this country, to see wage growth and to grow our local businesses, and what this government has put forward in this bill is exactly the opposite: this is about reducing wages, reducing conditions and destroying local businesses—when the government should be doing the opposite and supporting our coastal trade and the Australian shipping industry. 12:28 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 further deregulates and erodes what is left of a once strong and vibrant Australian shipping industry. With coalition governments having, over the years, already decimated the Australian shipping industry, the Turnbull coalition government is still not content and is determined to wipe out the last remnants of this industry. The destruction of the Australian shipping industry by coalition governments is a short-sighted national disgrace. It is in keeping, however, with coalition government philosophy of destroying unionised labour, driving down workers' wages and fair conditions, and attempting to weaken the Labor Party by weakening the union movement. This is a government which has intentionally destroyed Australia's auto industry for the same reasons—an industry which underpinned much of Australia's manufacturing industry for decades—and is now on the verge of doing the same with the Australian shipping industry. And it does that in pursuit of its blind ideology. It's a blind ideology of coalition governments who are prepared to destroy Australian jobs, destroy Australian families, diminish Australian national security, and in doing so damage the Australian economy and the nation's future. As so many other speakers on this side have said, Australia is a land surrounded by sea. Every day over $1.2 billion worth of goods are imported and exported through Australia's 70 trading ports. Yet today Australia has only 11 or 12 trading vessels employing full Australian crews, a figure down from hundreds in the 1980s. In addition to the economic consequences for Australia that the demise of Australian shipping has caused, it has also created a national security risk, because, in times of national crisis, the merchant fleet can assist the Navy with supply of provisions, aid, fuel and surveillance. Furthermore, Australian crewed and operated vessels are much more likely to operate with the broader national interest in mind: abiding by Australian rules and protecting the coastline environment. Indeed, much of the damage that has occurred from time to time on the Australian environment when shipping has been involved has been because the ships were not Australian crewed vessels. There is also the likelihood that we will see less illegal activity or unethical operations if vessels are crewed by Australians. With respect to the Australian Border Force's searches of Australian vessels, I note that last year there were some 15,700 vessels that came to Australia and of those just over a thousand were searched by the Australian Border Force. I understand that, and I understand that they have limited resources, but the reality is that each and every day there are vessels docking on the Australian coastline that are not inspected and not searched, and we really don't know what is on board those vessels. I turn to another matter relating to Australian shipping, a matter that is before the parliament right now: the live sheep export trade. If the livestock vessels carrying Australian animals to the Middle East had been crewed by Australian seafarers, the horrific conditions that those animals were subjected to may not have occurred. Australian crews would not have tolerated the situation—not for themselves or for the animals. I note that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is at the table, so my remarks are very much directed for his benefit. To my understanding, all of the vessels used for livestock transport in recent years were flagged in low-tax countries, owned by overseas registered entities—sometimes entities which Australians have an interest in—and crewed by foreign seamen who work in atrocious conditions simply to make a living. Not surprisingly, the operators of those vessels have, for years, thumbed their nose at Australian authorities, ignoring the horrific conditions that crews and livestock endure, because they know that the crews will remain silent about what they experience and see. The live sheep export community backlash and the parliamentary debate about live exports may never have become an issue if Australian crews had been used on those vessels. Of course, with respect to the use of foreign vessels, the wider loss is to our economy, because foreign flagged vessels are crewed by foreign crews who do not employ Australian labourers and don't pay Australian wages and therefore don't pay income tax to the Australian tax office. Furthermore, on many vessels, crews are exploited. They have to work under terrible conditions for minimal wages—as low as $1.25 per hour. No other mainland industry would be allowed to operate in the same way that shipping is allowed to operate, yet shipping operates within Australian waters. Australian waters are part of Australian territory. The kinds of activities and rules that apply to shipping that we are currently seeing are not ones that we as a nation would tolerate in a similar industry operating on the mainland. They don't operate in the road vehicle transport industry and they don't operate in the airline industry, but the shipping industry, because it is on water, is treated differently. It is simply wrong and it is, in fact, foolish. I understand that there are some differences with respect to the cruise vessel sector, which is somewhat protected at the moment, and I understand that there may be some changes in respect of that sector. But, putting that sector to one side, we seem to have a different standard when it comes to industrial laws for the shipping sector, for the larger vessels, compared to other sectors in the rest of the country. In introducing this legislation, the minister said of the current rules: They are pushing costs up for businesses. This legislation will mean lower costs for big business, including the nation's biggest exporters of minerals and gas, who are making huge profits right now. Indeed, only this week they put out a statement highlighting the level of profits or activities that they are generating economically in this country—and quite properly, just to highlight the importance of that sector to the Australian nation. They are making a lot of money, yet that is the sector that is probably going to benefit the most from the changes in this legislation proposed by the government. They will profit the most because, ultimately, the additional savings that they make—and I understand that some estimates have put the figure at about 88 per cent—will come from the lower wages that they will pay. In other words, the savings that they will make will arise from the exploitation of labour. It seems quite ironic to be doing that at a time when we have before the parliament a modern slavery bill. The exploitation of crews on foreign flagged vessels is indeed modern slavery. But then, of course, there is a long history of slavery in shipping. The fact that it still occurs does not justify it. In fact, the long history of slavery in shipping is even more reason why we should be trying to ensure that anyone who works on board a vessel, whether it is Australian flagged or foreign flagged, should be treated appropriately and paid accordingly. There is another serious matter with regard to the demise of Australian shipping that has also been part of the national debate in recent times. I refer to the reliance on Australian shipping in conjunction with our nation's ability to meet our oil and other fuel requirements. Australia as a signatory to the International Energy Agency has an obligation to hold oil stocks equivalent to 90 days of the previous year's daily net oil imports. The reality is that that is not happening right now. In the year 2000, there were some 11 or 12 Australian crude oil tankers supplying fuel to Australia. Today, there are none. We have also had several oil refineries close since then. National fuel and oil stocks are down to just over a month's supply, somewhere between 30 and 40 days, if the two weeks of stocks that are on sea are included. But those stocks on sea are on board foreign vessels. In the event of a major international conflict, Australia has left itself entirely dependent on foreign vessels to deliver fuel. It is a most unsatisfactory situation because, in the event of a major conflict, there is no guarantee and, indeed, very little likelihood that those foreign vessels would make Australia a priority. We need to have some control of our own fuel supplies because, in the event of a major conflict, fuel supplies would be critical to this nation's ability to defend itself. As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, the situation with respect to this legislation is that the government previously tried to bring it before the parliament and it was rejected. It was rejected because logically it is a proposition that leaves Australia much more vulnerable than it already is. That is not in the national interest at all. I doubt that any other country would be so foolish as to do the same, particularly given Australia's circumstances of being so dependent on shipping for its imports and exports, and being so far away from other allies that we work together with. The USA has what they refer to as the Jones Act, which ensures that, within their waters and ports, only American flagged ships crewed by Americans can operate. I totally understand that and it makes a great deal of sense. It is not unreasonable to do that, because it simply ensures that that country is looking after and putting its own interests ahead of anyone else's. Time and again around the world foreign ships in most cases are flagged in very low-tax jurisdictions in order to pay even less tax, crewed by people from predominantly Third World countries who are desperate to seek some income, and managed and operated in a way to simply serve the interests of the shipowners. It is not in the interests of this country to allow itself to go down that path, as it already has done. It's more in the interests of Australia to, as Labor was attempting to when last in office, revitalise the Australian shipping industry by changing the laws that would support the growth of the Australian shipping industry. The Australian shipping industry is not some minor little industry to one side; it is not only a major economic contributor because of the transport that it provides to the goods and services that we need but also a contributor to shipping construction and to ship maintenance and stocking each and every time they come into our ports. It would be a major economic driver for this nation. For all of those reasons Labor has quite rightly opposed this legislation. Labor believes there is a better way to deal with the Australian shipping fleet of this country. Labor believes that it is not in the national interest. Labor believes we need to have a long-term strategy to ensure not only that this shipping industry survives but also that the economic and security future of our country comes first and foremost. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D I welcome the honourable member for Fremantle back to the parliament. 12:42 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak in support of the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler and to make some remarks in opposition to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 as a whole. I'm pleased to make my first legislative debate contribution, since being re-elected as the representative for Fremantle, in defence of Australian shipping and Australian seafarers, but I am sorry that once again this government appears by the evidence of this bill to be set on unpicking and running down an industry that has always been and always will be a vital part of our life as a nation and a key to our future. With regard to Australian shipping and Australian seafarers the government's approach has consistently presented the full a la carte menu of poor governance. It has actively undermined Australian shipping through what can be described only as very poor process and in ignorance of the clear and present signs of danger with respect to its health. As well as acts of direct harm there have also been sins of omission. This government has failed to act in response to those signs of danger. It has failed to follow the lead of the former Labor government in seeking to address through a careful and long-running framework the operational, regulatory and workforce challenges that exist for Australian shipping and Australian seafarers. Australian shipping is vital. It's not a matter of romance or nostalgia, nor just another aspect of transport or economic activity; Australian shipping is fundamental to our wellbeing. In an age of air travel and internet shopping, there's a danger that we underestimate the lifeline that shipping represents—and it is a lifeline. We are an island nation. An overwhelming proportion of our imports and exports are transported to and from this country by ship, and those ships travel here through a changing and volatile region. In those circumstances we should all, in this place and in the wider Australian community, be concerned that our coastal shipping is in decline—and there's no doubt, there can be no question at all in this place and in the debate, about that fact. The Australian coastal shipping industry has been left to wither by a regulatory framework that doesn't accord proper value to Australian shipping and doesn't work effectively to protect the jobs, conditions, skills and safety of Australian seafarers. That means that very few Australian owned and flagged vessels remain. I think it's right to say that under the Howard government the number of Australian flagged ships declined from 55 in 1996 to 21 in 2007, and it's got worse since that time, as the member for Makin observed. There isn't currently an Australian general licensed vessel capable of transporting petroleum. We do not have sovereign self-sufficiency when it comes to the delivery of petroleum to our country. That's coupled with the fact that we have a very poor record of maintaining our fuel supplies in accordance with the obligations we've signed up to under the International Energy Agency. I spoke about that in the first few months of my time in this place, and I note that subsequently others, including the member for Canning in Western Australia and Senator Molan in the other place, have talked about how dangerous that state of affairs is. We cannot continue to sit idly by and watch Australian shipping and our capacity in that space decline. It is critical to our economic wellbeing. We are a trading nation. We are an island nation, and shipping is our lifeline. It's a matter of sovereign self-sufficiency. Without it we can't be sure in general terms and we certainly can't be sure in times of crisis that we will be able to function economically and be able to secure and sustain the social and economic wellbeing of Australia. It's also central to our capacity to be engaged in and support our region, to respond to natural disaster and at times to draw on a merchant marine capacity. A number of people have noted over the years the difference in approach between Australia and the United States. The previous speaker talked about the Jones Act. The United States is taken by some as a kind of paragon of a free market operation and deregulation and all these sorts of things. The United States, of course, has taken, for a long time, careful steps to protect its own shipping capacity, precisely because it won't tolerate being without the ability to export, to import and to be engaged in the world, particularly in a defence capacity and at times of humanitarian crisis. The running down of Australian shipping does have direct relevance to the preservation of our marine and coastal environment. We've seen in other parts of the world some very savage environmental disasters—the Exxon Valdez spill back in the 1980s, and more recently Deepwater Horizon. But there have been a number of those offshore events and other related shipping events that have had a phenomenally harmful impact on coastal and marine environments. And there's no doubt that when you have foreign flagged ships and you have ships that are not operated by Australians, with their local knowledge and their high level of skills, you put that coastal marine environment at greater risk. I make the further point that Australian seafarers have a proud tradition, through their representatives in the maritime union and through the International Transport Workers' Federation, of being concerned not just about Australian pay and conditions, safety regulations and skills development but about those things for seafarers around the world. Seafarers are a particularly vulnerable class of worker, and Australian seafarers and their representatives have been very active in working to protect the rights of seafarers around the world and to improve them. In many places they are still very poor. It's for all those reasons that the former Labor government undertook a careful and substantial program of first consultation and then reform. Of course, I'd like to recognise the huge amount of work over a long period of time undertaken by the member for Grayndler in government, which he's continued now as a shadow minister. That work was designed to arrest what was already a pretty significant slide in Australian flagged shipping, and it put in place a careful structure that meant that Australian flagged vessels using general licences had the ability to properly compete and to continue to operate. This bill, unfortunately, follows previous legislative attempts by the government in weakening and loosening that framework. It weakens and loosens what was already a thoroughly hopeless and ineffective regulatory framework. It will make it harder for Australian flagged vessels to participate and essentially compete for freight work. It introduces flexibility in the form of tolerances that really make a mockery of the existing tiered licence regime. As Maritime Industry Australia has pointed out: Without the tolerances being meaningful (and remembering that these were expanded by the 2012 reforms from 10% and three days to 20% and five days) the system may as well be deregulated entirely. I suspect that that's what this bill actually seeks to do. It's a view that has also been put by the Maritime Union of Australia. In relation to this bill, they have said: Such open-ended tolerance provisions would totally undermine accepted commercial arrangements and make it impossible for a GL holder to contest a cargo, as the GL holder would not know what they are contesting. The ability to position a ship when the loading date could vary by up to 30 days would be commercially untenable for a GL holder, as would be the unknown nature of the cargo volume. If you want to understand why the government is going down this particular path, it is tempting to say that it's through ideology and idiocy, to borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister. But I'd point out that I think ideology unfairly gets a bad name. Ideology is essentially a set of values that inform a political and policy program. There's nothing wrong with ideology, subject to what those underlying values are. I'm afraid to say you can't really describe this bill and the government's approach in this area as springing from any kind of comprehensive or sophisticated ideology or set of values, other than perhaps the extent to which there are some on the government's side who are captive in a simplistic way to the idea that anything that can be deregulated should be deregulated. Of course, that's a folly. Our system is properly a combination of market forces within a regulatory framework. It always has been. It always will be. If you cut away every form of regulation and every kind of structure around market forces, you will see that what you think of as red tape really is the circulatory system that makes the whole thing work and makes the whole body vital. We know that the previous attempts by the government involved almost complete deregulation. We know that the 2015 legislation, whose justification was really around cost savings, derived 88 per cent of those cost savings from a reduction in labour costs, and the reduction in labour costs was going to be achieved by the fact that the work would shift to foreign flagged vessels and foreign crews. It meant that 93 per cent of Australian seafarer jobs would disappear, and we saw, through that experience, cases where Australian companies who put questions to the relevant department about how they would be expected to survive with their Australian flagged vessels and their Australian crews were given direct advice, 'You should use these changes to chop your Australian workforce.' It's an approach—I don't know if you can call it an ideology—that is best captured by that expression about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. What this really does spring from, I think, is a reflexive antipathy and a reflexive enmity towards Australian seafarers and the maritime industry in this country, and that's not the way any government should proceed. The fact that some on the other side of the House regard maritime workers and, particularly, their representatives, the Maritime Union of Australia and other maritime industry representative groups, as the enemy shouldn't be what drives policy in this country. Seafarers play a vital role in the life of this country, and they are a vital part of communities around Australia. They certainly are a very important part of both the history of Western Australia and contemporary life in Western Australia, particularly in the seat I represent, the division of Fremantle. There's no good reason whatsoever for following the kind of program that puts our national wellbeing at risk in pursuit of an ancient grudge—a shallow and superficial political enmity. I noted in the submission I made to the government's coastal shipping discussion paper that the government's record has been to undermine Australian shipping and actively weaken the position of Australian seafarers and their representatives. It's unintelligent and it's dangerous. That's why I oppose this bill. 12:57 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I want to briefly outline my position on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. I will support the passage of this legislation through the House, but I want to put on the record that I and my Centre Alliance colleagues have significant concerns with some of the measures included in this bill. Of particular concern is the measure to change acceptable tolerance limits in relation to cargo or passengers to be carried on a vessel under a temporary licence. We've been advised by stakeholders that changes to the volume tolerance from plus or minus 20 per cent to plus 200 per cent and minus 100 per cent, as well as the push to increase loading date tolerances from five days to 30 days, would have a detrimental impact on the coastal shipping sector. This measure would further deregulate the coastal shipping industry and make it almost impossible for an Australian flagged vessel to contest work because the operator would never know the actual volume or the precise loading date. I will continue to examine these measures with my Centre Alliance colleagues before settling on a final position. I'm also concerned about the streamlining process that will apply to temporary licences. Under the government's plan, the new process will mean that the time available to an Australian flagged vessel to apply for a new voyage would be halved from two days to 24 hours. This will make it much more difficult for Australian vessels to compete for work. I also want to flag our party's concern in relation to the government's move to open the coastal trading regime to chartered recreational vessels. I'm not sure that it is entirely appropriate for legislation which is meant to regulate the economic circumstances of Australia's domestic coastal trading industry to be extended to provide for recreational vessels. I and my Centre Alliance colleagues reserve our position on this aspect of the bill. In conclusion, I support the passage of this bill through this House but make it clear to the government that I and my Centre Alliance colleagues are not happy with the bill as it currently stands. We will continue to examine the impact this legislation will have on Australian shipping and Australian jobs before coming to our decision, should the bill progress to the Senate. 13:00 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I support the second reading amendment moved by the member for Grayndler—I do—but, frankly, I'm calling on the government to withdraw the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. I'm calling on the government to withdraw this bill, because it's bad for jobs, it's bad for my electorate and, I believe, it's bad for the country. There are often occasions when bills that come before this parliament have the effect of leading to a loss of jobs. There are times when bills that come before this parliament have the effect of leading to a loss or a reduction in wages and income. This bill does both of those things. But it's not an unintended or incidental consequence of the bill that there are going to be job cuts; it is the central purpose of the bill. The central purpose of this bill is to make it easier for shipowners to take an Australian flag off the back of their ship and replace it with a flag of another nation so that they can replace the seafarers on that ship with an overseas work crew. That is the central purpose of the bill. It's not an unintended consequence of this bill that wages will be cut. It is the central purpose of the bill that wages will be cut. The only reason that a ship owner would substitute an Australian flagged vessel with a foreign flagged vessel would be to enable them to replace the crew and to reduce the wages. So, it's not an incidental or unintended consequence of this bill that Australian jobs will be lost and wages will be cut; it's the central purpose of the bill—and for that reason the bill must be rejected. This is not a small matter. Over 17 per cent of our domestic freight burden is carried by our coastal shipping fleet, and of that burden around 10.3 million tonnes is carried by ships with a temporary licence. That is more than the 7.1 million tonnes of freight which is carried by general licence operators. What we have is a crisis. We have a crisis in Australian shipping. Under the previous coalition government, under the prime ministership of former Prime Minister John Howard, we saw the number of Australian registered ships plummet. We saw it fall from 55 Australian registered ships to 21 Australian registered ships plying our domestic waters and doing the domestic trade. We are an island nation. We sing about it in our national anthem—'girt by sea'. If we cannot provide a workforce and a shipping fleet to enable us to move freight from one port to another, from one place to another, we are very vulnerable indeed. So this is bad legislation. Out of national interest, all members should reject this bill. I have a very keen interest in this issue. The port of Port Kembla in the Illawarra is a major freight asset within the region and within the state of New South Wales. It's got a long and proud history. As some may recall, in June this year an Australian registered ship by the name of the Iron Chieftain was retired due to significant damage that it sustained during a fire while unloading at Port Kembla harbour. While discharging a load of dolomite, the belt drive system caught fire and spread along the entire system. More than 100 firefighters were involved in fighting the blaze, which took more than five days to bring under control. The vessel will be towed out of Port Kembla harbour after it's been emptied of fuel and all the toxic sludge has been cleaned out of the tunnels and bilges below decks. However, as a result of the fire and the retirement of the vessel, all CSL Australia positions on the Iron Chieftain will be made redundant, with expressions of interest being taken for voluntary redundancy. I and the representative of the workers are concerned that the Iron Chieftain, one of our few remaining coastal Australian flagged vessels, is going to be replaced and, with it, the crew that are being made redundant will be replaced by an overseas crew. I hold nothing against those overseas workers. Many of them are coming from some of the poorest nations in our region. They deserve to make a living as much as the crew who are about to be made redundant. They are the pawns in this battle. What I am concerned about, and what the workers who formerly worked on the Iron Chieftain are concerned about, is that this legislation, which government members are about to support, will make it not only easier but will create a positive incentive for shipowners to replace this with a foreign flagged vessel. This means it won't be an Australian crew working out of Port Kembla, working out of Port Botany, working out of Fremantle, working out of Newcastle or working out of any of our coastal shipping ports; it will be an overseas crew. It is not the fault of those overseas workers; it is the fault and lack of vision of this government. It is a deliberate policy to make it easier—in fact, to make it imperative—for those shipowners to replace their flag and replace their crew. This is not just an economic issue; it is an issue of national security. There are clear synergies between our naval and our merchant fleet. Indeed, Defence experts have long argued the importance of maintaining a domestic maritime workforce. They have argued—and we agree—that it ensures that Australia has a pool of highly skilled labour that it can quickly mobilise during times of conflict or other national emergencies. Furthermore, Australian seafarers undergo stringent background checks to ensure they pose no security threats. Regrettably, overseas seafarers, whose backgrounds are a mystery to us, do not undergo such close scrutiny. I hold nothing against those workers. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the system that this government is putting in place. Secondly, I want to talk about the impact on our local environment. Australian seafarers are familiar with our coastlines and have a vested interest in the protection of our world-renowned environmental assets, such as the Great Barrier Reef. The fact is that all the major maritime incidents to have occurred in our waters in recent decades have involved foreign flagged vessels crewed by foreign seafarers—again, not their fault; it is simply that our seafarers feel an ownership and environmental responsibility, and they are experts in plying and navigating the passages up and down our coastline. They know it, not surprisingly, better than any other seafarers in the world. They deserve a right to work on the ships that travel up and down our coastline. It was for these economic, national security and environmental reasons that the former federal Labor government was so determined to rebuild Australia's shipping industry, following years of neglect by the then Howard government. Our goal was quite simple: more Australian seafarers working on more Australian flagged ships up and down our coast, carrying more Australian goods in and out of our ports. After extensive consultations with industry, all sections of industry, we put in place far-reaching reforms designed to reduce the costs faced by Australian shippers and to level the playing field with their international counterparts. For Australian shipping companies the package included a zero tax rate, more-generous accelerated depreciation arrangements, rollover relief for selected capital assets, new tax incentives to employ Australian seafarers and an exemption from the royalty withholding tax for bareboat leased vessels. It was a comprehensive plan. What this government has done, to its monumental shame, is to unpick every stitch of that plan, stitch by stitch by stitch. It is not an incidental or unintended consequence that as a result of this government's actions we will have fewer Australian ships and fewer Australian workers working on those ships. It is not an unintended consequence; it is a deliberate consequence and a deliberate strategy. That is why we call on the government to withdraw this legislation and we call on government MPs to reject it. If you want to stick by Australian workers you will vote against this legislation. You will withdraw it and you will ensure that it never sees the light of day. 13:11 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to speak on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017, this government's second attempt to wind back Labor's 2012 coastal trading reforms. I support the amendments moved by the member for Grayndler and what the member for Whitlam has just said in suggesting that the government withdraws this legislation. It is a good idea, a fine idea, and I hope they take it up. Briefly, on indulgence, if I may, Deputy Speaker, I want to take this opportunity—my first opportunity at the despatch box as a new shadow minister in the Labor opposition, having joined the shadow ministry at the end of June—to thank my Labor colleagues in this place and in the other place for their tremendous support before and since that time. It is an honour to serve my electorate of Brand and to work alongside such dedicated people who are committed to the Labor cause and to their local communities, their states and territories and to the nation as a whole. I would also like to thank those on the other side of the chamber who offered me their best wishes. I would like to thank my husband, Jamie King, for his unwavering support, and I would especially like to thank my electorate office staff—Kate, Amy, Ryan, Georgia, John and Jenny—for their commitment to the people of Rockingham and Kwinana, their hardworking efforts in supporting my role, and their patience and understanding as together we take on the responsibilities of a shadow ministerial office. You are great people doing great work and I thank you all immensely. Returning to the coastal shipping legislation, it is, as I said, this government's second attempt to wind back Labor's 2012 coastal trading reforms. Like everyone on this side of the House, like everyone on the side of Australian flagged and crewed vessels, I do not support this bill and its damaging intent. Labor will always support Australian shipping, while this government will seek only to destroy it. It is a rehash, a second run, after the coalition's failure to pass the Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill back in November 2015. It is a bill that continues to push this government's ideological agenda to deregulate Australia's shipping industry at all costs, and the costs will be great if this government gets its way. If we look back at its first failed attempt at repealing Labor's legislation of 2012, and related bills, we can see that Australian jobs and Australian wage standards are just collateral damage for this Liberal government. The means by which wage-earning Australians can earn a decent living is just collateral damage to this government as it puts its ideology of 'profits at all costs' first. We see this in its enduring support for the cutting of penalty rates, cuts that are hurting some of the lowest-paid workers in this country, and we see it in its $85 billion tax break for big business. Labor puts people first. Our reforms sought to revitalise the Australian shipping industry, which fell into decline under the Howard government. But let's be straight about this: the Howard government set out to fundamentally dismantle the shipping industry in Australia. During the Howard government's time, the number of Australian flagged vessels fell from 55 in 1996 to only 21 in 2007. And let's remember—as if we could forget—in 1998, Australia witnessed the most despicable act of a democratically elected government against a free citizen workforce. Aided enthusiastically by the Howard government, Patrick Stevedores sacked its entire workforce in the middle of the night and replaced it; brought out the security guards and attack dogs; dropped in, by dinghy and minibus, a mostly ex-military workforce, trained in Dubai—that in itself an exercise enabled by the Howard government. The Howard government, Minister Reith and Patrick together colluded to exclude workers from their workplace, to replace the workforce with another one trained overseas, to bring attack dogs onto our wharves and to intimidate and harm legitimate workers who were merely seeking to do their job. What transpired was the lowest point in Australian industrial relations history. It was brutal and it was barbaric. It was shameful and disgraceful conduct by the Liberal government then, 20 years ago, and no-one has forgotten what they did. How can anyone forget those scenes they created of balaclavaed men on the wharves, with their security guards and their dogs on patrol? It seems more like a war zone than the working port of Fremantle, and I know my friend and colleague the member for Fremantle will remember those scenes, as we all do. We were younger at that time—much younger—but we cannot forget. This brutal behaviour by a government inspired hundreds of thousands of workers around the country to support their unions, to join with the MUA, which were at the front of this battle. Many of my generation caught the spark of this action, describing it as the seminal moment of their career. Indeed, Sally McManus, President of the ACTU, stated as much, describing the Patrick dispute as a flashpoint in her fight for workers' rights and conditions. The Australian Labor Party and its members stood side by side with the wharfies and the Maritime Union of Australia to fight against this awful and immoral attack by a government and its cronies on the workers of this country. Earlier this year, I was really pleased to join Christy Cain, the Secretary of the WA MUA, and Paddy Crumlin, the national secretary, and other leaders and members of the trade union and labour movement to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the waterfront dispute. You couldn't say it was a happy occasion. We were just remembering—they in particular were remembering; they were the people that fought the fight—really dark times in this nation's history. We understood the significance of the time then and we still do today. It's something that Labor could never do. That's because Labor is the only party that truly understands that, to build national wealth and business confidence, you must have support from the ground up. You must reach an accord or a consensus, otherwise what's the point? Labor knows in our bones that without consensus lasting reform is unlikely. And I don't mean the pseudo consensus that the Liberal Party manufactures in the other place as they buy off and make dodgy deals with the disgraceful Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party of two; I mean the consensus across the community and the workforce and industry that can only be built with commitment to genuine consultation and engagement. This is the consensus that the Labor Party builds with the best interests of all at heart. When we returned to government in 2008, we knew we needed to look to the long-term growth of the Australian shipping industry by encouraging investment and promoting international competitiveness, and our reforms did this. Our reforms also encouraged the employment of Australian seafarers. But this government's anti-Australian seafarer agenda takes another approach altogether. According to the official modelling for its failed 2015 legislation, which the legislation before us is trying to re-enact, it was forecast that 93 per cent of seafarer jobs on Australian vessels would be lost and that Australian wage standards would be replaced with Third World standards. That is the outcome of this legislation. This is the Liberal Party vision and the Turnbull government's vision for Australian shipping: 93 per cent of seafarers' jobs cut on Australian vessels. Well, what a disgrace, what a legacy—cutting 93 per cent of a workforce. But they have done worse. After all, they cut 100 per cent with Patrick late last century. Even though that legislation failed, following its defeat this government has continued to foster uncertainty in our once great shipping industry. With this new bill, the government continues to work at eliminating Australian jobs and the entire Australian domestic shipping industry. And to what end? It's not sound for economic or national security measures. If the government had bothered to adequately consult with the industry and stakeholders, it would find this out. It has not adequately consulted with those who will be impacted by this bill. One face-to-face meeting with each of the maritime unions on the importance of a skilled maritime workforce and two meetings with stakeholders does not seem like even remotely enough consultation for these important matters, especially when the major peak body that represents Australian based shipping operators was not invited to either of those meetings. The government chose to ignore the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development's recommendation that a draft of the bill be circulated for feedback prior to being tabled in parliament. That's a top idea—ignore the experts! Ignore your own departments! And, despite acknowledging a need for bipartisanship in the area of coastal shipping reform, at no stage before or after the release by the minister of the Coastal Shipping Reforms Discussion Paper was Labor consulted about the merits or otherwise of possible amendments to the existing legislation, nor were we given a briefing on the final version of the bill before it was tabled in parliament. The Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development did not build bipartisan support for these changes, and, if he thinks he did, he failed utterly. On the other hand, Labor's shipping reforms were the result of a four-year process which involved a parliamentary inquiry and a consultation with industry, unions and key stakeholders. Our legislation was also subjected to two rounds of exposure drafts. The goal behind our reforms was to rebuild Australia's shipping industry with a lasting consensus. Following years of neglect, Labor determined to have more Australians crewing more Australian flagged vessels, carrying more Australian goods around Australia's magnificent coastline. We worked with industry to put in place reforms that were designed to reduce the costs faced by Australians so they could be competitive with their international rivals. They were pretty comprehensive reforms, as a matter of fact, with a package for our shipping companies that included a zero tax rate, more generous accelerated-depreciation arrangements, rollover relief for selected capital assets, new tax incentives to employ Australian seafarers, and an exemption from the royalty-withholding tax for bareboat-leased vessels. We also worked to strengthen the local industry by creating an international shipping register. This register allowed operators of Australian flagged vessels to have a mix of both Australian and foreign crews employed on internationally agreed rates and conditions. I would like to note that Labor's changes did not preclude the use of foreign vessels. They required firms needing to move freight between Australian ports to, in the first instance—and quite rightly so—get an Australian operator to do the work. If no Australian operator was available, then foreign vessels could be used, as long as they paid Australian-level wages on domestic sectors. And that's fair. We also made sure that oil companies had to pay for all damage caused by their ships, as we developed our country's first National Ports Strategy. We replaced a multitude of conflicting and confusing state and territory laws and regulations with one national regulator, administering one set of modern laws. The cost of the government not committing to building consensus and not helping to revitalise our coastal shipping industry will lead to the destruction of an industry that is of vital national importance and of strategic importance. Defence experts have long recognised the importance of maintaining a domestic maritime workforce. It ensures that Australia has a pool of highly skilled labour that can be quickly mobilised during times of national emergency. Our naval and merchant fleets come together in such times. But all that would change if the government got its way and passed this legislation. And, obviously, there are national security concerns when we outsource our shipping industry. Australian seafarers undergo stringent background checks to ensure that they do not pose security threats. We have no oversight on overseas seafarers; we do not know their backgrounds, and we do not know what, if any, scrutiny they undergo. Why would you want to do away with a highly skilled workforce in any event? What about the national interest, and what about Australian jobs? What these changes would do is eliminate Australian jobs, decimate an entire industry and, potentially, put the national interest at risk. And this evidence all comes from the regulation impact statement that accompanied the Liberal's 2015 legislation which the current legislation is trying to mimic. In that statement, we were told that most of the savings expected to be produced by that legislation—88 per cent of the savings, in fact—were to come from Australian crews being replaced with cheaper, foreign crews. This government was seeking for vessel operators to sack Australians from their jobs and give those jobs to less-well-paid overseas crews to make savings. Thankfully, the Senate at that time acted in the national interest and quite rightly rejected the coalition's legislation. As an island continent, we are reliant on our maritime industry. Nearly all of our imports and exports are transported by ship. In fact, the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities advises that 99 per cent of our exports rely on sea transport—an industry also heavily relied on for our foreign domestic freight. One-tenth of global sea trade flows through our ports. Given this, why would we work in this place against positive reform of this very important industry? We are here today again seeing the government at it, just doing exactly that. Less than two years after the Senate rejected its flawed agenda, this government is having another crack. And it is not only the maritime industry that is worried about what the government is trying to do; other transport modes are concerned, too. They are concerned that this bill will advantage foreign operators and put them at a competitive disadvantage. The Freight on Rail Group made a submission in response to the discussion paper. They were concerned about what it would mean to them. They submitted that the proposed amendments have the potential to introduce an unreasonable competitive advantage to foreign ships that may choose to compete in the domestic freight market. How on earth is that fair? To conclude, let me say that we on this side do not support this legislation. I agree with what the member for Whitlam suggested: it should be withdrawn entirely. If it is not, I will support the amendments suggested by the member for Grayndler. But, best of all, I think those opposite should withdraw it. We do not support the legislation. It is an attack on the Australian shipping industry, Australian seafarers and our national interest. There is a very real difference between Labor and those opposite in relation to the shipping industry. We will not agree to the destruction of the shipping industry in this country. We simply will not. Let me point out that during this government's time in office we have seen 12 vessels reflagged to foreign states, and, with each vessel being reflagged, we have seen the Australian flag replaced and Australian workers replaced. It is not good enough. (Time expired) 13:26 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne I rise to speak on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. It may have escaped some people's notice, but there is a fair bit of water around Australia, and some ships move in that water. We are an island nation where a lot of the goods get moved from one part of the country to another by ship and have done so for a while. We are an island nation that at some times in the past has had to rely on having a merchant navy. We are an island nation that could, if we had the right approach, have a shipping industry and a shipping workforce which we could be proud of. Some other countries have done this. They don't have to be island nations to do it; they just have to have significant coastlines. They have worked out that, when you regulate the movement of ships between ports on your coast, you can actually increase employment; you can increase the control and safety of the ships that are moving around, which is good for people and good for the environment; and, when you have the appropriate tax arrangements in place, you can generate revenue for the country. So, if we think about it and decide that, as a country which has got so much coastline, it is a potential advantage for us to build and regulate our shipping industry, it could be a source of economic wealth and environmental protection. But, instead, we are suffering from a series of crazy decisions that have been made over many, many years. We now find ourselves increasingly without a shipping fleet or a shipping workforce to speak of. Why? Because over many, many years, the tenets of neoliberalism have taken hold. What that looks like when spread on an international scale is selling off the coastline and more or less saying, 'We do not care about the ships that come here or the conditions of the workers on those ships or whether or not we generate any return to the Australian taxpayer through the form of the revenue that we could be raising.' We have opened up a series of holes in our employment laws as well, which means that currently, after both Labor and Liberal have had a go at it for a few decades, we can have people working on ships under enterprise agreements that were signed by a small handful of workers— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the member for Melbourne will be able to speak in continuation. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 37 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Migration 37 13:30 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I represent one of the most multicultural parts of Australia, and I'm very proud of it. Fifty-six per cent of the people I represent were born overseas, including my mother-in-law and father-in-law. They were Vietnamese refugees who escaped by the skin of their teeth. It's people like them who have helped to make this the best country in the world. This morning, a lot of people in my electorate would have woken up and heard what Senator Anning said in the Senate last night. They would have been shocked and angry, and rightly so. An Australian senator talking about the 'final solution', about banning Muslims, about a return to the White Australia policy—it was an abhorrent speech. The only thing missing was a swastika or a pointy white hood. I want my community to know that today this parliament stood up and condemned him and the awful things he said—and so we should. When people spew out that sort of rancid, racist bile, all of us here have an obligation to stand up, to speak out and to condemn it. What he said was dangerous because it's got the potential to divide us; what he said was painful because he used words that dragged up memories of the most evil act in human history; and what he said was just plain wrong. But I also want the people of my electorate to know that this is a bloke who won only 19 votes at the last election. He doesn't represent us. He barely represents anybody. Country Women's Association of Victoria State Creative Arts Exhibition 37 13:31 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan During the winter recess, I had the opportunity to attend the Country Women's Association State Creative Arts Exhibition in the Leongatha Town Hall in south Gippsland. The hall was teeming with people and full of exhibits, with over 270 categories and over 1,800 items created by the talented members of the CWA from across Victoria—a record number for recent years, with about one-third coming from the Gippsland region. Included in the displays were crafts, knitting, embroidery, art, cookery, preserves, floral art, toys, dolls and many other categories. It was inspiring to meet the many women who had crafted and created the items on display. CWA members had travelled from as far afield as Goulburn Murray and Warrnambool to attend the exhibition. I'd like to congratulate the organising committee on a great event. To Anne Du Ve, Heather Scott and Marion Dewar; the many other women who helped prepare the exhibition; and those who created the arts and crafts on display: thank you for your dedication to the CWA and for your commitment to our community. Local CWA branches were successful in the exhibition, with many receiving awards, including the Mackie family's trifecta, which saw Marilyn Mackie and her granddaughters, Jasmin and Ruby, all winning awards. Since 1928, the CWA has played an important leadership role in the community across this nation. To me, the CWA stands for truth, integrity, respect and compassion. If we can deliver more of that into our daily lives, we'll be much better off. Troy, Professor Patrick Nicol, AO 38 13:33 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I take this opportunity to remember and pay tribute to Professor Patrick Troy AO, who passed away here in Canberra on 24 July. Patrick Troy worked as a researcher and speech writer for Tom Uren during the Whitlam government. He made a significant contribution as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Urban and Regional Development. His experience as a planner and engineer, and his insight into the great social and economic potential of our cities, shaped the distinctive and far-reaching reforms of the Whitlam government. In his 46 years at the ANU, Professor Troy was a figure of influence and inspiration in his work lecturing and writing about urban and regional planning, sustainability and Australian history. He brought a clear social justice lens to his consideration of how our cities could and should function and how they could and should support our communal wellbeing. Before all of that, Patrick Nicol Troy was a Fremantle boy, the son of Paddy and Mabel Troy. Paddy, of course, was a leader in the West Australian Labor movement, the secretary of the Maritime Services Union and a founder of the Trades and Labour Council of WA. There's no doubt that Patrick Troy's values and his sense of purpose were founded on his experience in and around the labour movement, and I imagine his sense of community and urban vitality was strongly informed by his life in Fremantle. Professor Patrick Troy was a kind, generous, thoughtful man whose life and work enriched our nation. As the member for Fremantle I send my condolences to his family and friends, including his niece Katharine, who works in my office. Anning, Senator Fraser 38 13:34 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I rise to add my condemnation of a speech that was delivered in the Senate last night. I follow the words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all those who have come into this place and unanimously condemned that speech, and I watched some of the speeches in the Senate this morning. All parties have condemned the content of that speech—with the exception of one, who backs the content of that speech '1,000 per cent'. That was Bob Katter doing a live presser out of Cairns on Sky Television this morning. In this place there should be no race to the bottom to see who can hate the most or who can marginalise persecuted people who have come to this country. I had a constituent in my electorate ring me in disgust to say they had seen someone wearing a burqa in the main street of one of my communities and to ask me what I was going to do about it. Clearly I have to take more of a leadership role in ensuring that as a community we love more and hate less. Anning, Senator Fraser 38 13:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I'm pleased to join with the member for Wright in condemning the comments of Senator Anning in the Senate last night. I represent a proud multicultural community of Kingsford Smith in which 50 per cent of our population were born overseas and many more are descendants of those who came to our great country as migrants. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith I express our community's disgust, outrage and complete opposition to, and join with MPs of all parties and backgrounds in condemning, Senator Anning's comments. The references to the White Australia policy and the 'final solution' are deeply offensive and do not represent the values of the people of Kingsford Smith or modern-day Australia. The White Australia policy was bad policy. It was racist, it was discriminatory, it was bad for our economy and it was bad for Australian society. That is exactly why the Holt government removed it with the support of the Labor Party many decades ago. On behalf of the people of Kingsford Smith I pay tribute to those with multicultural backgrounds in our community for their wonderful contributions that make Australia such a wonderful place to live—the charities and small businesses they run, their work in our workplaces and community groups. Senator Anning does not represent the people of Kingsford Smith or Australia. Energy 38 13:37 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson North Queenslanders must have been scratching their heads yesterday when the Labor premier of Queensland ruled out support for cheaper power and local jobs, saying: There is no need for a new coal-fired power station for Queensland. I have ruled that out. The Premier's own Productivity Commission released a report in 2016 showing that the cost of electricity in Queensland did not rise for the 26 years from 1980-81 to 2006-07 but in the nine years after increased some 87 per cent. During those nine years billions of taxpayer dollars were spent on pushing intermittent and unreliable energy into the system. The correlation between dependence upon renewables and power costs has been borne out around the world. Countries with a higher dependence upon renewables are also the countries with the highest That's why we urgently need to push more cheap and reliable baseload energy into the system. At the national level this Liberal-National government has sought to introduce a baseload power incentive scheme that potential investors now say will encourage investment in coal-fired power. It's a great shame that Labor's Queensland premier does not want investment in jobs and cheaper power in her own state. Queensland has the most abundant, best-quality, cheapest coal in the world but it also now has a Labor premier who has ruled out letting Queenslanders enjoy the benefits that coal is delivering to other nations around the world. We'll do it without her with the private sector. Anning, Senator Fraser 39 13:39 Mr NEUMANN HVO Blair I'm proud to be a Queenslander. I raised my family in Ipswich and I've lived in my electorate my whole life. I've seen firsthand how the words of a newly elected member of this place could divide a community. The comments made by Senator Anning in the other place are not reflective of my community in Ipswich, of Queensland or of South-East Queensland. They're definitely not reflective of Australia and the shared Australian values we all believe in. Australia is a nation built on migration, and our non-discriminatory immigration policy is our strength and pride. The Racial Discrimination Act was passed by the Whitlam government in 1975 to ensure Australia would not return to the backward, unjust and discriminatory days of yesteryear. Yesterday, a senator used disgusting, denigrating and divisive language which has no place in this place. It has no place in Australia. The words 'the final solution' should be called out and condemned. I've walked through Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, the World Holocaust Remembrance Center, behind Israeli conscripts as they were taught the horrors of Nazi-occupied Europe, I visited the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC and the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. I suggest Senator Anning visit these places. His words are not normal. They are contemptible, and Queenslanders should not vote for this man at the next election. La Trobe Electorate: Sport 39 13:41 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe Under the redistribution in Victoria, I was fortunate to pick up the suburb of Pakenham. I've had several visits there, especially to sporting clubs. I note that recently I went to the Pakenham football and netball senior clubs, where Amanda Sidebottom is the logistics lead for the female football team. The Pakenham football club president, Travis Hamilton, and others took me around. What really grabbed my attention, though, was that it was one of those nights when it was bucketing down with rain, and all the netballers were lined up outside the building. I was walking past and thought, 'Gee whiz, they're doing it pretty tough after training.' Then, after 20 minutes of taking a tour, I came back, and guess what: the netball players were still standing in the rain. When I asked, 'What's going on here?' they said simply, 'The netball players have to wait for the senior male football players to finish.' This is totally unacceptable, and I know it's happening in my electorate in the Gembrook Cockatoo Football Netball Club and other netball clubs. Female sport needs the same facilities as male sports. I congratulate the club for making this a big issue. I'm going to make sure we remedy that situation and look after both the new netball facilities and the sportsmen's rooms within the club. It needs a major makeover. Mayo Electorate: Prancing Pony Brewery 39 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The drought gripping the eastern states has touched all Australians, including many in Mayo who have opened our hearts and wallets to help farmers in need. South Australia is no stranger to drought, so we have great empathy for the communities affected. To everyone who has supported our drought-stricken farmers, I say thank you. I would like to give a special mention to some craft brewers in my electorate: Corinna and Frank from the Prancing Pony Brewery, who have provided 70 Karma Kegs to raise money for Drought Angels. Their donated pilsner has gone to more than 30 venues across Australia as part of a No Grain, No Food, No Beer campaign. The list includes venues in Mayo: the Pony, the Barker Hotel, the Haus in Hahndorf, the Normanville Hotel and the Duck Inn in Coromandel Valley. Corinna and Frank hope their Karma Kegs will raise at least $40,000 for Drought Angels and bring some good karma. What happens to farmers affects us all. No rain could well mean no grain, no food and no beer. Karma Kegs runs until 3 September, so I encourage you to find a participating venue and raise your glass to our farmers. Battle of Pozieres 39 13:43 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray In relation to the First World War, many of our memories and much of our commemoration is attributed to Gallipoli. However, many of those who were lucky enough to survive Gallipoli were sent to the Western Front, where the atrocities were much, much worse. Australia has done very well to acknowledge the contribution that our Australians made to the Western Front and the Battle of the Somme, with the Monash Centre recently being opened in the vicinity of Villers-Bretonneux. We've done very well to commemorate that. But the battle where we lost the most Australians was at Pozieres. In Pozieres we lost some 7,000 of our finest young men. Over half of those 7,000 were never recovered, because the battles were so sustained and were so fierce that our men were killed, they were blown up, they were buried, they were unburied and then they were reburied. By the time we had an opportunity to go and fetch our men, there was nothing left. We have 3,500 to 4,000 of our finest men who were killed in the First World War still lying in the fields of Pozieres. I think we can do more to commemorate the Battle of Pozieres, our greatest single loss. We should acknowledge 23 July as Pozieres day. I'm very committed to seeing whether we can do more to commemorate Pozieres. Newtown Rugby League Football Club 40 13:45 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Newtown Rugby League Football Club are celebrating their 110th year as a local community based organisation this year. One would have thought that after being thrown out of the NRL they might have just disappeared. Instead, they have thrived as a community based organisation. There is nothing so good as old-fashioned footy on the hill at Henson Park on a Saturday afternoon. Two weeks ago, I was there at Henson Park for the Beer, Footy and Food Festival, where, once again, 8,972 fans gathered at Henson Park to celebrate the local community with local beer, local food and a sense of celebration. One of the great things about this country is that, on the hill at Henson Park and at other local community based sporting activities on weekends, we are all equal. We're all equal in celebrating that sense of community that comes from sport and that sense of identity and bringing together of the community that comes from a local football club like Newtown. I pay tribute to the chair, Barry Cotter; all of the board and players of Newton for keeping that spirit alive. They're largely volunteers, and those volunteers keep that community based club going week after week. Anning, Senator Fraser 40 13:46 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks by leave—Australia is the greatest country in the world. We are democratic, open and free. We welcome people to this country based on what they can bring to our nation. For a member of this parliament to suggest that Australia's immigration policy should be based on either race or religion is appalling. It is morally wrong. There are lots of shades of grey in political debate, but nothing could be more clear-cut than this. We are a big-hearted nation. We must always remain that way. We get things wrong, of course, but we get most things right. We know that judging people based on where they were born is a base and malicious form of discrimination. We know that what matters are your actions, not where your parents are from. Earlier today, the member for Chifley gave an eloquent and moving speech in which he said we should focus on the things that bring us together. He is right. From time to time, bad actors will try to divide us, but they will always be a tiny minority. Australia's history shows that big ideas triumph over small ones and light triumphs over darkness. In Australia, decency prevails. Let's always keep it that way. Anning, Senator Fraser 40 13:48 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills What we have seen today in this parliament is a condemnation of a racist and fascist worldview that was promulgated in the other place. It was rightly condemned all around because it was hurtful and hateful, divisive and destructive. Being Australian is not about your race, your ethnicity or your faith. Being Australian is about embracing our democracy, about embracing equality before the law as a principle and about that quintessential Australian value of a fair go for all. We have heard from our political leaders today that we're the most successful multicultural country in the world. Why is that? It is because our multicultural model doesn't force us to choose between our identities. We can be proud of our cultural heritage and of our faith and still be proud to be Australian. Indeed, that is what it means to be an Australian. That diversity is a strength of our Australianness. We will not allow, here in this place, the far right to spread their hatred, hiding behind the cloak of free speech. Free speech has never been unlimited. That's why we have laws on defamation and against vilification. What we've seen today is a reaffirmation in this parliament of faith in human decency, a rejection of judging others based on the colour of their skin or their faith and empathising with our fellow human beings based on what they say and do. We can be that Australia that gives a fair go for all, regardless of where we come from. Bush, Mr Frank 40 13:50 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar Today I rise to recognise Frank Bush, a resident of Palm Beach and recent recipient of the Order of Australia medal for services to business, particularly to improving standards of corporate governance across private, public and not-for-profit organisations. Frank is the immediate past president of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, where he assisted with overseeing how professionals, aspiring to become chartered secretaries, are qualified and supported. He was also president of the Governance Institute of Australia and the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators. Since 1994, Frank has been a fellow of the Governance Institute and has served as the state council chair and on the finance, audit and risk committee of the institute. Such groups are crucial in supplementing the workforce by developing soft skills and allowing professionals to meet and share ideas. Frank is also a committed member of the Palm Beach and Whale Beach Association. Founded in 1918, it is currently Palm Beach's oldest community group and is committed to preserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area and to protecting its residential amenity. I'm proud to acknowledge the efforts and success of Frank in this field as well as business and corporate governance. I'm sure you will agree that he is a most deserving recipient of the Order of Australia medal. Anning, Senator Fraser 41 13:51 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Like others, I want to rise and condemn in the strongest possible terms some of the disgusting and divisive commentary we've heard from our colleagues in the other place. It is incomprehensible in this day and age in our wonderful multicultural country, our proud nation, which is made up of people who have, apart from the First Nations, come from all over the world to join us here. It was also disappointing to hear that that commentary has been backed up by the leader of that particular party. I don't want to give them any more oxygen, but I say to all Australians, to all sons and daughters under the Southern Cross: no matter where you come from, when you sign up and become an Australian, when you come to contribute to our great nation, you are welcome. From the people I represent in Darwin and Palmerston in the Northern Territory, a wonderful multicultural place, we condemn these words from that senator and hope that those opposite do the same. Boothby Electorate: Brighton Oval Complex 41 13:53 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby The Brighton Oval complex is one of the largest sporting precincts in southern Adelaide. Combined, the Brighton football, cricket, rugby and lacrosse clubs have around 1,400 players before we even start to count club volunteers, family members and spectators. Unfortunately, the clubrooms, grandstand and general facilities are outdated, too small and, in some cases, even unsafe, restricting growth and participation across the site. Thankfully, a plan to redevelop the Brighton Oval complex will see it turned into a state-of-the-art sporting and community hub. This will benefit our community in Brighton and surrounding suburbs like Glenelg, Marion, Warradale, Hove and Seacliff. The plan for the precinct includes new clubrooms and change facilities for each of the sporting groups to accommodate the huge growth in junior and female participation across all codes. But that's just the start. Stage 2 of the plan will focus on community recreation and shared-use facilities, including a multi-use pavilion, play space, fitness hub and half basketball court. I have been working with the clubs and the City of Holdfast Bay since before I was elected. I fully support this upgrade to see the Brighton Oval complex updated, given how important it is to our community. I congratulate the City of Holdfast Bay and my state colleagues Corey Wingard and David Speirs on their commitment to the project to date. I'm working hard with everyone to ensure that this project is delivered for my community. Anning, Senator Fraser 41 13:54 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I, like most of us in this House, hope that this morning's response to the bloke in the Senate's comments last night is a watershed moment. I hope this from the bottom of my heart. As a resident on my social media said this morning, the vision of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shaking hands brought tears to her eyes in the hope for a better future. I say this because my community is at the forefront of what has been happening with the criticisms around race. I want to know that, in this chamber, we'll do more than make speeches today. I want to know that we will take action going forward to ensure that we put the race genie, the hate genie, back in the bottle for the sake of my community. Those who use racism and fear for craven political gain do so because they lack the ideas and the policies to address the economic inequality that is hurting people and their families in my community. I call on this chamber to respond together. I call on my community to say that the way to beat this division, the way to push down your fear when it is raised, is to have an open, warm smile and say 'hello' to your neighbours and to the people you meet in the street. There is one way past this, and that is to join together and agree with this parliament that racism has no place in Australia. Anning, Senator Fraser 41 13:56 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm I couldn't sleep last night as I was so disturbed after reading the comments made in the other place, so rightly condemned. In view of the speeches I heard in the House today, I have never been a more proud Australian than I am today. My father fled postwar poverty in Greece, without his parents, and built a life with my mum, also of Greek heritage, with optimism, faith and love in their hearts for this country. Albeit Melburnian born and bred, I have often—like all Australians of non-Anglo background who look different, sound different or have a different-sounding name—experienced the sentiment which we saw in the other place last night in that speech, which could be summed up by, 'Go back to your home country where you came from.' I'm so proud to be the voice for one of the most multicultural and diverse electorates in the country, including a significant number of people with Chinese, Indian, Greek and Italian heritage, to name a few. They all have good hearts, because in their hearts they live by Australian values of love and respect, regardless of their ethnicity or heritage. To the wonderful diverse and multicultural people of Chisholm, particularly to the young people and the students in my electorate, if you ever come across racist prejudice, cultural bias or attacks, remember: no-one can take what's in your heart. We saw here in the heart of our country, in the Australian parliament today, the unifying love and commitment that makes all of us proud— (Time expired) Anning, Senator Fraser 42 13:57 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Like many of my colleagues, I rise to address the shameful words that were uttered in the other place last night. There can be no excuse, no weasel words and no reason such as free speech to accept the divisive, hurtful and ignorant speech made by a Queensland senator, who, I might add, was elected on 19 votes. We heard similar views in this House 20 years ago, when a former member for Oxley used the same scare tactics in her first speech. Those racially motivated comments were rejected then, and I know that our community will reject them now. My community in the electorate of Oxley is one of the most diverse and multicultural electorates in Australia, with almost 60,000 people who were born overseas now calling our community home. That is more than one-third of the residents in Oxley. Oxley is also home to one of the largest Vietnamese communities, with over 12,000 people of Vietnamese heritage. It is statistics like these which prove Australia is the best multicultural nation on earth. We celebrate our differences and rejoice in our similarities. We're a place where every group of migrants from all over the world has contributed to this country and made it a better place. We are a stronger country because we are a diverse nation. We are a richer nation because we have a multicultural nation where no-one is limited by their faith, their race or the circumstances of their birth. Like many Australians, I condemn the speech given by Senator Anning and call on him and the Katter party to retract those comments. Drought 42 13:59 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Most of New South Wales and in particular the Calare electorate is facing the worst drought in living memory. Farmers are telling me that they're unable to source grain and that if they aren't able to find it urgently they will not be able to maintain their flocks and herds. Because the market is short, prices are skyrocketing. Sadly, some people are making big money off the backs of struggling farmers. I believe there needs to be a coordinated effort to get grain from Western Australia, where it's plentiful, into Central West New South Wales, where it's scarce. I'm told that private enterprise should step in and get the grain there. Maybe it should; it hasn't yet. I'm also told that the New South Wales government is responsible for livestock. Maybe it is. Our farmers don't care about demarcation issues; they just need this grain urgently. In the first instance I believe there is a role for the federal government to play in getting all the parties in a room together. We can coordinate logistics with the New South Wales government for locating and organising available ships or trains. If private enterprise is unwilling or unable to step up and other governments won't get involved then I believe the federal government needs to underwrite shipments to get the grain over as soon as possible. Farmers are not looking for free grain; they just want a guaranteed supply at a price that doesn't gouge them out of business. Even the prospect of this may help shake grain back onto the market, which is currently being deliberately held back. More drought relief is required, and we need to get it to where it is needed on the double. The future of our country communities is at stake. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43 the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 42 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 42 14:01 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Today's disappointing ABS wages data confirms that this Prime Minister continues to preside over record-low wages growth. Given that everything is going up except people's wages, why is the Prime Minister making it even harder for working Australians to make ends meet by supporting unilateral cuts to penalty rates? Why does the Prime Minister only ever look after the top end of town? 14:01 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Wage Price Index increased by 0.6 per cent in the June quarter. That's the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014. While the growth in average wages has been relatively low, we have turned the corner on wages growth, and the increase in the June quarter is an indication of that. I repeat: it's the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014. As the Reserve Bank governor said only a week or so ago: … the rate of wages growth appears to have troughed and there are increased reports of skills shortages in some areas. The relatively modest wage growth shows again why our personal income tax relief of $530 this year for middle-income families or taxpayers is so important. It also underlines the importance of strong jobs growth. We are starting to see a pickup in wages growth because of more demand for labour. The laws of supply and demand have not been suspended. The Reserve Bank governor notes that. We're seeing more demand for labour. We're seeing skills shortages starting to develop in some areas, hence wages are starting to move up. That means we need to maintain the momentum for strong economic growth. All of that growth we have seen has been driven and enabled by our economic policies. We're bringing down energy prices. Companies are paying lower taxes. Individuals are paying less tax. Small and medium firms are investing and hiring. That is why last calendar year we saw the largest jobs growth in any calendar year in Australia's history. We are delivering more jobs and stronger economic growth, and that is starting to be reflected, as the Reserve Bank governor foreshadowed, in the wage growth figure, which, as I said, is the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014. Taxation 43 14:04 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the government's plan for lower taxes will benefit working Australians and small business, including in my electorate of Forde? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:04 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for his question. We're ensuring that hardworking Australian families can keep more of the money they earn. Despite the opposition from the Labor Party, we were able to reduce personal income tax for middle-income and lower-middle-income Australians, with $530 coming back to over four million taxpayers in this financial year. The Labor Party voted against our comprehensive personal income tax reform just like they voted against our reductions in tax for small and medium companies, all of which are investing now and hiring, and that is why we're seeing that stronger wage growth. Of course, the other important element we're delivering is lower energy prices. We're turning the corner on energy prices. There is a very straightforward question for the Leader of the Opposition to answer. I recognise that in his job he has some complex questions. He does. He has to work out how he's going to settle his preselection arrangements with the Victorian Premier. That'd be pretty complicated. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right! We're about to reduce the numbers in the House if members keep interjecting while I'm trying to hear the point of order. The Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW It's on direct relevance. The question went to how the company tax policy of the government would trickle down to workers. That's what he should be relevant to. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I'll rule on the point of order when members are ready. It certainly did. It related to the topic of tax. The Prime Minister and, indeed, any minister can compare and contrast, but I'm sure the Prime Minister's finished the comparison and is coming back to the question. Mr TURNBULL 885 I return to the choices. I was asked about alternative approaches, and, obviously, there is one that the Leader of the Opposition is considering. He's got to ask himself: is he going to support lower taxes and lower energy prices? We've already heard him. He says he wants to have not just higher taxes but higher energy prices. Lead— Mr Dreyfus HWG Nonsense! Mr TURNBULL 885 'Nonsense,' says the member for Isaacs. The Labor Environmental Action Network, or LEAN, says higher prices are a sign the market is working, so they think it's terrific. That's the Labor Party. They want higher energy prices and higher taxes. I know he's distracted by other important questions, some of them complex, technological challenges. Is the microphone on? What does the green light mean? Is the handbrake on? We've seen all of those questions, but he can put them aside. The simple question for Labor is this: do you want Australians to pay lower taxes and lower energy prices? If you want them to pay lower energy prices, the way forward is clear: support the National Energy Guarantee. Workplace Relations 44 14:08 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman My question is to the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition inform the House about the progress through the parliament of his private member's bill which would restore penalty rates for working Australians? Is there any urgency to progressing this bill? The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the Leader of the Opposition, questions are allowed to private members on private members' bills that have been introduced by those members and on notices of motion, but I just remind the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the House, for those who have queries about this, that the Procedure Committee has ruled that the answers to those questions need to be confined to timing and procedure. For those who are interested, it's outlined in the new Practice on page 550. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. 14:09 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the honourable member for her question. The private member's bill on the Notice Paper in my name deals with the restoration of Sunday and public holiday penalty rates, and it is urgent. As the House knows, the bill will not progress unless the government schedules debate and a vote during government business. In light of today's poor wages data, it is more urgent than ever— The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 You've already made it clear to the Leader of the Opposition that the answer he can give needs to be limited to the progress of the legislation in terms of the number of hearings that might be scheduled into the legislation, the number of submissions that might have been received by the committee that might be investigating the bill. It cannot go to the substance of the bill and it can't go to the subject matter of the bill in any respect. It can only go to the technical aspects of dealing with the bill. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on both sides will cease interjecting. If anyone interjects while I'm ruling on this point of order they'll find they're watching the rest of the answer from the Leader of the Opposition from their office. I outlined the issue of timing and procedure at the start of the question. I'm not going to detain the House with all of the precedents—that is, the answers that are being given, that go back to second airports and all the rest of it—but I can assure you I'm familiar with them. Everything the Leader of the House said about what could be in the Leader of the Opposition's answer is correct. But so far he's completely in order, and I'm listening very closely. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Thank you. It is most urgent that we debate the restoration of public holiday and Sunday penalty rates, because today's disappointing wages data highlights the need for this matter to be progressed during government business and scheduled for a vote. The data today reveals that private sector wages growth is below inflation. It is urgent. Everything in this country is going up above wages. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Ms Burney interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Barton is warned. She needs to realise she's in a seat where I hear her far more clearly—the member for Jagajaga's old seat. The Leader of the House on a point of order. Mr Pyne 9V5 Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is going to the question of why he wants his bill to be debated in the chamber, which is going to the subject matter of the bill and the subject itself, when he's not able to do that under the standing orders, as you pointed out. He's now talking about why he wants the bill to be on, as though it's a suspension of standing orders debate, where if he just mentions the procedure of the bill he can then talk about the substance. He can't do that. It's a very, very narrow window of what he can actually talk about, and if the precedent is allowed for him to debate the subject— Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Leader of the House, just pause for a second. You might have finished, but I didn't hear the last bit, thanks to the member for Wakefield, who will now do as I predicted—he'll leave under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I didn't hear the last 30 seconds. Mr Pyne 9V5 I simply make the point that, if the Leader of the Opposition is allowed to debate the substance and the subject matter, it sets a new precedent, when you very clearly stated it's a very limited opportunity to answer such a question if you're not a member of the frontbench of the government, and I think that is a dangerous precedent for us to establish. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business. Mr Burke DYW Thanks, Mr Speaker. I followed your advice and had a look at page 550 of Practice, which goes quite specifically to whether or not there is urgency in a matter, and urgency is the only issue that the Leader of the Opposition has been dealing with and has been giving the reasons why it is urgent. The SPEAKER 00APG I obviously stand by my ruling on the Leader of the House's first point of order. The Leader of the Opposition shouldn't be debating the matter. He should be talking about urgency. Obviously, in doing that, I say to the Leader of the House that he's entitled to talk about the subject of the bill. It's a little difficult to answer the question without saying what the bill's about. But, on your second point of order that I'm ruling on now, the Leader of the Opposition I think is getting close now to debating the matter, which he shouldn't be doing. He needs to confine himself to urgency, timing, procedure. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. Mr SHORTEN 00ATG It is urgent to deal with our proposal to restore Sunday and public holiday penalty rates because the workers of this country are going backwards under the Turnbull government and they need a wage rise. Taxation 45 14:14 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 the government is cutting taxes and delivering certainty for working families and small businesses in Central Queensland, including in my electorate of Capricornia? Are there any risks to the plan to reward hardworking Australians? 14:14 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina If the Leader of the Opposition were so committed to businesses and so committed to workers, he would have backed the tax cuts that the Liberals and Nationals have put in place. He would have backed the 27½ per cent tax rate, which is the lowest it's been for 78 years. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. Mr McCORMACK 219646 That doesn't happen by coincidence. It happens because the Liberals and Nationals understand business and understand small business. I tell you what: the member for Capricornia understands business. She understands, because she walks up and down East Street, the main street in Rockhampton, each and every non-sitting day, talking to business, listening to them and seeing what they say. They're telling her that they certainly want those tax cuts. They certainly don't want Labor rolling back those tax cuts. What Labor members should do on their non-sitting days is go into the small businesses in their electorates and look those people in the eye and say: 'We should have supported those tax cuts. We should have supported you getting more money in your pocket. We should have supported you having the ability to hire more Australians, giving young Australians the opportunity to get their first job, giving an older Australian an opportunity for another career.' I tell you what: the member for Capricornia knows. She knows Simone Lawrie from Artisan Gluten Free Bakery. It's in East Street, Rockhampton. It's supportive of company tax cuts. It's also supportive of the Rookwood Weir—a $176.1 million contribution from the Commonwealth to not only help flood mitigation for Rockhampton but also droughtproof that particular area. Artisan has won a suite of business awards across the region and the state. It makes a mean apple turnover, I'm told. Certainly, when it comes to turnovers, Labor don't understand the difference between turnover and profit. They think that if a business has a big turnover that equals a big profit. Well, that's not necessarily so. That's why we've got those tax cuts. We're working hard to make it easier for small businesses. Artisan employs 11 staff. It's a good little small business. Each and every one of the Labor members should go into their good little small businesses and apologise for the fact that they haven't backed the Liberal-Nationals tax cuts and for the fact that they also stand for higher power prices. Higher taxes and higher power prices are the Labor way. They are the way of the member for Maribyrnong. We're investing in critical infrastructure in the member for Capricornia's electorate—Rookwood Weir, as I said, $176.1 million; and the Bruce Highway, $10 billion. I talked to a truckie the other day. The investment that we've made in the route from the Gracemere saleyards to the Rockhampton abattoirs is going to save trucks decoupling. It's going to save them two hours of time. That's the sort of infrastructure that we're investing in. And we back small businesses with lower power prices and lower taxes. Energy 45 14:17 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports he held crisis talks with government MPs last night in a bid to stop them voting against his energy policy? Given the Prime Minister has failed to appease his internal enemies by trading his convictions on climate change for new coal-fired power stations, what else is he planning to give up to the right wing of his party in order to keep his job? 14:18 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. It's the honourable member and her colleagues opposite that have given up on Australian families, because it's the Labor Party that believes it's a good thing to have higher energy prices. It's the Labor Party that says higher prices mean the market is working. Well, it's certainly not working for Australian families. It is the Labor Party that is refusing and failing to support the National Energy Guarantee, which will bring down power prices. It is part of a suite of measures that we have already deployed, which is getting Australians a better deal on electricity. It's why we are seeing retail prices, retail bills, falling. Families are already paying less for electricity. We want to keep that trend, that momentum, going, and the National Energy Guarantee is part of that. The Labor Party has lots of difficult questions to deal with, whether they be about preselections, releasing lawyers' reports, complex technical matters, or canoeing up the Tarkine and doing a little bit of real estate spotting while doing that. There are all of those challenging problems—geographical, technological, psephological. Here's one straightforward question: do you want Australians to pay less for electricity? Do you want Australians to have lower bills? We do. That's our commitment to the National Energy Guarantee. And Labor, if it's fair dinkum about families, should back it and stop worshipping, with the LEAN, the proposition that higher electricity prices are somehow or other a good thing. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Griffith is warned. The member for McEwen has already been warned. He won't interject again if he wishes to stay for the rest of question time. Mayo By-Election 46 14:20 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo My question is to the Prime Minister. The people of Mayo were made a series of funding promises during the recent by-election, including $10 million for the Mount Barker Aquatic Centre, $4.4 million for soccer pitches at the Mount Barker Regional Sports Hub, $1 million for the strategic traffic planning study in Hahndorf, $3.9 million for aged-care beds in Strathalbyn, $750,000 for Kangaroo Island walking trails and over $40,000 for community solar grants in Nairne, Macclesfield and Strathalbyn. Will the Prime Minister give his commitment that all the government's by-election promises made to Mayo will be honoured during the term of this parliament? 14:21 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The only thing missing from the honourable members list was the name of the candidate that secured those commitments, Georgina Downer. It was her. She secured those commitments. I can assure the honourable member that those commitments secured by her opponent, the Liberal candidate, Georgina Downer, will be delivered, but there'll be another election in Mayo before not too long, and the honourable member will then have the opportunity to not simply thank the government for the delivery of the commitments that she has described but also consider how she is going with the $700 million of promises she made in the course of the by-election. The reality is that the government made the commitments, Georgina Downer secured them and the government will deliver them. Energy 46 14:22 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the steps the government is taking to strengthen competition, promote investment and reduce prices in energy markets? Is the Treasurer aware of any approaches that would seek to derail this success? 14:22 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She, like all members from South Australia, lived through the failed Labor energy policy experiments by the previous South Australian Labor government. They lived through the blackouts. They lived through the huge surges in prices. They lived through the failed Labor experiment, but I suspect the members opposite and the Labor Party would probably think it was a success, because, according to them, success is when prices go up. You decide the policy is good when the prices go up. Thank goodness for Premier Marshall, because he's setting things right in South Australia. He's getting on with the job of cleaning up the mess that Labor left behind in South Australia. Premier Marshall is supporting the National Energy Guarantee. Ms Rishworth HWA Will you fund his interconnector? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kingston will cease interjecting. The member for Kingston is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L He knows that, in fixing up the mess in South Australia on energy prices, the National Energy Guarantee is an important part of setting things right. The National Energy Guarantee is a critical part of the government's plan to produce cheaper electricity prices. This parliament has a critical opportunity to seize this sliding-doors moment for Australia to walk through to a path of cheaper electricity prices. There are two alternatives. One is that we pass the National Energy Guarantee and, through that measure alone, a $150 reduction in household power bills; the other is that we go down the Labor Party's path and see household power bills go up by $190 because of their reckless target policies, which will only force electricity prices up. The National Energy Guarantee is part of a bigger plan. The ACCC was commissioned by me as Treasurer, and by the government, to put together further recommendations to lower electricity prices for cheaper electricity. The first thing they said was: 'Back the NEG. Back the National Energy Guarantee. That is a critical component.' Secondly, they said to give customers more power by shining a light on what has been a lack of transparency in how big energy companies charge people in the market and give consumers greater power to understand how they can get a better deal and ensure they get a better deal; to back in finance for new energy generation facilities across the country—that's their recommendation, to back that finance in, and that's what we're leaning into; and to put a leash on the big energy companies trying to gobble up smaller energy companies, to ensure there is competition in the market. That's a real plan. We're moving forward with all of those plans to ensure that we can get cheaper electricity prices. But right now the challenge is to pass the National Energy Guarantee. We do not want to let jobs and investment go offshore. BlueScope, Alcoa, BHP, Rio Tinto are all saying, 'Pass the National Energy Guarantee, because it will deliver lower electricity prices in Australia and support Australian jobs.' Energy 47 14:25 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Energy Security Board modelling assumes Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project won't go ahead under his National Energy Guarantee? 14:26 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong In fact, under the National Energy Guarantee, Tasmania will be one of the biggest beneficiaries. And do you know why? Because there is stable, dispatchable power in Tasmania, with so much of it being delivered by hydrofacilities. It's the Turnbull government that is interested in supporting a second interconnector between Tasmania and the mainland which can provide additional energy security to the people in Tasmania while also supplying more power into Victoria. The National Energy Guarantee modelling shows that Australian households will be $550 a year better off—$150 a year through the guarantee and around $400 from other policies that are currently in practice. So, under the National Energy Guarantee, Tasmania, like every other state across the country in the national electricity market, will be the beneficiary. Energy 47 14:27 Ms BANKS 18661 Chisholm My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the National Energy Guarantee will result in lower power prices for Australian households and businesses, including in my home state of Victoria? Is the minister aware of any other plans that will result in higher prices? 14:27 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Chisholm for her question. I know that she supports the Turnbull government's moves to drive down power prices, knowing that, under the coalition, power prices will always be lower and, under the Labor Party, they'll always go up. That is the track record of the Labor government when they were last in office, when power prices doubled. They went up each and every year. The member for Chisholm comes from the great state of Victoria. But, unfortunately, under the Andrews Labor government, Victoria now has the second highest prices in the country. Last September, the Australian Energy Market Operator put out a report which said that there was up to a 43 per cent chance of load shedding in Victoria. That's a euphemism for blackouts, and that is because the Andrews government cheered the closure of the Hazelwood Power Station, which could provide up to a quarter of Victoria's power supply. If you look at the last six months of 2017 in Victoria, Victoria was importing power instead of exporting it to the rest of the grid. The member for Chisholm knows that, since we've come to government, we have put downward pressure on prices by getting more gas into the market by reining in the power of the network companies, which, if the Labor Party had thought about it when they were in office, would have saved consumers $6.5 million by getting a better deal from the retailers for millions of Australian customers; and, of course, through the National Energy Guarantee. This has been supported by groups in the member's electorate like Asaleo Care in Box Hill, which is a leading personal care and hygiene company with landmark brands such as Sorbent, Libra and Handee. It started in 1932. It was listed on the ASX in 2014. It has 11 manufacturing and distribution facilities and employs 1,000 people. They have got behind the National Energy Guarantee. The Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, with 15,000 members, said of the National Energy Guarantee: The NEG remains an important reform to improve energy policy predictability, reduce risk and encourage investment in new electricity generation. We know that Manufacturing Australia has written in the Herald Sun about how important it is for the one million manufacturing workers across the country to have the National Energy Guarantee. So, at the end of the day, if you believe in lower power prices, if you want to see Australian households $550 a year better off, if you want to see the wholesale price down by 20 per cent, if you want to be side by side with the big employers across the country, you get behind the National Energy Guarantee and you don't hide from your responsibilities, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do. Energy 48 14:30 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon My question is to the Prime Minister. Modelling conducted by Hydro Tasmania in support of the Battery of the Nation project states: … previous modelling showed that coal was not economic … This was carried forward as an assumption in the Battery of the Nation analysis. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his plan to build new taxpayer-funded coal-fired plants will undermine the Battery of the Nation project in Tasmania? 14:31 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member for her question. As the first person—in enthusiastic approval of your doing more pumped hydro in Tasmania—to have coined the phrase 'Battery of the Nation', I'm very grateful for the question. I can confirm that the origin of the Battery of the Nation proposal came from a speech I gave at the National Press Club in February 2017, where I identified the need for more storage to support the amount of intermittent renewables. I underlined the importance of having a technology-agnostic approach to energy in order to have cheaper electricity. The objective is to have cheaper electricity. The honourable member should not be so obsessed about one technology or another. As it is, recommendation 4 from the ACCC to provide support for new generation, competitive generation, is technology-agnostic. It could apply to energy from a pumped-hydro scheme in Tasmania or in any other part of the country, just as it could apply to a new thermal plant, be it coal or gas, or a mixture of all of the above. It is technology-agnostic and it has one objective and one objective alone, which is to deliver cheaper electricity. As Rod Sims himself said, if we start picking one technology over another, that leads to higher electricity prices. We've got to have a system, a plan, that delivers energy at a cheaper price, and that needs to be technology-agnostic. Ms Keay interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 The honourable member is endeavouring to interject, and I thank her for her contribution, which I can barely hear because her mic isn't on—the Leader of the Opposition has a problem with that, too, of course!—but the fact is that all technologies have a role to play, and the approach we are taking is technology-agnostic because we want to deliver cheaper electricity. Pumped hydro and wind in Tasmania no doubt have a big role to play, but let the market decide. Let it compete, and then we will see that the real winner will not be one theory or another, not one technology or another, but Australian families. Cheaper electricity: that's what the honourable member should be supporting. We look forward to her and her party supporting the National Energy Guarantee. Cheaper electricity: that's what it's all about. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 48 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:34 The SPEAKER 00APG I would like to inform the House that we have just had join us in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Income Tax 48 14:34 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is ensuring the future prosperity of all Australians, including those in my electorate of Moore? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by alternative approaches? 14:35 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for his question and for hosting me in his electorate only a few weeks ago. I would like to publicly congratulate him for the very fine work that he is doing, because he is delivering, and delivering more, for his constituents of Moore. He is delivering more tax relief for small, medium- and family-sized enterprises—around 15,000—in his electorate of Moore. And he is delivering more tax relief for those hardworking Australians, around 65,000 of them, who work hard every day and who will benefit from our personal income tax relief that has been legislated through both houses of this parliament. He understands that people work hard for their money and that they deserve to keep more of it, after we secure the essentials that government needs to deliver. Of course, part of the government's personal income tax plan is to ensure that nine out of 10 Australians will pay a marginal tax rate of no more than 32½c in the dollar. The member asks me about alternative approaches. Well, he would probably be aware that the Leader of the Opposition does see things rather differently. He would like to saddle his fellow Australians with more than $200 billion of new taxes. He would like to slug the Australian economy with over $200 billion of new taxes. And why is this? Because not only is the Leader of the Opposition short on authenticity, as he made very clear through the hot mic incident in Queensland, but he is also short on ideas. He is short on ideas about how to build the economy, how to manage the Australian economy, how to grow the Australian economy. To him, economic policy simply means all of the multiple ways that he can reach in and pick your pocket. Let's just take the mega retiree tax as just one example, because this is not just picking a pocket. This is a smash-and-grab on retirees right across the country—a $55 billion smash-and-grab on them—and it will punish around a million Australians, if he has his way. It will see the potential reduction for these Australians of around 30 per cent of their income, if they do not get their tax refunds. He does not want to encourage aspirational self-reliance In fact, he wants to see more people on welfare, not less, because he claims it's all about fairness. But these people are some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are low-income earners. They cannot afford his tax slug, and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. (Time expired) Energy 49 14:38 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro My question is to the Prime Minister. In Senate estimates, Snowy Hydro was asked if the construction of new coal-fired power stations would put the viability of Snowy 2.0 in doubt. Snowy Hydro's chief operating officer responded, 'Simply put, yes.' Prime Minister, why are you jeopardising Snowy 2.0? 14:39 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I thank the honourable member. The government is getting on with Snowy Hydro 2.0. It's going to be built. There will be lots of jobs created in the honourable member's electorate. The reality is that Snowy Hydro 2.0 will put downward pressure on electricity prices, because it will reduce volatility in the electricity market. It has an enormous role to play in delivering greater security and lower prices. Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— Mr TURNBULL 885 I heard the honourable member agree with me when I said it would deliver lower prices. What a pity it wasn't his idea or the Labor Party's idea—what a pity! What a pity that it fell to the Liberal Party and the National Party to come back and get that great project out of the old, cobwebbed filing cabinet that it had been left in since the late 1980s—to get that back and get on with it. The Labor Party talks about energy and they talk about renewables, but it's all ideology and plenty of idiocy. We're providing the engineering and the economics, and the engineering and the economics mean you've got to have cheaper electricity. To have cheaper electricity, you need to have storage, and that's the role pumped hydro can play. I thank the honourable member. Although he's not necessarily very factual in his responses, I thank him for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of the great price-reducing initiatives, engineering initiatives and economic initiatives of my government. Energy 49 14:40 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Could the minister please update the House on the importance of reliable and affordable energy for Australia's manufacturing exports? Is the minister aware of any threats to successful manufacturing export? 14:40 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the honourable member for her question. I know the member for Gilmore is a very strong supporter of reliable and affordable energy. Her electorate is, of course, home to workers from Port Kembla BlueScope. The steelworks there are a great example of Aussie enterprise in action. I'm very pleased that the coalition, through the Prime Minister, was able to secure the only country exemption from the United States' steel tariffs, delivered by this Prime Minister in direct discussions with the US President, which has safeguarded the jobs of those workers in the member's electorate. It's an absolute credit to her strong advocacy, as well. In fact, BlueScope have a product that the Leader of the Opposition might be interested in. They produce Colorbond, of course, and he could use a Colorbond fence. They might even name it after him. They could call it 'Colorbill'. On one side, it could be red, and, on the other side, it could be green. The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will pause for a second. I've warned about the use of correct titles and, in fact, if I'm not mistaken, I've sat the minister down before. Mr Ciobo 00AN0 I was talking about a Colorbond product, Mr Speaker. But I'll carry on. The SPEAKER 00APG Minister, you don't have the call, actually—and you're about to not get it. It's very clear what the minister was trying to do, and that was to refer to the Leader of the Opposition by an incorrect title. The minister has the call. Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Thank you, Mr Speaker. As Australia's largest domestic manufacturer, with an energy bill of around $150 million a year, BlueScope certainly recognises the importance of energy certainty and energy cost and reliability. In fact, the malign legacy of the Australian Labor Party is a threat that must be addressed. When Labor was last in office, we saw energy costs double, increasing by 101 per cent, so the fact is that there is a real threat to the future of jobs at manufacturers like BlueScope. That threat is the Australian Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition, as he goes about his mission impossible of trying to appease both the Greens and the CFMEU at the same time when it comes to energy policy. You can almost imagine a top-secret meeting between Labor and the Greens. They say, 'Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to make Australia's coal workers think that you're standing up for them on the red side, just like the Cleanevent workers did, and also to make those in the inner city suburbs think that you're standing up for the environment on the green side.' The simple fact is that this Leader of the Opposition is no Tom Cruise. This Leader of the Opposition is the kind of guy who's going to let down the workers at BlueScope, and he's going to let down those who are concerned about the environment—because the simple, inescapable fact is that Labor's federal energy policy will be a continuation of an approach that has seen higher energy prices, with a doubling of energy costs when Labor was last in power, and will see blackouts not only in South Australia but across the country, as a direct result. Centrelink 50 14:44 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports today that the government's robo-debt program is now targeting the homeless and people with mental illness, impairments and chronic illness. Given that the government's own figures show that the robo-debt program has got it wrong on almost 20,000 occasions, why is the government continuing to target the most vulnerable people in Australia? 14:44 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for that question, and I think it gives me a chance to correct the record, from some of the inaccuracies contained in those reports. I start by saying that there is a fundamental principle within our welfare system—that is, when somebody has been overpaid money either inadvertently, because they've told us the wrong information, or deliberately, when they've given us incorrect information, they are required to repay that money. That fundamental principle of our welfare system has been upheld by governments of this political persuasion and by governments of that political persuasion. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. Mr KEENAN E0J I have a media release here from 2011 issued by the now Leader of the Opposition and the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who were then the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Human Services. The release is headed 'Welfare debt recovery process to be automated'. The release goes on to brag about the compliance efforts that were undertaken by the Gillard government in 2011. The now Deputy Leader of the Opposition goes on to say: … if people fail to come to an arrangement to settle their debts, the Government has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover that money. Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Lyons is warned. Mr KEENAN E0J Not only is it an important principle within the welfare system but it is actually also the law. The Social Security Act 1991 demands that the government recover debts where people have been paid money from the social security system that they are not entitled to, and we will continue to uphold that principle. The question is how to go about that. There are groups of people who have debts to the Commonwealth and find themselves in special circumstances, and, when that is the case, we take into account the special circumstances in which they find themselves. Where somebody who has been identified as vulnerable has a debt, we work with them to update their income details, and we understand the need to deal with these people sensitively. Debts are not raised unless a person has been contacted and has discussed their individual circumstances with their department. In cases where a debt is raised, my department will work closely with people on an appropriate repayment plan and to organise options for that person to repay the money. There are 700 social workers within the Department of Human Services that can help us do that. Considering the vulnerabilities of some people that owe us debts, I have asked that the trial we had conducted here be put on pause whilst we make sure that, when we go to recover these debts, we are doing it in the most sensitive way possible. That trial will not proceed until I am satisfied that that is the case. National Security 51 14:47 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the steps the government has taken to protect Australians from dangerous visa holders, including outlaw motorcycle gang members? Is the minister aware of any different views that would weaken border security? 14:48 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson All Australians know that this government has worked day and night to keep our borders secure to make sure we don't allow the people smugglers back in control, but one of the other significant outcomes for this government is that we've been able to cancel a record number of visas of noncitizens, people who were here in our country perhaps on tourist visas, working temporarily in our country or studying in tertiary institutions here, and have committed serious crimes against Australians. Some people, for example, have committed sexual offences against children or women in our country, and we've cancelled more visas of those criminals in the last 12 months than Labor did in six years. I'm proud of the fact that we've been able to not only cancel those visas but also, on the advice of the Australian Institute of Criminology in research that they've just released, stop 2,975 additional offences being committed by those people had they been allowed to stay in Australia. About 3,000 offences would have been committed by these criminals and, on the AIC advice, that would have been about 1,000 people. So we're talking about 1,000 Australians who would have fallen victim to these criminals had these criminals been allowed to stay in Australia. One of our principal targets has been outlaw motorcycle gang members, 190 of whose visas we've now cancelled—and they've been deported or are awaiting deportation from our country. They are people who weren't deported—in fact, the Labor Party issued visas to many of these criminals to be in our country, and we've cancelled the visas. It's interesting to note that outlaw motorcycle gang members are the biggest distributors of ice in our country. If you're in a country town, an outer suburban area or a capital city, know that, if your kids are at risk of receiving drugs from the local drug dealer, it is likely that those drugs would have been imported or distributed by outlaw motorcycle gangs. That's not their only pursuit, because we know that outlaw motorcycle gangs are also affiliated with our old friends at the CFMEU. Why wouldn't Labor want to cancel the visas of outlaw motorcycle gangs, the members of whom are affiliated with the CFMEU? About 11 million reasons—$11 million the CFMEU has donated to the Labor Party. Who is the biggest supporter in this parliament of the CFMEU? Who is it? It's our old friend, the Leader of the Opposition. His links back to the CFMEU, you would not believe: he has, on behalf of the Labor Party, accepted millions and millions of dollars, and don't believe a word he says. It would continue if he was in— (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef Foundation 51 14:51 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. In question time on Monday, the environment minister claimed that his department undertook a 'first phase of due diligence' which failed to contact the Great Barrier Reef Foundation but looked at its 'fundraising history'. In his brief for the 9 April meeting where he offered almost $500 million in taxpayers' money, what amount was the Prime Minister advised the foundation had raised from corporate or private sources over its entire history? What was the figure that due diligence told him they had raised? 14:51 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth I'll ask the minister for the environment to answer the question, but I just want to remind the honourable member that when he was minister for the environment in 2012, he made a substantial grant to that foundation which resulted in the department working closely with the foundation for all of the period since then. So the department was, and remains, very familiar with the work of the foundation and has had extensive experience which may well have predated the minister's intervention in 2012 but was certainly enabled and accelerated by the minister's decision to make a $12 million grant to the foundation. 14:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It's very well known that the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has been the largest charity with the reef. And how do we know that? Because in 2012 when the member for Watson gave millions of dollars to the foundation, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority announced that it was the most successful charity. We know that the head of the charity, Anna Marsden, has told 7.30 that it has been able to raise over $90 million from a range of sources—about $25 million of which is from government sources, both federal and state; and tens of millions of dollars are from the private sector and philanthropic means. The question is: why didn't we get any questions yesterday from the member for Watson? Maybe because there was a headline in The Australian. The member for Watson denies the double standard of— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat and the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I've got to say to the minister candidly: the question isn't why there wasn't a question yesterday. That's not the question at all. The subject matter he's now introducing does not relate at all to the Great Barrier Reef—it couldn't be further away. The minister needs to be relevant to the question. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL The reality is that the foundation is the largest reef charity. The reality is that more than $200 million is going to improving farming practices and preventing sediment, nitrogen and pesticide run-off. The reality is that $100 million is going to the best available science. The reality is that money is going to tackling the crown-of-thorns starfish. This will create jobs in the member for Herbert's electorate. This will create jobs in the member for Flynn's electorate. This will create jobs in the member for Leichhardt's electorate. That is why the heads of the tourism bodies up in the reef area welcomed our announcement and said it underpinned regional jobs. I remind the House that my department told me in writing that this contribution to the reef foundation would ensure that we would meet our objectives in protecting the reef, that it represented value for money and that it was consistent and compliant with our accountability act. So the Labor Party are only raising this issue because, when they were in government, they abandoned the reef. Illicit Drugs 52 14:55 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security. Will the minister update the House on what actions the government is taking to stop illicit drugs from making their way onto our streets, and would different approaches achieve the same success? 14:55 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume I thank the member for his question, and I commend him for his interest in keeping drugs off the streets of Bennelong, his electorate. Of course, we're all interested, on this side of the House, in keeping drugs off the street, and so I'm pleased to update the House on the operational successes of our law enforcement agencies since 1 July—this is just the last six weeks. In that time, our agencies have shut down a European drug syndicate importing MDMA and cocaine in large quantities, allegedly, into Australia. They've shut down a clandestine drug lab in Sydney, with 150 litres of methamphetamine seized. They've charged two men attempting to import almost 100 kilograms of cocaine, and they've seized over half a tonne—600 kilograms—of cocaine being imported into Queensland. That is on top of 10.7 tonnes of hard drugs intercepted at our borders in the last financial year—10.7 tonnes that would have ended up on our streets, devastating our local communities, having a horrific impact in our suburbs, in our cities, in our regional towns and in our rural centres. We know that our communities know a great deal about what's going on on the streets. For that reason, we recently announced a reinvestment in the Dob in a Dealer campaign run by Crime Stoppers. It's funded by proceeds of crime—dollars destined to line the pockets of serious criminals. And I call on anyone with information that can help with investigations or prosecutions of criminals smuggling and peddling drugs to call Crime Stoppers on 1800333000. That's just one step we're taking to disrupt the work, the business models, of drug dealers in this country. On top of that, we've established Australia's first Transnational Serious and Organised Crime Coordinator. We've boosted funding into domestic policing by $320 million and provided over $120 million to the Anti-Gang Squad. In contrast, the former Labor government raided the budgets of our law enforcement agencies to bolster their faltering budget. In their last four years in government, those opposite cut $128 million from the AFP, cut 700 staff and $735 million from Customs, and cut air cargo screening by 75 per cent. This government is absolutely committed to keeping illicit drugs off the streets of our suburbs, our cities and our towns and giving our law enforcement agencies the support they need to get the job done. Great Barrier Reef Foundation 52 14:59 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the environment minister. How can the minister claim there was extensive due diligence before offering the foundation almost half a billion dollars when the government didn't contact the foundation, didn't go through all of its annual reports, didn't know how much money the foundation has raised and, as has been revealed today— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Manager of Opposition Business will just pause for a second. Members on my right will crease interjecting. I would like to ask the Manager of Opposition Business to repeat his question. Members on my right expect me to hear the questions, particularly when the Leader of the House raises points of order on them. Manager of Opposition Business, please start again. Mr BURKE DYW The question is to the environment minister. How can the government claim there was extensive due diligence before offering the foundation almost half a billion dollars when the government didn't contact the foundation, didn't go through all its annual reports and didn't know how much money the foundation had raised, and, as has been revealed today, the foundation has now had to contract out its fundraising plan to a consultant, which was the very issue that the government had claimed was its core expertise? 15:00 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong Well, that fundraising expertise must have been the reason the Labor Party welcomed the announcement of half a billion dollars when we did it—thanks to the member for Sydney. That fundraising expertise must be the reason the member for Watson gave $12½ million when he was last in government. That must be the reason the member for Grayndler has called the foundation a reputable organisation. Always rely on the member for Grayndler for a timely intervention! As I have told the House previously, there was due diligence conducted by my department. In the first phase of due diligence they looked at its governance, its structure, its constitution, its project management, its fundraising history, its capacity for growth, its board composition and its science expertise. In the second phase of due diligence, which then informed their final recommendation to me, which I signed off on 20 June under section 71 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act— Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr FRYDENBERG FKL they made it very clear that they looked at the corporate information, the financial report, compliance with applicable laws, litigation, property searches and ASIC checks of the foundation directors, and they engaged the Australian Government Solicitor. We've got to go back to the reason the Labor Party are raising this issue at this time. It's because when they were in office they put the reef on the path to the endangered list. And I want to read from a 2012 statement from the World Heritage Committee: … in the absence of substantial progress, the possible inscription of the property on the List of the World Heritage in Danger … We know that the Labor Party had five capital dredge disposal projects planned for the marine park, and we know about the good work of my predecessor, who actually banned those dredge disposal projects and the ones going forward. Through the good work of my predecessor, we put in place a $2 billion Reef 2050 Plan with the Queensland government. We know that this half a billion dollars has been welcomed, including by the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Environment and the Great Barrier Reef, who in a joint statement with me on 20 July said about the $500 million: The actions— with the work we're doing with the $2 billion Reef 2050 long-term sustainability plan— will be bolstered by the recent investment of an additional $500 million in the Great Barrier Reef by the Australian government … So there we have it: a Labor Queensland Premier saying that this $500 million will bolster our efforts. We have the member for Grayndler saying that it's a reputable organisation, we have the member for Sydney welcoming the announcement that was made, and we have the member for Watson giving money to the same foundation when they were in office. Talk about hypocrisy: thy name is the Labor Party. (Time expired) Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 53 15:03 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how a strong economy enables the government to subsidise life-changing medicines for thousands of Australians living with cancer? Is the minister aware of any different attitudes to subsidising medicines? 15:03 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Mackellar for his question and also his strong advocacy for new medicines and for new medicines being listed on the PBS, as well as his recognition that this can be done only where there is a strong economy. One of the reasons he knows this is that the 2011 budget papers made it absolutely clear that without a strong economy medicines could not be listed, and I will remind the House of that 2011 budget paper, which said: … given the current fiscal environment, the listing of some medicines would be deferred until fiscal circumstances permit. Those medicines were for severe asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, deep vein thrombosis, endometriosis, IVF and schizophrenia, amongst other things. Fortunately, fiscal circumstances now permit the listing of every medicine that the medical experts recommend. That is the policy and practice of this government. The fiscal circumstances have created a million extra jobs, transformed the nation's finances and ensured that every medicine that the experts recommend will be listed. In that context, I was privileged and pleased to announce recently that four new cancer medicines would be listed on the PBS. These include medicines for lymphoma, medicines for leukaemia, and, in particular, medicines to ensure that those dealing with the challenge of chemotherapy will be able to manage it. One important medicine, however, was the listing of Opdivo for head and neck cancer. One of the beneficiaries of a drug trial, Mr David Littlewood, from Queensland, commented in The Australian on 27 July in relation to the listing of a medicine for head and neck cancer: Immunotherapy was my last chance to tackle terminal cancer … It is a life-saving therapy. I would just be another number if it wasn't for it. That is the medicine Opdivo. A thousand patients will benefit from that listing. It would have otherwise cost $50,000 a year for each patient. It's something that would not be possible if the fiscal circumstances didn't permit. It's something that would not be possible if the nation's economy was not healthy. It's why we as members of the parliament do our work, and why this government focuses so much on the fact that, if you can get the fiscal circumstances right, you can deliver these new medicines to Australians. That's the right thing to do in government, and it's the right outcome for patients. (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef Foundation 54 15:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister could not name who had the idea to offer almost half a billion dollars of taxpayer money to a small private foundation, but today the Prime Minister has already used question time to claim other ideas as his own work. Can the Prime Minister now tell us who came up with the half-a-billion-dollar-taxpayer-funded-giveaway idea? To put it another way: if it was such a good idea, why won't the Prime Minister tell us whose idea it was? 15:07 Mr TURNBULL 885 Wentworth The Leader of the Opposition clearly hasn't been listening to the Minister for the Environment, who has said a number of times—as have others—that the submission to make the contribution to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation was made by the Minister for the Environment and went through the full pre-budget cabinet process, with which the honourable member is no doubt familiar from his time in government. The very sad thing we have to confront today is that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party have no ideas for cheaper electricity. They have no ideas for anything other than higher taxes, higher energy prices, fewer jobs, less investment and lower wages. That is the melancholy list of the Labor Party's ideas. When energy prices are higher, they celebrate and describe it as a triumph of the market working well. National Disability Insurance Scheme 54 15:08 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite My question is to the Minister for Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government is delivering the essential services that Australians with a disability rely upon through the National Disability Insurance Scheme? 15:08 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I thank the member for her question and for her support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It wasn't long ago that we were visiting the new site for the NDIA, and it was a very important visit. She is right that the NDIS is an essential service being provided to Australians with a disability, but, more than that, it is life-changing. It is the biggest social reform that any of us will see in our lifetime. In the member's electorate of Corangamite over 2,800 people now have access to the scheme. Half of these people have never had access to any support in their lives. These Australians are just some of the 180,000 people who have now begun accessing the NDIS—and over 55,000 are getting support for the first time in their lives. These are not just numbers. They are all individual lives that are being changed by the NDIS. It is allowing Australians with a disability to live life to the full. Before the NDIS, Shelly Lynde was uncertain about her future and her son's. At six months, her son Alex had already had numerous surgeries and a diagnosis of neurofibromatosis and autism. This combination means Alex needs one-on-one attention, weekly speech therapy, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. Through the NDIS, Shelly and Alex are now receiving funding to cover his needs. As Shelly said, 'Before the NDIS, I found it frustrating. If I can't pay for it, how am I supposed to do it? The NDIS has alleviated the financial pressures. To go from nothing to Alex having all of his therapy costs paid for means so much to our family. Without all this, we would not have been able to start school.' As Shelly Lynde knows, the NDIS is giving people with a disability, like Alex, a chance they never thought possible. We would not be able to do this without fully funding the NDIS. It is why this government is committed to fully funding the NDIS and providing the essential services Australians with a disability rely on. At full scheme, there will be over 460,000 people who rely on the NDIS, and nearly 90,000 jobs will be created to provide support. We are working hard to complete this life-changing social reform— (Time expired) Mr Turnbull 885 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 55 DOCUMENTS Presentation 55 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 55 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Early Education 55 15:12 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for Kingston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The government’s failure to invest in the early years of Australian children. I call on all 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— 15:13 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston This matter of public importance is critically important. There is nothing more important than the early education of our children, and Labor knows this. We have known this for a long time. On this side of the House, we know that quality early education leads to a range of better education, social and health outcomes. It literally lays down the solid foundation for life. It's not just Labor that has this story to tell. There are stacks and stacks of international research that says that investing in the early years leads to a significant return later in life. Studies from the UK and the United States, for example, have shown that children who have attended preschool had significantly better reading and maths scores in primary school and better results at age 16. But we know here local data shows that preschoolers have higher language and cognition NAPLAN scores in Year 3. Of course, children who attend early learning have better success, are more likely to graduate from high school and have better social outcomes. This research confirms that the benefits are actually higher for vulnerable children. These are the facts. Labor doesn't need convincing. That is why we have a proud history of investing in early education. Two of the many critical policies that we implemented in government were the national preschool program for four-year-olds and the National Quality Framework. The preschools program has been a critical public policy achievement. Indeed, universal access, led by Julia Gillard, has seen enrolments of four-year-olds in preschool increase from 77 per cent to 93 per cent. This is a great achievement, one that I think we should all be proud of. We backed this preschool commitment with a national quality agenda in order to lift educational quality and safety standards in the early years. The quality framework is also a success story, with 57 per cent of services having improved their quality rating when reassessed and 75 per cent of services now meeting or exceeding the national quality standard. Australia's four-year-olds are now enjoying the benefit of universal access, and the children attending early learning centres and preschools are enjoying a play based learning environment and being educated by qualified early learning educators. This is Labor's legacy. Of course, it should be bipartisan. It should be welcomed and supported across the chamber, but it hasn't been under this coalition government. This government has a shocking record—which continues to get worse—when it comes to early education. Since being elected in 2013 the government has refused to commit to long-term funding certainty for preschools. It has begrudgingly rolled over one-year stopgap funding for preschools, creating massive uncertainty for families, staff and the sector. At the moment our preschools right across the country are funded for only one year, until the end of the 2019 school year. How are families and preschools meant to plan for their future, enrol children, sign leases, recruit teachers, when they don't even know whether their funding is secure? This is not good enough for the future of our children. There are 350,000 preschool children and their families who are now in limbo. The government have seen fit to give long-term certainty to our big banks, locking in tax cuts for a decade. They tell us that that is important for certainty, that it will help us give the big banks the opportunity to make profits into the future. Well, how about our young children? How about those who deserve certainty into the future? They are our future. It is time for the government to be honest with the Australian people. The minister is trying to claim that he is somehow funding preschools into the long term. That's not what the budget papers say. The budget papers are very, very clear. What they say is that there is zero, zero, zero money past 2020 for funding for early education. Now, isn't that a coincidence? That gets this government through until after an election without their having to commit to funding for early education. We have seen the minister, who used to be a cheerleader for universal access, now crab walking away. In fact, he's looking for any excuse—every excuse—not to fund our preschools. In February, he said, 'We must improve the quality of the data.' That seems like an excuse when we're seeing success in our preschools. Then he said, 'We're not going to give the states a blank cheque.' There's never been a blank cheque when it comes to preschools. There were important agreements between the states and territories that he himself, as minister, has decided to rip up. Last week his office confirmed that the program is indeed scheduled to end in 2020. He said that he would 'iron out any policy settings into the future'. Well, that is certainly not a commitment. What does 'iron out policy settings into the future' mean? It certainly gives no comfort to preschools and long-daycare centres around Australia that are delivering high-quality education. This is not the only cut that this government has made. When it came to the national quality agenda, state and territory services all around the country believed that this minister would come to the table and renew the agreement. What he actually did was rip up the agreement. He cut $20 million from the program. He walked away from quality in our early education centres—quality that was seeing proper checks being made, quality that was seeing improvement in our centres and quality that was keeping our children safe and giving them an excellent education. This minister ripped up that agreement and walked away. Rather than build on the successful agenda, the government has said, 'There is nothing for us to do.' What, to save $20 million a year? At the same time, they are wanting to give $17 billion to the big banks. That shows this government's priorities. There's another fact that I think the House might be interested in. That is the fact that funding preschool costs about $440 million a year. That is the same amount that this government could find for a small philanthropic organisation. It was backed by big business, found at the back of the couch, not requested and not wanted. It was solicited by the government, in the words of the environment minister. They are willing to give away this money, ensuring that this organisation is able to get the money without even asking. Well, preschools are asking, families are asking and children are all asking this government, 'Where is our money? Will they commit to preschool? Will they commit to early education?' The signs are not good. This minister has form. He treats early education like every other part of the education system. Whether it's cuts to schools, cuts to universities or cuts to TAFE, this minister has marked it to be cut from his own portfolio. Let me remind the House that he is so out of touch with the needs of families. He's so out of touch with what ordinary families are going through that he wanted to be congratulated when childcare fees went up by five per cent. He wanted a pat on the back. His response when he was asked about this was: 'Families can just move centres. They can just change centres.' He has no understanding about what it means to have a connection with a centre. He has no understanding of families building relationships with educators or the impact that it has on families when these prices increase. It is time the minister commits to funding our preschools. It's time he commits to the quality agenda. If the banks need certainty, our preschools certainly do. Let's see the minister lock in money for a decade for our preschools and then we will know he is serious about early education. Until he does that, he is failing the children and families of Australia. 15:22 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Every child deserves to have the best start in life. We're in furious agreement with the honourable member. But the evidence and the runs on the board from across the many portfolios that look after the children of Australia, from the coalition government, are outstanding. Whether it's the education and childcare package; the preschool funding, which I'll talk about shortly; interconnected programs, like Connected Beginnings, with health and education; or in my portfolio of social services, it's outstanding. Just to correct all of the errors in the honourable member's speech, we do agree that preschool is important. The federal coalition government has locked in $870 million for 2018 and 2019. That's benefitting 340,000 children each year. Preschool funding is locked in until January 2020. Minister Birmingham has told members of the other side repeatedly that he is negotiating with the states, as the states run most of these preschools. That funding can't be, as he mentioned, a blank cheque. It's not a blank cheque, but there is a problem. The states get the money even if the children don't turn up. Some of the figures are astounding. The children who need the most help at preschool, in some of the most disadvantaged areas, aren't even attending. From the figures for the Northern Territory, there was only 36 per cent attendance. In South Australia, it was 38 per cent. That's amongst the most vulnerable Indigenous cohort. Of all the children in Western Australia, only 60 per cent are turning up. But the states are happy to take the money and run. We are trying to put responsibility back onto the states. Money won't help them, but children turning up at preschool will. We have no argument with those opposite about that: going to preschool before you go to school delivers enormous benefits. But we have a responsibility to the taxpayers and we have a responsibility to the children. We've got to put the states on the sticky paper and make them get children into preschool. If those opposite are so concerned about it, how come Labor didn't commit to long-term preschool funding in their last budget? They didn't commit to preschool funding in their 2016 election plan. They're complaining today, but did they do anything in their most important document, the budget reply? There was no mention of it, despite our budget commitment of an extra $440 million in 2019. In the Department of Social Services, we commit a billion dollars around the country—$225 million through parenting and early childhood intervention each year. There are prevention programs that try to support parents to build parenting capacity. There are 2.1 million individuals and families each year that benefit from these parenting programs, community playgroups and family relationship services. We're working on the fourth iteration of the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. The third action plan, underway at the moment, is putting particular focus on the first thousand days of a child's life, because, if a child is thriving by five, they are set on a totally different trajectory for the rest of their life. The Connected Beginnings program is a holistic integrated early childhood initiative that is focused on remote-area Indigenous children, trying to get their health and their early childhood development correct so that they do get to preschool and then they go on to school. But our changes to child care are probably the greatest changes to child care for a generation. There is a better-off fiscal outcome for the average family of $1,300 each year. Some children and families get much more benefit, and that's focused on children and families that work more and earn less. So it's targeted at those that need the help. We have removed the annual childcare rebate cap of $7,600 so that, if you are working and claiming, the subsidy goes straight to the childcare centre. For instance, families earning up to $187,000 will have an increased cap of $10,190. We've increased the subsidy for those earning the least, from 72 per cent to 85 per cent. That amounts to $2½ billion. That's extra money into child care. And that doesn't even take into account the safety net spend—because some children and vulnerable families do need extra support above that. The safety net ensures that grandparents with primary care of their grandchildren; foster parents; and parents undergoing medical treatment, for example, can get extra assistance, and that amounts to $1.2 billion. So, between the direct subsidy to the childcare centres and the safety net, that's $3.7 billion extra. I know the other side won't be complaining, because I've got the figures here on the extra numbers of families, by electorate, that this will benefit. Among the electorates, the greatest beneficiary of these new changes is Lalor. The member for Lalor has 13,303 families. The next one is McEwen, another Labor seat, and then Greenway, with 9,967. Some of the other top beneficiaries are Fenner, Canberra, Kingston, Dobell, Oxley, Petrie and Rankin. So I know they won't be complaining when they actually get away from the cameras and look at the policy outcome. They'll see that this new childcare package is an absolute winner for families. But there are also, we estimate, 230,000 families that will be able to work more. Under the old system, it was a zero-sum game for many families: you would go to work, but then your child care would take all the extra financial reward for the work. This package is making child care much more affordable, and if you are meeting the activity test you can get more support. It is such a good initiative. We've also addressed the incessant increase in childcare fees. We have capped the subsidy. In the old system, it was chewed up almost within three or four months for some people. Ms Rishworth interjecting— Dr GILLESPIE 72184 The first year before school is very important—no disagreement with you on that. We have allowed the system to work so the children can get that preschool funding through the existing childcare long-daycare centre. We've had amazing take-up of this system. Over a million families are eligible for it, and there's been huge take-up. You tried to set up a protest website, but there were so few people accessing it or complaining that you closed the site down. That's an amazing change—to roll out a whole new system like this in such an efficient manner and get so many people involved. But it is so important that you understand that the coalition government, whether it's in social services, in health or in education, are committing extra billions of dollars to the development of Australia's greatest assets, which are our children. We have no argument with you about that, but we are actually doing it. We are putting the money on the table for the states, but we are insisting that they make the families get their children to the preschool, and then they will get the fiscal assistance. It's no good just giving money to the states and finding out that it's used in some other portfolio or in some admin role. It should be in the preschool working for the child's development. The best friend child care has ever had has been the changes we have made to this system. Historically you might have had some runs on the board, but what's happening now is so much better than the old system. I've had children in preschools, in family day care and in group day care. It is much better now. Looking at what we had to go through when my children were little and now, it is so much better now. We are allowing working mums and dads to work so that they can save hard and get ahead. That is what we are trying to do—empowering families. Life is hard if you've got a big mortgage, if you've got a big commute or if you've got big fiscal responsibilities for your family, and working is essential, and this childcare system allows them to do that. (Time expired) 15:32 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith As a parent of four young children, I've seen firsthand the benefits of early childhood education. Ensuring that all Australian children have universal access to early childhood education is vitally important to a child's development. It lays the foundations for their school education, their wellbeing and their general living standards. It's crucial that all children have some access to some form of early childhood education. It's good for a child's brain development, for their fine motor skills, for general knowledge, for musical and artistic ability and, importantly, for social skills. Any parent will tell you how much a child soaks up and learns in those early years. It's one of the great marvels of humanity, I believe, to watch a child learn in those years zero through to five—how to use their hand-eye coordination and how to speak and communicate. It's the great marvel of modern humanity, and I don't know why any person under the sun would want to cut funding for programs that deliver that early childhood education and make it available and accessible to Australian children, particularly those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But that is exactly what the Turnbull government is doing in risking this funding beyond 2019 and not providing certainty for the states that deliver those programs on the ground. It's a matter of deep concern to the Labor Party, because every single member of the coalition parties, the National Party and the Liberal Party, has voted for and supported a budget that does exactly that—potentially risks funding beyond 2019 to the tune of $440 million for early childhood programs throughout the country. Last week it was confirmed that the funding has not been renewed through the national preschool and kindy program. The minister has made much of the reasons behind that, stating that this is Labor's view of what's actually going on. It's not Labor's view. It was confirmed in the media just a week or so ago. Robert Bolton, the education editor of The Australian Financial Review, stated in an article entitled 'Surprise $500m hit to preschool funding': Preschool and early-learning education for more than a quarter of a million Australian children is under threat as the federal government prepares to cut nearly half a billion dollars of spending on the sector. There it is in black and white. That's the view of an independent editor for education for The Australian Financial Review. So for the minister to come in here and say that that's not what's occurring is simply misleading the House of Representatives. I want to make a name of the National Party—the minister represents a National Party area—because the Nats have this great habit. When the Turnbull government does things like cutting funding for Medicare and schools and hospitals, the Nats slink back to their communities and, when the people of the country blow up about it, they tell them: 'Oh, no! That wasn't us. We didn't vote for that. That was the Liberal Party. We don't agree with what the Liberal Party does.' But then they come back in here and, of course, that's exactly what they are doing when voting for coalition proposals and supporting these cuts that have been outlined in the budget. This program is pretty important—350,000 preschoolers across Australia rely on this program to get a good start in life. Many of them are from disadvantaged backgrounds. They include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. When we talk about closing the gap on educational disadvantage in this country, access to preschool education is vitally important in achieving that goal. We'll have no hope of reaching that goal if Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander kids miss out on those foundational education years. We've seen some pretty bad decisions from the Turnbull government, but this one would have to take the cake. Labor is opposed to this because in government we established federal funding for this program. We instituted the first national preschool and kindy program agreement, which was signed by Labor in 2008, and preschool enrolment increased from 77 per cent through to the 93 per cent it is at today. That one figure alone is proof that this program is working. It's proof that this program is getting more kids into early childhood education and providing them with the foundational support they need for a good education. For this minister and this government to be risking that program by cutting that funding is despicable and must be opposed. 15:38 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I'm particularly pleased to speak on this MPI on child care today because earlier this year I became a father for the first time. Perhaps for that reason I'm alert more than ever to the crucial importance of the early years of our children. On Friday of last week I went to see Goodstart Early Learning Child Care Centre Berowra, a centre that's been there for 20 years and provides fantastic care to the young people in my community. I got to read to some of the young kids there, I got to make pyramids, Egyptian-style, with some of the five-year-olds, and I even had one small kid lobby me for more support for farmers, showing that you're never too young to lobby your local MP. As other speakers have said, the first few years of our children's lives are a time when they will learn more than at any other time in their lives. There is some really interesting research by Professor Heckman of the University of Chicago about the importance of those early years. During these special years there are new experiences every day. They're learning how to walk, how to talk, how to share with others and how to draw and, eventually, they're learning the first stages of reading and writing. Children are naturally curious, and childcare workers work hard to nurture that curiosity. The Turnbull government's commitment to child care and our policies support families with young children in child care across the country. Recently we implemented our new childcare package, which increases Australia's investment in early childhood education and care by $2.5 billion over the next four years. Our policy was designed with families front and centre. Under the Turnbull government's policy, nearly a million Australian families benefit. The average Australian family is set to be better off by $1,300 a year under the childcare package. We've removed the annual childcare rebate cap of around $7,600. This ensures that low- and middle-income families aren't limited by an annual cap on their child care. Around 85 per cent of families using child care will feel the benefits of this reform over the course of a financial year. Families earning more than around $187,000 will also benefit from an increased cap of $10,190 per child to assist with childcare costs every single year. We've increased the subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 Australian families using child care and earning less than around $67,000 a year. Due to these policies, hardworking and aspiring Australian families with children in child care are now better able to face the cost of living, especially when you combine the policies with the coalition's tax relief policies which passed in the recent sitting of the parliament. The new activities test is ensuring that taxpayer support for child care is targeted to those who depend on it in order to work or to work additional hours. It's estimated our reforms will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their workforce participation. Incentivising Australians back into the workforce will continue to grow our economy. Our $1.2 billion childcare safety net recognises that vulnerable children and families need extra support. For example, the family safety net ensures that grandparents with primary care of their grandchildren, foster parents, and parents undergoing medical treatments receive the support they need. Hourly rate caps have been introduced as a necessary measure to arrest incessant childcare increases. In addition to the new childcare package, the government has committed around $870 million for preschools in 2018 and 2019 to ensure more than 340,000 children each year continue to have access to 15 hours of preschool a week. That's 600 hours a year. It's important to think about what Labor have done to improve early-childhood education and care, because this motion's been moved by those opposite. Labor have been so desperate to find failure that they set up their own protest site. But, guess what, within just a few weeks they took it down because there was no interest. They voted against our reforms and continue to snipe from the sidelines but don't have any childcare policies of their own. The reality is that the opposition voted against the 5,805 families in my electorate of Berowra who will benefit under this package. In 2016, Labor offered only expensive election bandaids to the old, broken system which would have delivered an annual windfall of up to $176 million to families earning over $250,000, at the expense of low- to middle-income working families. Labor haven't learnt the lesson from their previous term in government. They stood by while childcare fees increased by 53 per cent under their six years of government, without taking the necessary action to fix it. We're now taking that action. Labor failed to deliver their promise to build 260 new childcare centres and end the double drop-off. We remember Kevin Rudd talking about that. They only built 38. Labor totally dropped the ball on compliance. Under Labor, in the two years to June 2013, there were no cancellations, no suspensions and only two fines issued. Compliance checks fell from 763 to 523—a paltry effort compared to this government's 4½ thousand checks in the last financial year. (Time expired) 15:43 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham There's much enthusiasm on this side of the House to participate in this debate. As a teacher by training, I think for many, many decades there's been a fundamental and profound understanding by anybody who works in the teaching profession—and I suspect by many parents, and the previous speaker acknowledged his new insight into education as a new parent. But there is a fundamental truth in all education, and that is: the earlier you invest, the better the return you get on that investment. I was trained and worked as a high-school teacher and a TAFE teacher. I'm very profoundly aware that when you're working at the remedial end of education—when somebody has got to the age of 13, 14 or older without a solid foundation in the basics that they need, and they're struggling in education, you really are up against it to put in what needs to be given to that person so that they can reach their full potential. It's much more difficult and it's much more expensive to actually try to redress problems once people get to that age. The evidence is in. This isn't ideology, as the Prime Minister likes to complain that people talk about. This is evidence. There's been evidence for decades, by researchers and people in the education sphere, that, if you invest in children at the most formative time in their life—and we know that's the years from nought to five—and get them a solid educational foundation at that point in time, you are maximising their chance to succeed, not only for the rest of their educational life but also into their adult and working life. For a long time, we've been pushing for this in this country, and I'm very pleased that the former Labor government got behind commitments to early learning, particularly for four-year-olds. Obviously, there's an interest in having this available for three- and four-year-olds, but that commitment was there for preschool for all four-year-olds. We did that because we respected the evidence and we cared about our youngest minds. We cared that every young child under the age of five had the opportunity to get on the step to education on an even footing, and that it wasn't the case that, if you happened to have a lot of money, you could buy a good-quality experience for your little ones. You probably already had an enriched home with lots of learning aids and experiences, but you would also have been able to access what were expensive preschool opportunities. We said this should be available to all children. That's an investment. It's not a cost to the budget; it's an investment in our future. I visited the Smith Street Children's Centre last week in my own electorate. I know many colleagues, including those on the other side of the House, visited such centres last week for Early Learning Matters Week. When you see three- and four-year-olds and their excitement and the drive to learn and to be part of a great experience, it's just so inspiring, and we need to foster that. Too often we have systems that kill that off. Often by the time they got to high school, I would think: 'What have we done? We've killed that inquisitiveness and joy in learning.' We need to put more into that, and that's an investment for this nation. So it is absolutely shocking that the government will not give a long-term commitment to that preschool opportunity. What they have been doing is rolling it over, year by year. That means that, if you go to enrol your little one in a school, you won't know whether the preschool program being run in that centre will still be available by the time your little one gets to that point, because the government won't give long-term certainty. It is, I would suggest, something that they can't just push off until after an election—which I think what's been exposed with the budget papers makes us cynical about. It's got to be a commitment. Parents and families in my electorate and the centres that I visit and the parents I talk to want to know now that this government is going to give a long-term commitment to preschool education, a long-term commitment to their kids and a long-term commitment to all of our best interests in having a really well-educated population for the future. 15:48 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I rise today to speak against this nonsense matter of public importance claiming that the government is failing to invest in the early years of Australian children. This is at a time when the Turnbull coalition government has been investing more and more into child care, preschool and kindy. In Dunkley, for example, there are 5,618 families who are benefitting from our new childcare package—a childcare package where nearly one million families nationwide benefit by our $2.5 billion increase in early childhood education over the next four years. For example, as part of this package, we increased the rebate to 85 per cent for 370,000 families earning below $67,000. We've also removed the annual rebate cap for low- to middle-income earners and increased the cap to $10,190 for those earning above $187,000. The typical family across Australia will be $1,300 better off per child per year. But what did Labor do? They voted against these reforms. With preschool, as well, we've committed $870 million in 2018-19 to ensure that more than 340,000 children each year have access to 15 hours of preschool a week. Unfortunately, state and federal Labor are making disgraceful claims that we will eliminate or cut preschool funding from 2020. This is absolutely disgraceful, and it is playing political football with kids' lives. It is playing with the lives of kids, parents, educators and local preschool operators and staff, who continue to contact my office because of these false claims. As the father of a daughter who'll be four in 2020 and who'll use preschool in that year, I am particularly disturbed by these false claims. It is incorrect that the federal government won't be funding kinders from 2020, nor are there any cuts in place. The fact is that the current national partnership agreement ends in 2020. But that just means a new partnership agreement is, and will be, negotiated with the states and territories and put in place before then for 2020 onwards. In this new partnership agreement, we are focusing on incorporating measures to encourage greater levels of preschool attendance. Unfortunately, as I've noted, the state Labor government, along with federal Labor here, has put out information claiming that the end of one partnership agreement means the end of funding. That is simply not true. As I've said, not only is the government interested in continuing and enhancing this funding, but I am interested too. I am interested as a person who spoke of the critical importance of early childhood education in my maiden speech. I am interested as a person who, through my own initiative, has been recently delivering books from local Frankston author Jeannette Rowe with a message to not only childcare operators but parents at preschools, kindergartens and childcare centres to promote early education and early reading. And I am interested as a person who has supported an organisation called 123Read2Me in my electorate, which is a local charity giving free books to those in need, promoting early childhood reading. I've helped them fund a new car to help them deliver free books to children in need. I am passionate about early childhood education at all the places I've visited—preschools, kindergartens and childcare centres—particularly in the last few weeks but throughout all my time as the member for Dunkley. So this MPI is a continual scare campaign, and it is utterly disgraceful. As Minister Birmingham has said for months, we extended the national partnership to give us time to develop a new funding model from 2020 onwards that addresses the serious attendance issues with the current model, where one in three children don't attend for the full 15 hours, with non-attendance even worse amongst children in high-disadvantage cohorts. It seems that those opposite are not as caring as we are about attendance at preschool. We will work with the states and territories to make sure that future agreements address these serious issues around attendance in preschool so that children are prepared for a flying start at school. The member for Kingsford Smith referred to TheAustralian Financial Review having confirmed the budget paper. These are points that the minister actually sent through at the time, noting that this is not true. The story has actually been running for months across Australia as various union groups try to push it with local newspapers. 'That's a saving of more than $440 million,' it said. No— (Time expired) 15:53 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton We're about to have the sixth year of the coalition government—next month, I think it is. An opposition member interjecting— Mr PERRETT HVP I know it seems like 60, but they're only starting their sixth year of government! And we've seen policy after policy after policy that has benefited the top end of town and has forgotten working Australians, middle-class Australians and those who care about an egalitarian Australia. But this decision, in terms of national preschools and kindy programs, is taking bad policy to a newer, lower level. Unbelievable! It's almost like they don't care about education. Remember when Prime Minister Turnbull used to talk about his good schoolmate Mr Gonski? I take you back to the Gonski expert panel that looked at education and the benefits thereof. This was from a banker who looked at it from an economic point of view and more broadly—there were other people on the panel. He showed that it's the best investment, better than giving money to the top end of town and hoping it magically trickles down when it has not done so in any developed or undeveloped economy anywhere in the world. We know that investing in education is a good investment, and I repeat the comment from the member for Cunningham: the earlier you invest, the better your return. We need to get it right. Like the member for Cunningham, I was a teacher. That was more than 20 years ago. I can tell you this about my understanding of teaching: you mostly direct your attention at the middle of the class. You do need to prod the unmotivated when you can. Obviously, you don't want to hold back the talented, and, if you can, you give them a boost, but they teach themselves. I shouldn't say that, but that's the reality of the brightest kids. Most importantly, you need to give a helping hand to those that are challenged, to bring them up to the middle, to help them along. There are all sorts of reasons that a kid can be finding a classroom difficult: you need to find what works for that particular kid. If you can give an extra boost to young kids, it'll make life so much easier for the primary school teachers. I was a secondary school teacher. It will be easier for them and, as the member for Cunningham said, for the university and TAFE teachers of the future. This is money well spent. To have a policy where the government is effectively walking away from 350,000 Australian preschoolers, so that they will miss out on the advantages of early education, is unbelievable, in the face of all of the research, all of the data, all of the literature—all of the evidence. All the Prime Minister needs to do is talk to his schoolmate, Mr Gonski. I don't know about the Prime Minister's education. It seems to have been a little bit difficult. Perhaps his chauffeur was teased by the other chauffeurs or something like that, because he doesn't seem to talk about his educational experience. If he spoke to Mr Gonski, he would know that this is money worth investing. The benefits will flow. Economic benefits will flow. In the past 10 years, what has happened with preschool enrolment? It has increased from 77 per cent to almost 93 per cent. That's good, hard, empirical data. And why did that happen? Mainly because of the work of Labor. I particularly mention the member for Adelaide, who has been tireless in this, and who persisted with the hard details to make sure that all children had access to a good preschool education. I wish her well in her new endeavours, whatever they might be. She has made a significant contribution to the Australian community. In the face of this mountain of evidence, what do we see? We see this government, under Prime Minister Turnbull, decide to rip $440 million away from preschool funding. In a tight budget situation, $440 million might seem like a lot. However, on a whim, the Prime Minister was able to find $444 million in the space of nine days and hand it over to basically outsource the process of looking after the Great Barrier Reef. I'm not taking anything away from the Great Barrier Reef Foundation. They do good work and they're worth supporting. But we need to have a proper process. We know from Gonski and beyond, and all that study, that investing in education gives you a return. Who knows what Nobel prizes could have been won—maybe into studying the reef—if we'd invested in that early childhood education? Incredible! There are two different approaches to $444 million that the Prime Minister can take: he has a chance to help out 350,000 Australian pre-schoolers, or to hand it to the top end of town. And what does he do? 15:58 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden On 2 July, we implemented a new childcare package, so it's probably important that we focus on the facts—something that seems to get lost in so many of these debates. The new package increased Australia's investment in early childhood education and care by $2½ billion over the next four years. Nearly one million Australian families will benefit. The typical Australian family is better off to the tune of about $1,300 per child per year. That's a fact. And these facts aren't in dispute. We've removed the annual childcare rebate cap of around $7,600 to ensure low- and middle-income families aren't limited by an annual cap on their child care. Around 85 per cent of families using child care will feel the benefits of this reform over the course of this financial year alone. Families earning more than $187,000 will also benefit from an increased cap of $10,190 per child to assist with childcare costs every year. We've increased the subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for more than 370,000 families using child care and earning less than $67,000 a year. So I'm not too sure where the member for Kingston's MPI, 'The government's failure to invest in the early years of Australian children', actually comes from. I would have thought an extra $2.5 billion is a fair investment in the early years of Australian children, but perhaps the Labor Party's mathematics and mine don't quite add up somehow. The new activity test is ensuring that taxpayers' support for child care is targeted to those who depend on it in order to work or to work additional hours. It's estimated our reforms will encourage more than 230,000 families to increase their workforce participation, and I would have thought that's a good thing. Our $1.2 billion Child Care Safety Net recognises vulnerable children and families that need extra support. For example, the safety net ensures that grandparents with primary care of their grandchildren, foster parents and parents undergoing medical treatment receive the support they need. Hourly rate caps have been introduced as a necessary measure to arrest incessant child care fee rises—$11.77 for centre based day care, $10.90 for family day care and $10.29 for outside-school-hours care. In addition to the new childcare package, the government has committed around $870 million for preschoolers in 2018-19 to ensure that more than 340,000 children each year continue to have access to 15 hours of preschool a week. I just can't seem to find the failure to invest in the early years of Australian children. All I'm seeing is an extra $2.5 billion, an extra series of money, going to those less well-off. I can't seem to find the failure to invest. Labor's desperate to find failure, even when it's not there. They even set up their own protest website, but I can't seem to find that either. It seems it's been taken down, because there was no protest. It is funny that, when $2.5 billion extra is provided and one million families benefit, there is an absence of protest! In fact, I can't even see the member for Kingston here. Is she here somewhere? I'm speaking to my colleagues. It's her MPI; it's her matter of public importance and she's legged it. I guess it's not that important to the member for Kingston, is it? Ms Madeleine King 102376 She's too busy! Mr ROBERT HWT Really? She's too busy, I hear back there—she's far too busy to turn up to her own matter of public importance. That says everything we need to know, doesn't it? It's a complete and utter stunt and, dare I say, a lie—not that Labor knows anything about Labor lies. Unbelievable: the Labor Party voted against these reforms and then the shadow minister comes in to complain about lack of investment and doesn't bother to turn up. It says everything. The opposition voted against 8,739 families in my electorate. In 2016 Labor offered only expensive election bandaids to the old broken system—a system that saw childcare fees under those opposite increase by 53 per cent. Facts hurt. They are not in dispute. I was here when those opposite offered 260 new childcare centres. They were going to get rid of the double drop-off. I was here; 10 years ago we were offered that. Only 38 were built, and there we are: they completely and utterly dropped the ball. What a joke of an MPI! 16:03 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise again to speak on this very important issue: the government's abject failure to invest in the early years of our kids. Last week was Early Learning Matters Week, and I was horrified that the Turnbull government chose that week to confirm that it is refusing to commit to funding for the national kindergarten program. It's clear they intend to walk away from the 350,000 kinder kids across Australia, including, I might add, 2,500 in my electorate of Batman, who rely on this program. In fact, they are going to cut $444 million from the sector a year after the next election is due. There is a mountain of research, data and literature which shows the positive educational, social, health and emotional benefits of a quality universal preschool program. Preschools are one of the public policy success stories of the last decade. Since the first agreement was signed by Labor in 2008, preschool enrolment has increased, as we heard from previous speakers, from 77 per cent to over 93 per cent. Of all the cuts the Liberals have made in the last five years, this is surely one of the most cynical and the worst. This is on top of the damaging childcare subsidy changes, which will affect those who can least afford it. In my electorate we have so many wonderfully diverse early learning centres, from Thornbury Kinder to the Keon Park Children's Hub, the Annie Dennis Children's Centre to the Yappera Children's Service, who provide early education to our First Nations community. These centres are all incredibly unique but unified in two things: (1) the educators are passionate about the value of early learning, as they work in this sector not for the measly amount of money they earn but rather because of their passion for educating our young kids and caring for their entire families, and (2) they are incredibly concerned about the government's unwillingness to commit to kinder funding and the stress that the childcare subsidy changes is causing to families. Just this morning at an AEU information session we heard from three wonderful early childhood educators—all women, I might add, as the industry is a female dominated one, which brings a whole gendered aspect to this debate. The stories and experiences of these women were remarkable, from stark anecdotal evidence of the benefits they see and deliver every single day to their charges, to the rock-solid research that underpins the vital nature of early learning. Thornbury Kindergarten in my electorate, led by Danielle Logan, prepared a petition to the government, which was signed by educators and parents, calling on the government to provide certainty for kindergarten funding. They get right to the heart of the matter, and I'd like to read a section from the petition to you: As you are aware, since 2013, the federal government has offered only temporary funding for their contribution towards funding 4 year old kindergarten. This is unacceptable. For the last five years, teachers, educators, families, employer groups and the Australian Education Union have needed to campaign to retain 15 hours of kindergarten for 4 year old children. For the last five, years teachers and educators have had no job security. For the last five years, families have had no security for their child's kindergarten education. We need to fix this. We on this side of the House get it. I especially do. As I told the House yesterday, I have twin girls, who are now 30, but they actually failed kindergarten. It was their early childhood educator who identified that they simply weren't ready to go to school and would benefit greatly from another year. I am eternally grateful to that early childhood educator for alerting me to this, and my girls, who get teased mercilessly about failing kindergarten, went on to do very well at school and have become teachers themselves. My kids went to kinder in our local area—Clyde Street Kindergarten, actually. It gave them social and education skills to get them school ready. All kids deserve this opportunity, especially disadvantaged kids, as early education means their future holds more opportunities and choices, like finishing school, getting a decent job, and fulfilling their hopes and dreams. Today, along with the parents in my community, early educators, unions, grandparents and many kids themselves, I call on the government to fix the mess they have created. What could be more important than equalising opportunity right from the start by providing early education to all our kids? 16:08 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm pleased to speak on the MPI. Policy reform is very difficult. In the area of childcare policy Labor has introduced no reform for at least six years—probably even nine; time gets away. I can remember that in opposition and then in government all the Labor Party did was criticise the reform process that the National and Liberal parties undertook—that is, to have a Productivity Commission investigation and look at how we can support the most families accessing child care and early learning for parents returning to work and for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and at the same time have a strong, viable sector. We were always there for the children. We always are there for the children. Labor, unfortunately, is there for the childcare unions, to some extent the educators, and to some extent the political argument. Make no mistake: we support the educators too. We value what they do. We know that early learning is not babysitting. We're absolutely on board with all of that. All I have ever heard from the Labor Party when it comes to childcare policy is negatives, negatives, negatives, but never one single positive policy. I'm not saying they didn't exist; I'm just saying I could never see them and still haven't seen them in this MPI. Most of the speakers have talked about the universal access to preschool, which is a national partnership agreement between the Commonwealth and the states. It has nothing to do with the childcare rebate that we pay to parents to support them when they go back to work or where they have their children educated in early learning. It's a completely different proposition. It has been wheeled into every single argument. There's been a lot of nonsense talked about the minister and the budget papers. There has been no recognition of the facts, which were that the national partnership agreement was extended by us—it was extended by me as childcare minister—because it ran out. Like all national partnership agreements, it ran out. Conveniently, the Labor Party latched on to it as if it was a continuing agreement. We funded it. We continued it. Remember, child care and early learning are the preserve of the Commonwealth government through the subsidy support rebates we provide. Preschool is the preserve of the state governments, because it belongs in the school system. But we helped bridge that gap. The current minister—who undertook the very, very difficult reforms that came out of the Productivity Commission review—extended that national partnership agreement on universal access to preschool until 2019 and worked with the states and territories to make sure it was rolled out properly and to make sure every child who was entitled to get that got the support that they needed. It isn't just about handing money to the states. I can assure the Labor Party that if they ever get into government they won't be doing it either; they will be wanting results. Getting back to the actual childcare reform itself, the difficult proposition was this: childcare fees were going up and the rebate was going up. There was an inflationary component in that. If you're operating a childcare centre and you know the rebate for your parents is going up, you might continue to put your fees up. We saw some really incredible price spikes. What we also saw was the maximum rebate going to parents on the maximum income. That didn't make any sense, because we know that the parents on the higher incomes sometimes can afford to pay a little bit more. I'm not making judgements about every family. Every family deserves support, and they get it through this government's childcare package. What we've done is increase the subsidy from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for the more than 370,000 families using child care and earning less than $67,000 a year. Do not lecture us about withdrawing money from child care and about not supporting parents. It's that group of parents who are probably entering the workforce, who have got all sorts of bills happening around them and who have incomes of $67,000, and we've increased the subsidy by more than 10 per cent for them. What we've done is make ourselves pretty unpopular with some people on the higher incomes, who were used to the ever-increasing childcare rebates. We've made ourselves pretty unpopular, but we've made the hard decisions. Senator Birmingham, as the childcare minister, has made the hard decisions. He has worked this policy through and has presented it to Australian families. Obviously, there were issues at the beginning, but I'm surprised at how small in number those issues have been. The activation that the Labor Party has desperately tried to get from all of the childcare unions and everyone else to speak against our policy has failed miserably, just like their childcare policy did. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion is now concluded. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 64 Report 64 16:13 Mr HART 263070 Bass On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following report: Report 474—Annual report 2017-18. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HART 263070 by leave—The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is one of parliament's oldest and most autonomous committees. I might say, from my experience, it is a committee that operates in the true spirit of bipartisanship. In 2017-18, the committee again sustained high-quality scrutiny of Commonwealth expenditure and public administration matters. Over the year, the committee tabled eight inquiry reports examining the matters contained in 16 Auditor-General's reports. Themed inquiries into core aspects of public administration were a feature of the committee's inquiry activities. These themes included the Commonwealth financial statements, Commonwealth grant administration, Commonwealth procurement and the Commonwealth performance framework. The committee continued its strong contribution to enhancing accountability and improving efficiency in public administration, something every parliamentarian and, indeed, every Australian needs to be conscious of. Across the year, the committee received 110 submissions to inquiries and made significantly more recommendations to government. Over the last reporting period the committee made 57 recommendations, compared to 17 in the previous reporting period. It is the committee's practice to require Commonwealth entities to report on recommendations within six months. In 2017-18 a total of 63 government responses were received, with 87 per cent of these received within the required time. This compares with 39 responses received in the previous reporting period, with 92 per cent received on time. This reporting period included consultation on the conduct of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) independent review. The committee plays an ongoing role in scrutinising the PGPA Act and its operations, which provide a new resource-management, planning and performance framework for the Commonwealth. A draft report of the independent review, containing 46 recommendations, was developed and published for comment on 31 May 2018. The final report is expected to be published in late 2018. The committee will continue to maintain significant interest in monitoring the implementation of the review recommendations, as part of its ongoing oversight of the PGPA Act. The committee wishes to note its appreciation of the work undertaken thus far by the independent reviewers, Ms Elizabeth Alexander AM and Mr David Thodey AO, and their interest in deliberating with the committee thus far. Other key activities performed throughout the year included: inquiries into Defence sustainment expenditure; the Defence Major Projects Report; consideration of the audit priorities of the parliament; and the review of the annual budget estimates of both the ANAO and the Parliamentary Budget Office. I would like to extend thanks on behalf of the chair and deputy chair to all members of the committee for their commitment throughout 2017-18. The committee also extends its continued appreciation for the quality stewardship and professionalism of the committee secretariat led by Ms Susan Cardell. I look forward to maintaining the high standard of committee work over the coming year and through our inquiry and oversight activities, and, in doing so, protecting the real interests of Australian taxpayers by ensuring the proper and efficient scrutiny of the use of public resources. I commend the report to the House. Report 65 16:17 Mr HART 263070 Bass I present the executive minutes on reports 463, 467 and 469 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. BILLS 65 BILLS Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 65

Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 65 16:18 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne Before the break I was explaining how, because of the approach of successive governments, we have ended up in a situation where people who are working on ships passing through our waters, or through waters adjacent to our waters, may be under enterprise agreements, and that, sometimes, the first time anyone finds out that these enterprise agreements are in place is when they go and talk to the crew on the ships and find out that a handful of them voted on an enterprise agreement—which includes wage rates that are substantially below the local wages and conditions—before they left their home country to come to Australia. The agreement is not one that the unions have had any time to be involved in. Clearly, the rates are higher than the wages and conditions they might have in their home country, so you can't fault those crew members for that, but they're substantially lower than the going market and enterprise agreement rates in Australia—and it's all perfectly legal. It's all perfectly legal to have people vote on an enterprise agreement in this country, which affects the conditions of local workers here, and to have it happen before they even leave here. And it is often done by secret ballot where no-one is able to have any input into it at all. We've also ended up in a situation in our shipping and offshore resources activity where people will come through on other classes of visas where local advertising doesn't have to happen at all. We saw the farcical situation a couple of years back where, in order to allow some companies in the offshore sector to have the right to exploit people and pay them much less than the local wages and conditions, the minister—not the minister in this House but the minister at the time, who is in the other place, the Senate—ran around declaring various offshore resource projects to be exempt from the provisions of the law. Then, at the end, she declared them all exempt. Every offshore resource project was exempt from the provisions of the relevant law, and therefore local wages and conditions didn't have to apply. That was challenged in the High Court. It was a bit like a whack-a-mole game: up would pop another regulation, and you had to knock that one on the head. Ultimately the will of the Senate prevailed, and it was clear that the intention was to provide for local wages and conditions to apply and some form of justice to prevail. But this is what people are up against when it comes to shipping and offshore resources activity, because of the holes that are in our laws. We have chosen, wrongly, not to regulate shipping in our region, and as a result we find ourselves, as I said before, losing a trained and sustained workforce, losing a local shipping fleet and losing the revenue that could come from following down the road of other countries who have decided that a regulatory approach is actually of benefit to the country. We've had a bit of time to fix it, and the attempts that have been made by previous governments—and I count governments of both stripes in this—have been manifestly inadequate. We knew that the attempt a few years ago to introduce a couple of lists and say, 'We're introducing our own approach, the Labor approach to revitalise shipping,' wasn't going to work. That was called out at the time by many people in the sector, and of course it hasn't worked. There are many things that can be done now, without this legislation passing, that have led to the decimation of Australian shipping, as we've seen, but this bill will take it even further. There are not many bills that come before parliament and say, 'Our aim is to enable people to have lower wages and conditions than might otherwise apply and to enable people to opt out of the small amount of regulation that might apply to protect our environment and our workforce,' but that's exactly what this bill does. That's why this bill can't be supported and we need to go back to the drawing board. When we go back to the drawing board and consider how we're going to deal with Australian shipping, we should look to the other countries that are doing it well—the other countries that have built up an industry, contrary to the intention of this bill and the direction that we've been going in under Labor and Liberal. It's not right that as an island country we just say, 'We'll leave it up to other countries to register our ships and crew our ships as they sail through our waters.' We have an opportunity here, if we're a bit sensible about it, to rebuild the Australian shipping industry. I would hope that, if this bill proceeds to the other place, the scrutiny that's going to be brought to bear on it there will prompt the government to go back to the drawing board and have a rethink of this terrible bill. 16:23 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina Thank you to those members who have contributed to the debate on the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017. The federal government is committed to a safe, secure and efficient transport system, and coastal shipping has a significant role to play. The amendments to the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Act 2012—the coastal trading act—are necessary to simplify coastal trading regulation, to reduce the administrative impost associated with the current regime, to expand the coverage of the coastal trading act and to provide clarity on a number of minor technical matters. The reforms will facilitate the government's objective of having more competitive and efficient coastal shipping services and will benefit Australia's manufacturing, mining and agricultural industries. This bill retains the major elements of the current coastal trading licence framework, with amendments to regulatory settings to minimise the industry burden and costs. Easing the current regulatory burden on the maritime industry will provide greater flexibility to buyers and suppliers of shipping services and will ensure coastal shipping remains a viable part of the national transport system. Between 2010 and 2030, Australia's overall freight task is expected to grow by 80 per cent, underpinned by strong growth in domestic movements of bulk commodity exports, particularly iron ore and coal. This bill reduces the regulatory burden for shipping users and provides further opportunity to use shipping to move domestic freight. The bill will remove the five-voyage minimum requirement for issuing temporary licences, thereby allowing companies to use spot hire at short notice for passengers and cargo. In one instance, a ship was unable to obtain a temporary licence to move a piece of heavy machinery between two ports as it was a single voyage and therefore ineligible for a temporary licence. The machinery was instead moved by road, which required a police escort due to the size of the machinery, and overhead utilities had to be moved. This was more complicated and more costly than a voyage by ship would have been, but it was the only available option at the time due to the five-voyage minimum requirement for temporary licences. The government's amendments will make it easier for the energy sector to respond to shortages, by allowing the movement of crude oil and condensate from offshore facilities, and through the removal of the five-voyage minimum requirement. This means that in future, if a major city such as Melbourne or Sydney is facing a fuel shortage and fuel is available elsewhere and needs to be moved quickly, providers will be able to apply for a temporary licence with a single voyage to move that product, without worrying about scheduling another four unnecessary voyages. The amendments will also allow the expedited consideration of a temporary licence to be used in an emergency situation, including in relation to energy security, with a licence valid for 65 days to allow sufficient time to respond to the emergency. Removing the five-voyage minimum will allow superyachts to operate under the licensing system, opening up trade and tourism opportunities. Application processes will be streamlined to remove unnecessary delays and inefficiencies, such as the need to consult on applications where there are no relevant Australian flagged vessels—for example, petroleum tankers. Tolerance limits will increase to provide the shipping industry with the flexibility it needs and deserves. Reducing red tape is a key priority of the Liberal and Nationals government and a central aspect of these policy reforms. Presently, the holder of a temporary licence needs to provide information to the government three times about each voyage. Under the new arrangements, notifications will be required only if the details are different from those already provided. The bill extends coverage of the existing coastal trading act to allow the carriage of petroleum products from Australia's offshore facilities to the mainland for processing. This change will help make the use of Australian refineries more viable and will contribute to fuel security. The government's amendments will open up Australia to exciting new tourism opportunities in the superyacht sector. The current regulatory settings of the coastal trading act exclude superyacht operators from gaining a temporary licence for a round-trip voyage, and force any superyacht operator to pay customs importation duty and taxes on the vessel if they want to visit Australia. This is prohibitively expensive for superyacht operators, so they bypass Australia and cruise to New Zealand, Fiji or Vanuatu, where regulatory settings are much more welcoming. In 2016, Superyacht Australia and the Queensland Treasury commissioned an economic impact study of the superyacht sector for the Queensland Labor government. The Queensland Superyacht Strategy envisaged that, by 2023, Queensland's share of the global superyacht sector will have increased by 10 per cent and that Queensland will be recognised as the key superyacht hub in the Asia-Pacific region. This growth will create thousands of new highly skilled jobs across the state and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy. These changes will bring important trade and tourism benefits to rural and regional areas on the Far North Queensland coast. The Whitsundays and Port Douglas, among others, are poised to benefit from superyacht tourism. In South-East Queensland, it is expected to contribute more than $1.1 billion to gross state product and support nearly 8,000 full-time jobs by 2021—up from $630.2 million and 4,535 full-time jobs in 2016. They're impressive figures. With this bill, for the first time, ships will be allowed to carry out scheduled maintenance in Australia under a licence. This change will encourage the use of our dry-docking and repair facilities, and potentially grow Australia's dry-dock industry—and that's something we all want. Importantly, these reforms will not take away any of the protections provided to Australian flagged vessels operating under general licences. Australian licensed vessels will still enjoy unrestricted access to the Australian coast and will have the opportunity to contest voyages applied for by foreign ships where appropriate. They will continue to enjoy various shipping tax incentives, including the ability to include income tax exemption for qualifying shipping activities, accelerated depreciation for owners of certain vessels, and rollover relief for eligible Australian shipowners. Australia's future growth will be significantly influenced by our capacity to access safe, secure, efficient and competitively priced transport services. The amendments in this bill will help ensure that ships seeking to provide services in Australia are able to do so with the minimum of red tape and regulatory burden. I've heard the Labor Party discuss the consultation process. I want to assure the House that broad consultation was undertaken to help inform the development of the bill. An option paper released in 2014 received 85 submissions, with the department meeting with 103 stakeholders. In 2015, round-table discussions were held with the then minister and with industry stakeholder groups. In 2016 the then minister met with the MUA, the Australian Maritime Officers Union, the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers, and Maritime Industry Australia Limited, previously known as the Australian Shipping Association, and undertook meetings with users of coastal shipping and stakeholders with passenger shipping interests. A discussion paper released in 2017 on coastal trading reform received 67 submissions. I want to acknowledge the shadow minister's contribution and his proposed amendment. The government will not be supporting his amendment. But in saying that, I want to assure the member for Grayndler and this parliament that this government is committed to delivering fuel security, increasing tourism, backing local industry, growing our economy and creating local jobs while supporting local workers. This bill addresses these issues, and I encourage the Labor Party to support it. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Grayndler has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Grayndler be agreed to.

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

67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:42 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. [16:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 67 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 70 16:48 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move amendment (1) as circulated in my name: (1) Schedule 1, items 5 and 6, page 4 (lines 8 to 21), omit the items. Amendment (1) relates to the issue of acceptable tolerance limits. The current act establishes acceptable tolerance limits for temporary licence voyages being plus or minus 20 per cent for the nominated cargo passenger volumes and plus or minus five days for the authorised loading date, without the shipper needing to seek a variation to their temporary licence. If required, a variation must be approved by the minister within two business days. What the bill proposes is to increase the volume tolerance limits to 200 per cent more or 100 per cent less. It also proposes a loading window tolerance of 30 days either side of the authorised dates. This has very serious implications for whether the Australian industry around our coast can literally survive. If you had listened to the speeches of those opposite, you would have thought that the only issue to do with shipping around our coast was about superyachts; it's actually about the capacity of Australian flagged vessels to exist, taking resources and goods around our coastline. These changes would further deregulate what is already one of the world's most liberal coastal trading regimes. To put that in some context, in the United States, under the Jones Act, if you want coastal trading to exist around the coast of the US—if you have goods in San Francisco you want to take to Los Angeles or goods in Miami that you want to take to New York—then you have to use an American flagged vessel with an American crew, 100 per cent. They have a completely protectionist regime. Australia doesn't have that, and Labor certainly isn't proposing that that would be appropriate. But it is appropriate that we have a regime that allows Australian flagged vessels to have an opportunity to continue to exist. The proposed amendments in this legislation, which the amendment I've moved this afternoon would remove, would make it almost impossible for a general licensed vessel to contest work, because their owner-operator would never know the actual volume or the precise loading date. To be clear, I say to the minister that they wouldn't know what the loading date was, so how can you bid for work as an Australian contractor if you don't know, within 30 days, what the date of that voyage would be and you also don't know what the actual volume of goods for that task that you are seeking would be? Let us look at what the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers said in a submission to the discussion paper not of this minister and not of his predecessor as minister but of the minister before that—Minister Chester. That's how long this legislation has been around, in limbo, because it is orphaned legislation, to be frank. No-one wants to be associated with it. I'm not surprised that the current minister's been put in an unfortunate position, but he has an opportunity to say, 'Yes, I'm better than my predecessor.' That's not a big call, I say to the minister. 'And I'm even better than the minister before that, because, as a member of the National Party, I'm going to stand up for Australian businesses.' AIMPE said: The ultimate voyage carried out may bear no resemblance to the original voyage for which the Temporary Licence was granted. AIMPE are right in their submission, and that is why this amendment should be carried. (Time expired) 16:54 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Grayndler, the shadow minister for transport and infrastructure, for his comments. I just wanted to assure him that the departure of vessels has occurred under Labor's process. During debate on this particular bill, my colleague the member for Grey provided the House with details on the decline of Australian flagged vessels. He informed the House that, in 2012, the then Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, when introducing legislation for the current act, said it was designed to ensure the Australian shipping industry survived. In 2012, there were 30 ships; now, in 2018, there are just 13. That reduction was under the act that the member for Grayndler said would protect Australian shipping. Combined with this, many ageing Australian vessels are not being replaced. The average age of the registered fleet, all 13 of them, is 24 years, up from 23 last year. The oldest vessel is 26 years old in comparison to the average age of 13 years for international vessels. We have an ageing fleet. The bill maintains the current requirements for Australian flagged vessels to be consulted and bid for work before a temporary licence voyage is undertaken. It doesn't impose any additional or onerous requirements on Australian flagged vessels. It's important to note that these reforms will not take away any of the protections provided to Australian flagged vessels operating under general licences. Australian licensed vessels will still have unrestricted access to the Australian coast and the opportunity to contest voyages applied for by foreign ships. They will continue to access shipping tax incentives, including the ability to claim income tax exemptions for qualifying shipping activities. As I stated in my summing up speech, there will be accelerated depreciation for certain owners of vessels and rollover relief for eligible Australian shipowners. All of the departures and reflaggings which have occurred since this act came into force have taken place under the regime that the Australian Labor Party established. This government has made no changes to that regime and has issued no directions to the department on how to administer the legislation. I want to tell the House that Australian seafarer jobs have been declining and will likely continue to decline under the current framework. However, the reforms in the bill will create the potential for more onshore jobs to offset those continued seafarer job losses by making coastal shipping a more attractive and more affordable transport alternative. Input costs for the manufacturing industry will be reduced. This should support job growth in this sector. By bringing the movement of liquid fuel products from offshore facilities under the coastal trading act, refineries could become more competitive, allowing for job growth in this sector. There is also potential for, as I stated before, Australia's dry-docking industry to grow. The amendments in this bill—the original reforms—will make no change to the pay and conditions of seafarers, and that is important to note. The reforms do not alter the workforce entitlements of Australian seafarers, to whom part A of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010, the modern award, will continue to apply. Nor do they alter the coverage of foreign seafarers. For seafarers on foreign flagged vessels, the wages and conditions currently set out in part B of the Seagoing Industry Award 2010 will continue to apply from the third voyage of their ship onwards in Australian waters over a 12-month period. By recording the IMO number of vessels being used, additional information will be available to determine when those entitlements are payable. This is good reform. We've talked about it for long enough and it's time for this reform to take place. 16:57 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The problem with the minister's contribution is that he didn't address the issues that are confronted in the amendment that I'm moving to omit schedule 1, items 5 and 6 on page 4, lines 8 to 21 of the legislation—changing the tolerance limits. The minister said that Australian flagged vessels would still have the capacity to compete. That's right. They would have the capacity to bid. They just wouldn't know what they were bidding for, because the tolerance limit is being changed to allow 200 per cent more than what was being asked for. Think about this: there is a contract to carry this book across, but it could be 100 per cent less, so it could just be half a book, or it could be three books. That's the difference in terms of the tolerance limits between the contract that is being put out. It's not hard. It's a version of 200 per cent more or 100 per cent less for the volume of product being asked to be moved. Not just that, but here we are on 15 August and you put in a bid to make your ship available to take maybe one, two or three tonnes of goods. You make the ship available, with the crew, with access to the particular port, and you take it up to Townsville, because it is goods to be taken from Townsville down to Brisbane. But when you get there, the ship isn't going on 15 August, and it's not going on 16 August, 17 August or 18 or 19 or 20 August. In the meantime you're paying your staff and crew and paying your port costs, because the variation in when the actual voyage will take place can be 30 days. That's why you don't have to listen to the union that I quoted before, the engineers' union. Listen to the employers. Maritime Industry Australia Ltd, the peak industry body, said: Without the tolerances being meaningful (and remembering that these were expanded by the 2012 reforms from 10% and three days to 20% and five days) the system may as well be deregulated entirely. The industry itself is saying that if this legislation is not amended they won't be able to be in business. That's what they're saying, and common sense tells us that that's the case. Think about someone transporting grain or agricultural produce in your electorate, Minister. If I put out a contract saying, 'Can you take a hundred head of cattle from Wagga Wagga to Newcastle port, but you mightn't have to take it today,' and the contract says 15 August and it will be a hundred head, but when you get there it's 15 September that the trucks are going to go, and there's 300 head of cattle, not 100 head, and you've got your truck there—how can you possibly compete on that basis? And the minister spoke about no directions to the department. They gutted the department! The entire shipping section got shoved off to other departments. They got rid of any expertise, so you had departmental officers approving temporary licences for the Portland—to replace the MV Portland—to go on one journey from Portland in Victoria around to Western Australia and back again. Minister, you should reconsider this position, because it's just wrong. You don't have to listen to the unions, listen to the industry itself. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler. 17:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I quoted the industry body before. I'll now quote the Maritime Union of Australia: Such open-ended tolerance provisions would totally undermine accepted commercial arrangements and make it impossible for a GL [general licence] holder to contest a cargo, as the GL holder would not know what they are contesting. The ability to position a ship when the loading date could vary by up to 30 days would be commercially untenable for a GL holder, as would be the unknown nature of the cargo volume. The operators of vessels around the coast have been unanimous in their positions where they have expressed concern about these changes. That includes CSL, which currently owns three Australian flagged vessels operating around the coastline. ANL said: 'the current date tolerance seems reasonable'. The other issue is that of the impact on Australian based tourism cruise operators. From those opposite we hear about superyachts. In my earlier contribution to the debate I said that I'm happy to sit down with the minister and talk constructively about ways in which we can change customs regimes and improve access for superyachts, because I agree that there is potential for growth in that industry. What I'm not prepared to do is destroy the entire coastal shipping industry in the interests of the superyacht industry, which is based essentially in the Cayman Islands and other offshore tax havens. But those opposite exposed what drives them when they had two issues really that they raised continuously. Even the minister, in his summing up, spoke more about superyachts than he did about the actual resources sector, the agriculture sector or other sectors that take trade around our coast. There's an Australian cruise ship industry that's worried about these provisions as well. This is what True North Adventure Cruises have had to say, through Mr Bill Milby, the operator of the tourism vessels off north-west Western Australia, on regional jobs. He's warned that the proposed changes to the tolerance limits would allow foreign operators to game the system. This is what he said in his submission: The purpose of temporary licences was to allow foreign ships to carry cargo and passengers in the event that cargo or passengers were already waiting at a port to be shipped from one destination to another. This amendment allows foreign ships to apply for and be granted a temporary licence when there is no cargo or passengers, thus allowing the foreign ship to wait at any port and choose to bid against any general licence holder at any time. What you have here is an Australian based industry—Coral Sea Expeditions, which operates primarily around Far North Queensland, and True North Adventure Cruises, operating out of the Kimberley—saying that these provisions will result in a loss of Australian jobs and a loss of Australian economic activity. When Mr Milby raised this question originally, when these sorts of provisions were in the act put forward by former minister Warren Truss, which were rejected in the Senate, he was told: 'What you should do is take the Australian flag off your ship, reflag it with a foreign flag and replace your Australian crew with a foreign crew being paid foreign wages. That's the way in which you can continue to compete.' That is explicitly what they said. And today, in his one contribution to the debate about this amendment, the minister said that seafarer jobs would continue to be in decline. Well, why is it, Minister, that for an island continent you are promoting legislation that you say will result in a decline in jobs for Australian seafarers? There are real implications behind that. I think you're better than that, and you can do better than this legislation. 17:08 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member for Grayndler asked about agriculture, so I'm going to tell him about how the reforms will benefit the agricultural sector. Australia's agriculture sector plays a key role in our nation's prosperity, and I think everybody in this parliament should know that. They're doing it tough at the moment; the drought's really biting hard. Farmers and agricultural producers depend on Australia's coastal trading system. Since 2012 the agriculture sector has been significantly impacted by the regulatory burden imposed by the coastal trading system. The Productivity Commission's report into the regulation of agriculture found that the current coastal shipping framework leads to additional costs—higher costs—for farm businesses that are reliant on sea freight. The report noted that the high shipping costs have seen some businesses move operations overseas. These reforms will reduce the regulatory burden on the agricultural sector and increase the attractiveness of shipping as a viable transport option for agricultural businesses that need to move their product to market. Tolerances will be expanded, and the ability to vary licences will be streamlined. The coastal trading act currently contains strict tolerance provisions for voyages under temporary licences. This means that a shipper has to apply for a variation to their temporary licence if they are going to move their cargo more than five days before or after the approved loading date, and also if they load 20 per cent more or less than the approved amount of cargo. In its response to the department's discussion paper released in March 2017, Wilmar Sugar provided an example of how unwieldy and inefficient this system is. In one year alone, one of Wilmar's business units—and I know the assistant minister at the table will be very interested to hear this—had to apply to vary more than 50 per cent of the voyages granted on a temporary licence because of the system's strict tolerance provisions, which are out of step with the shipping industry and put Australian businesses at a disadvantage. We don't want to see that. Our changes will significantly increase those limits—to 30 days and 200 per cent—before a variation is needed. With that, I move: That the question be now put. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the question be now put.

The House divided. [17:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith) ]

 76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 66 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:19): The SPEAKER ( 00APG The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:19]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 66 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move opposition amendment (3): (3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (lines 20 to 23), omit the item. Amendment (3) is to omit schedule 1, item 15, page 5, lines 20 to 23. Section 6(1) of the Coastal Trading Act currently defines 'voyage' as the 'movement of a vessel from one port to another port'. That definition shouldn't be all that surprising. The bill proposes to amend this definition to remove the reference to movement from one port to another port, effectively extending the definition of a voyage to include voyages that don't really go anywhere, that start and finish at the same port. The explanatory memorandum says that the purpose of this amendment is to: … open the coastal trading regime to chartered recreational vessels that typically embark and disembark at the same port … In practice, this definitional change is likely to harm existing, more traditional sections of the domestic maritime industry. It would open the way for foreign transhipment and bunker barge operators to apply for temporary licences to work around the Australian coast. Currently, the companies performing these activities, which usually begin and end in the same port, are Australian based and employ Australian seafarers. But once again we see a government that doesn't seem to worry about whether there are Australian jobs and Australians being employed or whether, effectively, we're offshoring those jobs and thereby contracting the Australian industry. I'm sure the government will say that this is about superyachts, given that it seemed to just talk and talk and talk about superyachts during the debate on this legislation. But the fact is that the damage that would be done to Australian based tourism operators, as well as Australian based bunker barge operators, for example, could be substantial. I have said, and I reiterate to the minister, that Labor is open to reforms that will promote the growth of the superyacht industry, to the benefit of communities up and down the Australian coastline. But we need to do it in a way that doesn't have unintended consequences, that doesn't basically knock over those Australian industries that are currently operating. One of those, which I've mentioned before, is Coral Expeditions. On their letterhead, they define themselves as 'Australia's pioneering cruise line'. Indeed, they are a great Australian success story, employing people in Queensland in particular. This is what they said in their submission of 13 August, a few days ago, to the Senate committee on this legislation: 'The changes will have the unintended consequence of killing off the growing and globally respected Australian flagged expedition cruise ship industry. This will have a significant negative impact on sustainable tourism and the environment in remote and sensitive coastal areas in Australia and on the revival of Australian seafaring.' They say: 'We urge the current restrictions on coastal trading for foreign flagged passenger ships be maintained in order to facilitate the steady and sustainable development of coastal tourism and the Australian seafaring industry.' I've met with the superyacht industry. I've spoken with them about the changes that could be made, looking at the Customs Act provisions, for example— Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Doesn't Albo have a superyacht? Mr ALBANESE R36 That's the sort of idiocy that has given you such preselection problems. Mr Craig Kelly 99931 Won't you invite me out on it? Mr ALBANESE R36 That's the sort of brilliant interjection which has made you the part of the rump of the Liberal Party that you are. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler. Mr ALBANESE R36 I won't respond any further to the member for Hughes. I say to the member for Hughes that there has to be a reason why Sky News exists, and it is for the member for Hughes to get a run somewhere, which he does regularly. He of course gets runs on other occasions as well—when he makes regrettable and offensive statements that he then has to withdraw. I say to the member for Hughes: sometimes it's really smart to shut up, and then people won't know what is inside. I say that constructively. But the fact is I have been prepared to sit down with industry. I regard the minister as a serious person and I put forward suggestions in a constructive way—and I've made a couple; one is about customs. There are other ways as well that you could resolve the sorts of issues that have been raised by the industry with me, and they are open to that. But what you shouldn't do is make changes that undermine the entire Australian coastal fleet, undermine Australian jobs and undermine existing Australian operators like True North and Coral Expeditions, because it is simply not in anyone's interests for that to occur. I assume that resolving these issues is the objective of the amendment in the bill to change the definition of 'voyage', and I'll listen to the minister's response, but I say to the minister that Australian based industry are saying that that is not in their interests, and the people whom this particular clause is aimed at are also saying they're not wedded to it. They're after an outcome rather than any particular process. I commend opposition amendment (3) to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I put the question— Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr McCormack 219646 No, no. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Sorry. Mr McCormack 219646 Let's hear from the member for Shortland! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Yes. I call the member for Shortland. Mr McCormack 219646 Please, let's hear from the member for Shortland! 17:34 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland We've avoided another— Mr Albanese R36 Crisis! Mr CONROY 249127 crisis—a parliamentary crisis! This amendment, and the series of amendments that the member for Grayndler is moving, goes to trying to restore some semblance of integrity to the coastal shipping and trade regime around general licences versus temporary licences. What we've seen under this government is an attack on the general-licences approach and the issuing of temporary licences any time they feel like it, which is really destroying the Australian shipping industry. This is a government that is intent on putting Australian seafarers out of work. There is no sugar-coating it. This is a government that is intent on putting Australian seafarers out of work. You just have to see what they did around the MV Portland and the CSL Melbourne. They issued temporary licences to replace Australian crewed ships doing very regular work. For 27 years the MV Portland shipped alumina from Western Australia to the Portland aluminium smelter—for 27 years. By any definition it was a regular trip, but this government issued a temporary licence so that that company could frogmarch off Australian workers and replace them with foreign flagged vessels on dodgy temporary licences. They did the same thing for CSL Melbourne. They put Australian seafarers out of work on shipping routes that were, by definition, regular. You knew how many shipments of alumina would go from Western Australia to Portland and how many from Gladstone to Newcastle to the Tomago smelter. Every year it was as regular as anything. But this government put those Australian seafarers out of work because they're intent on destroying that industry. You don't have to take my word for it. You only have to read the regulatory impact statement that accompanied their 2015 legislation effort. Their own regulatory impact statement stated that all the savings associated with that legislation came from putting 1,000 of the 1,100 Australian seafarers out of work. Rarely has a conservative government been so honest in its attack on Australian workers. That RIS, if it had got through parliament, would have put out of work 90 per cent of Australian seafarers. That's what they intend to do by continuing to weaken the protections against temporary licences by massively expanding the tolerance limits allowed when they issue temporary licences. That's the nub of this amendment and the nub of this bill. That's why Labor's amendments must be supported. It's not just about Australian jobs and maintaining an Australian industry. We're a maritime nation, and there are huge national security implications in making sure that we've got an adequate Australian merchant maritime work force. There are also huge environmental issues. June this year was the 11th anniversary of when the Pasha Bulker washed up on Nobbys Beach in Newcastle during a storm. It was a foreign flagged and foreign crewed vessel that had ignored the warnings of the harbourmaster to move away from the coast of Newcastle. We've also seen foreign flagged and foreign crewed vessels ignoring warnings to move away from the Great Barrier Reef. They've literally run aground and damaged sections of the Great Barrier Reef, imperilling a $9 billion tourism industry that employs 68,000 Australians, all because the government wants to undermine Australian vessels and replace Australian seafarers with foreign workers on $2 a day on flag-of-convenience vessels. What's the next step? Having Australian trucks on our highways replaced by foreign trucks, staffed by foreign workers paid $2 a day? This is just the logical extension of that. As the shadow minister's already foreshadowed, we're open to discussions with the superyacht industry about how we facilitate the growth of that industry, but you don't do it by further attacks on Australia's shipping industry, further attacks on our proud maritime tradition. So I urge that Labor's amendments be supported. I urge this government to go back to the drawing board. I acknowledge that the minister in the past has acknowledged that we need a bipartisan settlement. We need a bipartisan policy solution that will survive changes of government. That is the only way you're going to get investment in new Australian ships, staffed by Australian seafarers. But this bill is not the way to do it, so I urge them to go back to the drawing board and come back with something that is actually workable and fair and that will promote Australian seafarers. 17:39 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler The minister spoke about the consultation process that occurred. A discussion paper was released on 21 March 2017. Discussions took place on 20 April 2016 with some of the unions. On 27 April 2016, there were consultations with some industry groups. Perhaps indicative of the lack of judgement and the motivation of the government, both of its so-called reform packages were launched at events hosted by the foreign shippers, not the Australian shipping industry. One of the extraordinary things that I find is that MIAL, Maritime Industry Australia Limited—the peak organisation, the peak body, which represents Australian based shipping operators and other Australian based maritime businesses—were not invited to participate in either of the meetings that were hosted on 27 April 2016. That's not the current minister's fault, but it does go to why this legislation is not only flawed; it was designed to exclude those Australian based interests. That is unfortunate. As the member for Shortland has outlined, incidents around the coast like those involving the Pacific Adventurer and the Shen Neng have had consequences for our pristine natural environment. Fortunately, they haven't been catastrophic. A potential incident on the Great Barrier Reef could have literally billions of dollars of consequences for Australia because of the knock-on impact that it would have. One of the things that I did as the minister was to extend south the area that was required to have pilots to make sure that that protection was put in place. The environmental consequences are severe. We also know that, in terms of the maintenance, many of these foreign ships operating around the coast are pretty ordinary, to say the least, compared with Australian based ships. We know that the maintenance simply isn't there. We know that the workforce can often be overworked and not have appropriate occupational health and safety conditions. For example, the captain of the Shen Neng was prosecuted, as he should have been, for failing to turn through the channel. As the inquiry found, that was a result of that particular gentleman not having been to sleep for a very, very long time. The sort of idea that we should have a free-for-all around our coast without consequences is simply an error of judgement. There's the other issue of national security. We hear a lot from those opposite about the protection of borders, yet we will have consequences if the Australian shipping industry cannot continue. Foreign based ships with foreign workers will not have gone through the same security clearances that Australian seafarers have to go through. People who work in ports have to have MSIC cards and go through the whole security clearance process. These ships have a lot of fuel on them. They're often in ports and harbours, very close to where people reside in very large numbers. I think there are real national security issues which arise from that, let alone the issue of the link between the merchant fleet and our military fleet. That linkage has historically been there between the Navy and people who have worked in the merchant fleet. Their skills are interchangeable. If you don't have an Australian based maritime sector, what you won't have is the sorts of skills base of people— (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The member's time has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler. Mr ALBANESE R36 who go on to be harbourmasters and run ports and are very proud of making a contribution to the nation. Here in Australia we have the Australian Maritime College down at Launceston, a world-class facility. We have a very proud history as a maritime nation. The Australian flag's continued presence on the back of Australian ships crewed by Australian seafarers with Australian engineers and Australian captains is very important. These are not inconsequential matters for an island continent such as ours, which relies overwhelmingly upon shipping to deal with our imports and exports. The shipping industry also has consequences for our coastal trading regime to take goods around the nation. The 'blue highway' is free, unlike the Hume Highway, the Bruce Highway, the Pacific Highway and other roads, where maintenance is required. Other sections of our transport industry—the rail and road sectors—are concerned about the consequences of a free-for-all, where they're being asked to compete with foreign flagged vessels operating with foreign and foreign conditions to transport those goods around our coast. That puts those transport operators, be they rail or road, at a significant disadvantage. Quite frankly it's an absurd idea to say that it's okay for a trucking company to come in with trucks that have been built, maintained and operated in the Philippines, operate from Brisbane and take goods down Highway 1 to Melbourne, pay Filipino wages and have Filipino overheads and costs, and compete with the Australian trucking operators. Why should the 'blue highway' be different from the Hume Highway? What's more, when it also happens in the rail sector, they will be considerably disadvantaged at a time when the government is talking about inland rail and the importance of rail transport. The ARA opposes this legislation. Why would the rail sector be involved in coastal shipping? They understand that when they have Australian costs and overheads they're at a massive disadvantage if they have to compete with another sector performing the same task through a different mode but with foreign costs and overheads. There are a whole range of reasons that this legislation is flawed and should be rejected. The particular amendment we're debating shows that the government is so ideologically determined that they're prepared to redefine the whole definition of a voyage rather than apply a bit of common sense. This isn't the current minister's legislation, nor even the member for New England's legislation, but there has been no consultation with the opposition over this. When this was introduced—a long time ago now; more than a year—before even I gave my second reading speech I moved a procedural resolution to dismiss this and to have a proper consultation process, because I recognise that a bipartisan position would be far preferable. This is unsupportable. (Time expired) 17:50 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I want to pick up on something that the shadow minister finished up on—that is, the need for a bipartisan position on coastal shipping policy. What happened with this policy contrasts strongly with Labor's legislation that we put through during the last Labor government, which was a product of probably the most extensive industry consultation I've seen in a couple of decades. It took almost four years to go from initial industry consultation to developing a legislative package that went through parliament. Why did we take that much time? We took that much time because we consulted with industry. But it wasn't just hand-picked industry. We didn't just go to the foreign shippers. We talked to Maritime Industry Australia, which is the peak body for Australian shippers. Imagine that: actually talking to Australian shippers when you're legislating about the Australian shipping industry! We talked to the unions; we talked to the customers to make sure that we had a package that could succeed in revitalising the Australian shipping industry. The great tragedy is that within a year of that package being legislated there was a change of government. The new government couldn't get that particular legislation repealed, so what did they do? They just undermined it by the fraudulent issuing of temporary licences. I don't use those words lightly. It was a fraudulent issuing of temporary licences. They issued temporary licences for trade that had existed not for months or weeks but for decades. As I said, the MV Portland was shipping alumina from the Kwinana Strip in WA to Portland for 27 years. Then, with the simple stroke of a pen, the new government, the Liberal-National coalition, replaced that general licence with a temporary licence, which led to the seafarers on the MV Portland being frogmarched off their ship in the middle of the night. Then they repeated it in Newcastle with the CSL Melbourne, which had been shipping alumina from Gladstone to Newcastle for the Tomago aluminium smelter for close to a decade. This is a great tragedy. There is a human cost to this. I had a mobile office a year ago where I met with an unemployed engineer who lived in my electorate and who'd got every ticket under the sun. He'd put himself through a master's degree to make sure he was one of the best-qualified ship engineers in the country, but he couldn't get a job. Even though the shipping industry was booming, he could not get a job, because he was an Australian worker who wanted to be paid Australian wages. This time last year I met with another seafarer, who lives at Caves Beach in my electorate and who had been out of work for a couple of years—again, because this government had been undermining Labor's shipping reforms through the issuing of fraudulent temporary licences. It must end. Compared with almost every other G20 country we stand alone on this. You only have to look at the United States, with its mighty Jones Act, where not only do you have to have US wages and conditions; you have to have US seafarers on US-built ships. We're not suggesting we go that far, but, as the shadow minister discussed, I don't think it's unreasonable that, for coastal trading, you have Australian workers paid Australian wages and conditions. These trips are the equivalent of a truck carrying alumina going from Gladstone to Newcastle. You wouldn't suggest having a Filipino driver on $2 per day driving a Filipino truck doing that job. These are the exact same trading routes; they just happen to be a few miles offshore on the water. This government has form. This government, through their last legislative effort, tried to put 90 per cent of Australia's seafarers out of work. I join the call from the shadow minister for the government to inject a bit of bipartisanship into this issue and withdraw the Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill, sit down with the opposition, talk to Maritime Industry Australia, the peak body for Australian shippers, talk—heaven forbid—to the unions, talk to their customers and actually find a constructive way forward. We can honour the legacy of the former member for Wide Bay without continuing this idiotic and short-sighted attack on Australian seafarers. It's my constituents who will pay the price. I represent a proud maritime electorate, with plenty of seafarers. Unfortunately a lot of them are out of work. I urge this government to go back to the drawing board and work constructively on it. The Deputy Prime Minister is a good bloke. Hopefully he can see through the politics of this and come forward with a bipartisan solution that will actually boost the industry, rather than undermining it. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that amendment (3), moved by the member for Grayndler, be agreed to.

The House divided. [17:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 66 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:05 Mr ALBANESE ( R36 Grayndler ) ( ): by leave—I move amendment (2) and amendments (4) to (14) together, as circulated in my name: (2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item. (4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item. (5) Schedule 1, item 36, page 8 (lines 25 to 27), omit the item. (6) Schedule 1, items 37 to 40, page 8 (line 28) to page 9 (line 13), omit the items. (7) Schedule 1, item 41, page 9 (lines 14 to 17), omit the item. (8) Schedule 1, items 42 and 43, page 9 (lines 18 to 25), omit the items. (9) Schedule 1, item 44, page 9 (lines 26 and 27), omit the item. (10) Schedule 1, item 45, page 10 (lines 1 and 2), omit the item. (11) Schedule 1, item 49, page 10 (line 16), after "43", insert "or 51". (12) Schedule 1, items 58 and 59, page 11 (lines 10 to 13), omit the items. (13) Schedule 1, items 61 to 63, page 11 (lines 16 to 26), omit the items. (14) Schedule 1, item 65, page 12 (lines 21 to 25), omit subitem (4). I note the enthusiasm of the minister for our moving these 12 amendments en bloc, because these are important amendments to schedule 1 of the legislation. They would omit a range of items from the legislation. Currently there are two types of licence variations to an existing temporary licence: authorised matters—that is, a change to a loading date or volume on an existing planned voyage; and new matters—authorising an entirely new voyage on an existing temporary licence. In the name of streamlining, the bill proposes replacing the two types of licence variations with a single temporary licence variation provision. I'm sure that the government will justify this by saying, 'Well, there are two things and we're putting them into one and that makes it streamlined.' What it does, though, is have massive implications. Reclassifying the addition of a new voyage to an existing temporary licence from a new matter to an authorised matter would halve, from the current two days to just 24 hours, the time available to a general licence holder—that is, an Australian based shipping operator—to apply for that new voyage. One of the things that we know that the government has done in its decimation of the Australian shipping industry is that, for some voyages where a temporary licence was granted, it has replaced an Australian based ship—most notably, for example, the MV Portland—with a foreign ship. The temporary licence was granted without proper notification for Australian based ships that might have wanted to compete to undertake that work. So the advertising processes and the way that the department has conducted some of these operations, under instruction from the government, have had very real consequences. As the member for Shortland reiterated in his contribution, the Portland was basically taking alumina from Western Australia to Portland. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Order! The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler. Mr ALBANESE R36 They were the two destinations involved. There was nothing temporary about it. This had happened for decades. The Portland went from Western Australia, picked up the raw product, took it round to Portland in Victoria for processing and production, and then went back again. The idea of a temporary licence was that it would never be granted for something that was quite clearly permanent work. Yet, in that example, the way that the temporary licence was granted was, in my view, completely flawed and calls into question the integrity of the way that the existing legislation was being administered. People were literally thrown out of their beds in the middle of the night on that ship, sacked and replaced by foreign workers on a foreign ship with a temporary licence doing permanent work. And the existing ship, of course, sailed off to Singapore, from memory, to be sold off. And it was sailed off by foreign workers, not the existing workforce, unlike some of the other atrocities that have been committed on this government's watch, when Australian seafarers have been told in Singapore that they've lost their jobs and been flown back while the ship was flogged off to foreign interests. There are a whole range of questions about how it is that those foreign seafarers were granted visas to be on that ship off the coast of Portland to take the vessel back. It is a great example of the government's hypocrisy when it comes to the integrity of the visa system and the integrity of our borders. The government has a free-for-all when it comes to our borders, as long as it concerns a foreign seafarer working for a pittance often under flags of convenience—vessels flagged in places like Panama and various places where there are no taxation regimes and where ships have often, quite rightly, been called ships of shame as a result of the environmental disasters that have occurred and been associated with much of that industry. Reclassifying the addition of a new voyage and just calling it an 'authorised matter' is cutting in half the capacity for the Australian based industry to bid for that voyage. It makes it even more difficult for Australian vessels to compete. And, again, this is what the industry says. Had Minister Chester bothered to consult properly with the industry, he would have been told: Any new voyage should be subject to the existing timeframes for GL holders to respond or else the integrity of the system is undermined as GL holders rights/opportunities are reduced. That's what industry has to say. This legislation was so bad that the member for New England didn't bring it forward. You look around the chamber: there are only about eight people here, but there are four former ministers. They change as often as some of the members opposite change their socks. The legislation drafted by Minister Chester was so bad that Minister Joyce didn't bring it forward. That's how bad it was. It was too bad for him. Have a good look at yourself, I say to Minister Chester. And I say to the new minister: have a good look at yourself. You don't have to look in the mirror; have a look over there. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the member for Grayndler Mr ALBANESE R36 Because it is quite extraordinary—and I've lost him; Barnaby Joyce is showing me the loyalty he's showing the coalition from day to day on that side. The truth is that this legislation is lousy legislation. When it comes to the variation of temporary licences, it essentially cannot be justified because, again, it is aimed at: what's the purpose of the legislation? For the many people out there who I'm sure are listening intently to this debate, wondering what TL and GL and some of these provisions are, I say to them that a lot of it's pretty simple. The measures in these amendments the government is trying to operate with this piece of legislation follow Minister Truss's disastrous legislation, which couldn't even get a second reading through the Senate—and I predict that this will also meet a similar fate. There isn't one thing—and I say to the minister that in his response it would be nice if he could point to one thing—in this legislation that is supportive of Australian industry. I've pointed to a range of measures in these amendments that, for example, change it from two days to 24 hours—changing it so that Australian ships don't have a capacity to bid—and a range of the other amendments I have spoken about. Can the minister point to one thing in this piece of legislation that is supportive of Australian industry? What each of the measures in this legislation has in common is that they're all designed to make it more difficult for Australian ships to compete with foreign ships. And I say this: the party of Black Jack McEwen and the party of Doug Anthony wouldn't cop this sort of legislation, because, historically, one of the things that the Country Party had in common, I think, with the Labor Party in many instances was a sense of nationalism and a preparedness to defend Australian national interests, industries and jobs. There was actually that understanding there. Yes, there's a market, but this isn't a free market. You're asking Australian ships to compete around our coast doing Australian-only jobs. We're not talking about international trade. We're talking about taking freight essentially from one place in Australia to another place in Australia, just like a truck or a train, except one group has to pay Australian wages and conditions, has ships that are maintained to Australian standards, has environmental protections built in and has proper security clearances for everyone who works in the ships, versus a foreign ship that has foreign wages, foreign overheads and foreign maintenance conditions that aren't as good as those in Australia, and the foreign ship doesn't pay any tax, because it has a flag of Panama or some other flag of convenience on the back of it. The fact is that not only are you saying, 'Oh, well, that's fair, we won't recognise there's a difference there'; you're also changing the rules in this legislation to make it harder for the Australian based ship to compete. There are real consequences. We won't have an Australian maritime skills base. We're an island continent, for goodness sake! The idea that that doesn't matter is just absurd. I say to the minister that there is an opportunity now to point to a single positive measure in this legislation that says, 'This is in the interests of Australian ships' capacity to compete.' 18:20 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to echo the points made by the shadow minister about this being an island nation and the great national security necessity of having an active merchant maritime. It's a little known fact that, outside Bomber Command, the Australian merchant mariners had the highest casualty rate during World War II. There's a direct link between having an active, skilled and vibrant merchant marine and naval forces, our Navy. This bill undermines it, because this bill weakens the general licensing scheme. It favours more dodgy, fraudulent temporary licences, as we saw in the MV Portland and CSL Melbourne cases. It attempts to replicate the effect of the disastrous 2015 legislation—legislation, as I stated previously, where its own regulatory impact statement had 1,000 of 1,100 seafarers being put out of work. That's the human cost of this deregulation agenda by this government. I'm trying to work out why they're trying to do it. It can't just be that they're trying to pay homage to their farmers and to their other customers in the shipping industry, because study after study has shown that an Australian industry with true bipartisan commitment so that the shippers can invest in the latest vessels is very cost competitive. God knows, every other advanced nation in the world realises the importance of investing in this. We're alone amongst the G20 nations in not requiring domestic workers be paid domestic wages and work under domestic conditions. As I said, the Jones Act requires that US personnel working on US-built ships be paid US wages. Japan has a similar requirement. Even China has this requirement. We're alone amongst advanced nations in not saying that, for coastal trading, it should be Australian workers and they should be paid Australian wages, and that's a great disgrace. I'm trying to understand what ideology drives the government on this. They won't talk to Australian shippers. This bill and the consultation sessions that surrounded it didn't even talk to Maritime Industry Australia, the peak body for Australian shippers. They were happy to talk to the foreign shippers—the shippers who have a direct interest in putting Australian seafarers out of work and paying foreign crews on flag-of-convenience vessels $2 a day. They were happy to talk to them but not to the Australian shippers. They also obviously didn't talk to the trade unions involved. We need to go back to the drawing board. We need to embrace bipartisanship. We need to get rid of this ridiculous attempt to increase the tolerance limit so much that it would make the temporary licensing scheme a mockery—although I would submit that the temporary licensing scheme is already a mockery. That you could replace the MV Portland, which has done the same alumina run from the Kwinana strip to Portland for 27 years, with a foreign vessel, a flag-of-convenience listed vessel, that pays its foreign workers $2 a day for exactly the same route and claim it is a temporary licence is beyond belief. Again, when they did that for the CSL Melbourne, travelling from Gladstone down to my home port of Newcastle, it necessitated frogmarching the Australian crew off the vessel. That 50 New South Wales police personnel were used to frogmarch Australian seafarers off the vessel in the middle of the night was an attack on Australian workers. That's the agenda of this government, and this bill again repeats that. Their wish is for Work Choices on water. The government wish is to pay foreign workers $2 a day on flag-of-convenience vessels. This bill is part of that process. This bill will lead to the denudation of the Australian seafaring industry. It will imperil our environment, it will no doubt lead to more Pasha Bulker incidents, it will no doubt lead to the Great Barrier Reef being endangered again and it will no doubt lead to all sorts of other negative consequences for maritime safety and the maritime environment. That's a great, great danger of this bill. We had a great tragedy where we had four deaths on flag-of-convenience vessels in the Port of Newcastle in the last few years. Unfortunately, this bill will weaken the current safeguards. The minister needs to go back to the drawing board. He needs to consult with the opposition. He needs to consult, heaven forbid, with the Australian shippers. He needs find a solution that can be bipartisan and that can represent a genuine investment in the Australian shipping industry, rather than repeating Work Choices on water. 18:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler We have a proud maritime history in this country. We've spoken about the link between the merchant fleet and the naval fleet. At our time of greatest need, when John Curtin showed such extraordinary leadership in this country, we didn't have a major naval presence at all. When we were under threat, he built—in such a short period of time, during wartime—three destroyers, 14 frigates, 60 corvettes and 30,000 small craft. The other thing that happened under Curtin's leadership was that we were preparing craft and assisting both military craft and merchant craft vessels for our allies in Europe and in the United States. Nothing can state those linkages more than that acute period in which our very existence as a free and democratic nation was under threat. At that time, the Australian maritime sector grew, which then expanded into the postwar period under Chifley. Unfortunately, there wasn't the same long-term foresight under Menzies that had occurred under Chifley and that occurred in the United States. A very similar thing happened in the United States. That's the context of the Jones Act. It's the link between the merchant fleet and the military needs of the United States. I said to the minister to point to one thing in the legislation that was positive about the Australian industry, but he's been unable to do so. That's because there isn't anything positive there. This is the latest tranche of Work Choices on water. This is about ideology and a sort of bizarre logic of, 'If we have no Australian shipping industry, we therefore will have no MUA members,' as opposed to, 'What are the opportunities, including the opportunities to build and construct ships here and around the coast? What's the potential for expansion of the manufacturing sector here in Australia?' This is what Maritime Industry Australia Ltd say about whole of the legislation: … there is nothing in the Bill to assist Australian shipowners compete with foreign ships that have all but unfettered access to coastal trades. We held low expectations on that front and unfortunately haven’t been disappointed there. The regulatory impact statement of this legislation is very explicit about the goal of increasing the presence of foreign vessels around the coastline. It says: … the current framework makes it unattractive for foreign ships to enter the coastal trading sector. …   …   … These amendments … will remove the barriers that currently face many foreign flagged vessels under the current system. I spoke before about rail, road and other modes, and the disadvantages that they're at. I want to quote them. These are Freight on Rail Group members: Aurizon; the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which is owned by the government; Ark Infrastructure; Genesee & Wyoming; Pacific National; Qube Holdings and SCT Logistics. This is what they said in their submission: … the proposed amendments have the potential to introduce an unreasonable competitive advantage to foreign ships that may choose to compete in the domestic freight market. This unreasonable competitive advantage arises as the proposed amendments allow foreign shippers to compete in the domestic freight market against land freight transport operators that have to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, exemptions would allow foreign ships to incur substantially lower wages, conditions and associated workplace relations costs when compared to rail, road and Australian-based coastal shipping companies. There it is. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I call the honourable member for Grayndler. Mr ALBANESE R36 I'm going to make this my last contribution to the debate. Mr McCormack 219646 Aw! Mr ALBANESE R36 Although I might reconsider, given the support from those opposite! It's important to know what the consequences are of what is happening on this government's watch. Last year, the Australian flagged ship CSL Thevenard went to dry dock in Singapore and the crew were sacked—'You've lost your jobs.' You know what? The ship is now back on our coast as the Acacia, with the Bahamas flag. To be very clear, they've renamed the ship; it's the same ship. It's operating around the coast but, instead of an Australian flag on the back, it has the flag of the Bahamas. Instead of Australian seafarers, it has foreign seafarers. It's still operating around the coast. It had the Australian flag in 2016, just in case you think that was an accident. The CSL Brisbane is now back on the coast. Guess what? It has changed its name from Brisbane. It's now called the Adelie. It relinquished its general licence, and guess what? It replaced the Australian flag with the flag of the Bahamas. The foreign flagged transitional general licence and Australian crewed British Fidelity was withdrawn from the coastal trade by BP. That was our last petroleum tanker. We talk about fuel security in this country. The last one is gone. The Australian crewed CSL Melbourne, carrying Rio Tinto alumina, was replaced by a foreign flagged ship with foreign crew. The same volume of alumina required transporting. In 2016, the Australian flagged and Australian crewed MV Portland, which has been carrying alumina from Western Australia to Alcoa's Portland smelter for 27 years, was replaced by a foreign flagged ship with foreign crew. It is doing the same task. In 2015, the Australian flagged and crewed Alexander Spirit was withdrawn from service by Caltex. The Australian flagged and crewed Hugli Spirit was withdrawn from service by Caltex. The Australian flagged and crewed British Loyalty was withdrawn from service by BP. The Australian flagged and crewed Tandara Spirit was withdrawn from service by Viva. That happened in 2014. Also in 2014, the Australian flagged and crewed CSL Pacific was withdrawn and scrapped. In 2014, the Australian flagged and crewed Pacific Triangle was withdrawn by BHP. The crew were offloaded in Japan in December 2014 and replaced by a foreign crew. In what world is it okay for Australian seafarers to lose their jobs overseas and just be sent back while another flag is put on the back of a ship? In 2013, as well, the Australian flagged and Australian crewed Lindesay Clark was withdrawn from Rio Tinto's alumina trade when the Point Henry smelter was closed by Alcoa. These are real consequences for the individuals involved, but there are real consequences for the Australian economy and for protection of the Australian environment and real national security considerations here. I say to the minister: I reiterate that Labor is prepared to engage constructively in dialogue for proper legislation that supports Australian based industry, but we can't support this package, which is why we are moving these amendments. I commend the amendments to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that opposition amendments (2) and (4) to (14) as circulated by the member for Grayndler be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 76 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML (teller) Laundy, C Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:44 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the bill be agreed to. Bill agreed to.

The House divided. [18:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

76 AYES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Frydenberg, JA Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C (teller) Leeser, J Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 67 NOES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dick, MD Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Macklin, JL Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Third Reading 88 18:48 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 88 BUSINESS Rearrangement 88 18:49 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 7, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 88 BILLS Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 88

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

Second Reading 88 18:50 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill2018 implements the government's commitment to take strong action to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The term 'non-consensual sharing of intimate images' refers to the sharing or distribution by a relevant electronic service, a designated internet service or a social media service of an image or video of a person or persons portrayed in a sexual or otherwise intimate manner, which has been shared without consent. This behaviour is colloquially referred to as 'revenge porn' or 'image based abuse'. Intimate images might be obtained with or without the consent of the subject and can come from a variety of different sources including recordings from hidden devices, hacking into personal electronic storage such as computers, hard drives, cloud storage or email accounts, images shared with an individual with consent and subsequently distributed without consent, or images doctored to falsely portray an individual. The sharing of images can occur over various electronic services including email, text or multimedia messaging, social media services, websites including mainstream pornography sites, message boards and forum websites, or websites specifically designed to host images shared without consent. The reasons for non-consensual sharing of intimate images are varied. For example, it can often occur as a result of the former partner of a victim seeking revenge, or it can also involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images either maliciously or simply because they foolishly think it might be a fun thing to do. However, in the most part the practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing of intimate images or through the threat to share. Often such threats are made in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce, bully or punish a victim. Other motives might include sexual gratification, entertainment, social notoriety and financial gain. During the government's consultation about this bill we have heard that the psychological impact on victims can be significant and can have negative implications which affect their reputation, family, employment, social relationships and even personal safety. The need for government action This issue is a global concern with many countries taking targeted action against this unacceptable practice. The government recognises that the sharing of intimate images without consent is also an emerging issue of great concern here in Australia. According to a report published in May 2017 by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University, one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability and one in two Indigenous Australians have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Previously the impacts of intimate image distribution were limited by the restrictions of the physical world. However, as noted by academics from Bond University, 'As a result of movement from the physical to the digital world, globalisation and society's reliance on technology, many more of our lifestyle activities are conducted in the digital world.' The ubiquity of internet connected mobile devices has changed the way we socialise and increased the speed and reach of information shared online. Existing laws There are existing criminal offence provisions available in relation to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images at both the Commonwealth and state level. Under Commonwealth law, it is an offence to use a carriage service in a menacing, harassing, or offensive way—section 474 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) (Criminal Code). The maximum penalty for this offence is three years imprisonment or a fine of up to $37,800, or both. Since 2004 there have been 927 charges proven against 458 defendants under this offence, including a number of cases in relation to image-based abuse conduct. Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have criminalised this behaviour and there have already been a number of prosecutions under existing state laws, including broad laws covering stalking, identity theft and domestic violence. Queensland and Tasmania have indicated their intentions to introduce specific criminal offences for this behaviour. These laws do differ slightly across jurisdictions, which is why the Commonwealth worked with states and territories through the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, to support a nationally consistent approach to criminal offences relating to the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. On 20 May 2017, the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council published the National Statement of Principles on the criminalisation of the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Alignment on key principles is an important initiative as most offences are likely to be prosecuted at the state level. The Commonwealth continues to work with states and territories on this issue. Consultation on a proposed civil penalty regime On 23 November 2016, the government committed to consult on a proposed civil penalty regime targeted at perpetrators who share intimate images without consent and the website and content hosts that are involved. The government heard from a range of stakeholders, including women's safety organisations, mental health experts, schools and education departments, victims and members of the government's Online Safety Consultative Working Group. The majority of stakeholders were broadly supportive of a civil penalty regime as it would provide victims a timely, accessible and effective means of redress not available to them through the criminal justice system. The ability to take down intimate images quickly is a primary concern of victims and support services. Feedback from police indicates that victims are often reluctant to pursue criminal charges against perpetrators, which could result in lengthy and expensive court processes, which in turn has the effect of amplifying the harm inflicted on the victim. Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 implements a civil penalty regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The bill introduces a new prohibition for the non-consensual posting of, or threat to post, an intimate image on a social media service, relevant electronic service—which includes images shared by email, text or multimedia messages—or a designated internet service. A designated internet service could include websites and peer-to-peer file services. During the consultation process stakeholders reached consensus that the eSafety Commissioner was best positioned to administer the civil penalty regime. This would utilise existing expertise within the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and build on the eSafety Commissioner's ability to take fast, effective action to have images removed and limit further distribution with minimal additional stress to victims. Under the civil penalty regime, a victim or someone authorised to act on behalf of the victim can make a complaint to the eSafety Commissioner by phone, in writing or through the commissioner's online complaints portal. The eSafety Commissioner will have the discretion to action various enforcement mechanisms, such as investigating complaints, issuing infringement notices, accepting enforceable undertakings or seeking injunctions. The commissioner will also be able to issue formal warnings for breaching the prohibitions and will have the power to issue removal and objection notices to both perpetrators, social media services and content hosts. The bill will introduce a penalty of up to 500 penalty units—up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations—for a breach of the prohibition, or failure to comply with a removal notice. Criminal penalties In the Senate, the bill was amended by inclusion of provisions to amend the Criminal Code to create new criminal offences for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and the bill before the chamber today includes specific criminal offences in relation to sharing intimate images without consent. The government carefully examined the criminal penalties moved by the Centre Alliance in the Senate and identified technical issues with the operation of the amendments, as well as inconsistencies with definitions and provisions in the civil penalty regime currently in the bill. To overcome these difficulties, the government intends to move an amendment to the bill that displaces the amendments agreed by the Senate, and insert new criminal offences that will make a meaningful difference for Australians, and that send a clear message that criminal behaviour will not be tolerated. National online reporting portal On 16 October 2017, the government welcomed the pilot launch of a new national portal for reporting instances of non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The portal is a world-first government-led initiative developed by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and it provides immediate and tangible support to victims of image based abuse. The portal gives victims a place to seek assistance and report instances of image based abuse. It provides clear and concise information about the practical steps victims can take to reduce the impact of the abuse. The pilot is designed as a test platform to evaluate the volume and complexity of reports about image-based abuse. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner expects to formally launch the portal later in the year. This civil penalty regime will complement the portal. Industry efforts in addressing the non-consensual sharing of intimate images I would like to commend those social media providers and content hosts that have taken steps to address this issue through the development of acceptable use guidelines, the adoption of complaints processes and the investment in technology which removes or prevents further posting of images. Victims have benefited from industry investment and responsiveness. The government expects that these social media providers and content hosts will build on this good work. Let me highlight that the bill does not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first instance to quickly remove images as opposed to first approaching the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, should that be the wish of a particular victim. The government also recognises the strong partnerships that many social media services, content hosts, and technology companies have established with the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and envisages that these relationships will continue to be pivotal in protecting Australians against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Conclusion The bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to keep Australians safe online. The non-consensual sharing of intimate images is a significant issue that can have an adverse impact on victims, their families and the Australian community. The bill will prohibit the non-consensual posting of intimate images and the threat to post intimate images. It will empower the eSafety Commissioner with enforcement capabilities, including the ability to take fast and effective action to have images removed and limit further sharing of images. The civil penalty regime will complement existing criminal laws and provide another avenue for victims to seek assistance and redress. It will also send a clear message that, in Australia, the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is unacceptable in our society. On behalf of the government, I express thanks to those stakeholders who provided input, either through submissions or attendance at the public workshops, during the consultation process. I make special mention of those victims who shared painful details about their own personal experiences. Their stories and views were essential in the development of this bill. I commend this bill to the House. 19:04 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise to speak on the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018. It has been a long time coming, but it is a good thing that we are here. It is essential that the parliament sends a clear and specific message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not acceptable. Labor is deeply committed to keeping Australians safe online and therefore supports this bill which introduces a civil penalty regime to combat the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The substance of this bill was not the government's starting point. That is the fact of the matter. But Labor welcomes the government's change of heart and backflip in relation to the criminalisation of image based abuse online. It is unfortunate that this government has wasted a lot of time insisting Australia doesn't need a specific criminal offence for image based abuse. So we're pleased they finally accepted the evidence, changed their tune and followed Labor's lead. The experts agree that the sharing of intimate images without consent is a serious form of abuse which can cause significant and ongoing harm. It should be a specific criminal offence. Labor will support the government's amendments, given they adopt Labor's clear and longstanding position on this issue. Turning to the substance, as I said, Labor will support this government's amendment to introduce aggravated offences for the offensive use of a carriage service where the conduct involves private sexual material, because it does reflect this longstanding position of the opposition. The amendment expands upon the civil prohibition and civil penalty regime in the bill, applying increased criminal penalties to the most serious instances of sharing of intimate images. In October 2015, Labor first introduced a bill to criminalise the sharing of private sexual material without consent. Shortly after, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee established an inquiry into this issue, during which the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions expressed concerns that there are limitations on existing Commonwealth laws to adequately deal with conduct then commonly referred to as revenge porn. The Australian Federal Police noted, 'Uniformity in legislation across Australia would be most helpful for police to be able to investigate and charge perpetrators.' Following that, and over two years ago now, Labor took a policy to criminalise image based abuse to the 2016 federal election. We promised to do that within the first 100 days of being elected because we understood the urgency of this matter, an urgency which is shared by the Australian people. In October 2016, Labor reintroduced its private member's bill in the current parliament. However, it was removed from the Notice Paper on 23 May 2017 because the government refused to call it on for debate for eight consecutive sitting Mondays. For years Labor and others have said there should be a specific criminal offence, yet time and again this government maintained that existing criminal law is enough and there is no need for a specific criminal offence. RMIT research indicates that four in five Australians agree it should be a crime to share sexual or nude images without permission and: … there is a broad agreement within the Australian community as to the seriousness of this issue, regardless of whether someone has experienced it personally. The experts agree that the sharing of intimate images without consent is a serious form of abuse which can cause significant and ongoing harm. For example, in April 2016, the COAG Advisory Panel on Reducing Violence against Women and their Children released a report recommending: To clarify the serious and criminal nature of the distribution of intimate material without consent, legislation should be developed that includes strong penalties for adults who do so. All this time the government has justified its failure to introduce a specific Commonwealth offence for image based abuse on the basis that there is an existing offence under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code for misuse of telecommunication services to menace, harass or cause offence. Now, finally, with this amendment, the government has changed its tune. As I said, Labor will support the government's amendments to introduce criminal penalties given the amendments adopt Labor's clear and longstanding position on this very issue. Here I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of a range of stakeholders in the community who have worked hard over many years to make progress on this issue, as well as a number of my Labor colleagues who have prosecuted and championed this outcome for many years—in particular the member for Griffith, the member for Gellibrand, the member for Hotham and the member for Isaacs, the shadow Attorney-General. If you turned on the radio or TV this morning you could be forgiven for thinking that the Turnbull government, and indeed the Minister for Communications, had suddenly woken up and decided, of their own accord, that there should be a specific offence for the sharing of private sexual material without consent. On Nine's Today show, the minister said, 'We do have some existing criminal penalties for what is known as revenge porn or the sharing of intimate images without consent. We don't think that's strong enough. We want to have a specific aggravated offence that sends a clear message to creeps that it's not on.' And, 'We want to create a specific aggravated offence. At the moment there are general criminal penalties.' The reality is this: the Minister for Communications wasted a great deal of time refusing to acknowledge the weight of evidence and refusing to acknowledge that a specific offence is warranted. The truth is that this minister had to be dragged to this point and was finally forced to respond when earlier this year the Senate amended the bill to criminalise image based abuse, in line with Labor's private member's bill of 2015. So, it was more than a bit rich when the minister, in responding to Fran Kelly on ABC Radio National this morning, said he had not changed his mind on the matter: Fran Kelly: Minister, am I right in saying that you didn't support criminal sanctions in the past? Have you changed your mind on this? Senator Fifield: No. We do already have some criminal provisions in the law. What we put before the parliament was a civil penalties regime, because we don't have civil penalties in relation to this sort of activity at the moment. It is fortunate that, in getting us to this point, the Attorney-General and the shadow Attorney-General were able to work through the issues involved in this matter relatively quickly to resolve the criminal amendments now before us. I commend the constructive approach of the Attorney-General over the past few months, which stands in stark contrast to his predecessor. I again acknowledge the heavy lifting, in terms of policy development on the Labor side, done by them, and by the colleagues I have mentioned. It is poor but predictable form that the Minister for Communications did nothing to acknowledge this in the same way, or the constructive progress that came out of the office of the Attorney-General, his own department, and the bipartisanship that was shown by the Attorney-General and his counterpart, the member for Isaacs. This needs to be put on the record. All that aside, Labor welcomes progress on this issue. As I said, it is essential that the Australian parliament sends a clear message to the community that the sharing of intimate images without consent is not acceptable. As the Australian Information Commissioner stated in a submission to the department's consultation on the bill last year: The non-consensual sharing of these images is a serious invasion of privacy, which has the potential to cause severe harm, distress and humiliation to the victim. Further, the harm that can be caused through the sharing of such images is exacerbated by rapidly increasing technological capacity for capturing images and making recordings, and the ability to distribute digital material on a vast scale. Labor supports the bill because it promotes the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse by prohibiting the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. The purposes of the bill are to deter people from engaging in this behaviour and to provide the eSafety Commissioner with a range of enforcement mechanisms to address contraventions of the prohibition. According to a research report published by RMIT in May 2017, one in five Australians, one in two Australians with a disability, and one in two Indigenous Australians have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. This is an utter disgrace. The psychological impact on victims can be significant, and negative implications can affect their reputation, their family, their employment, their social relationships and their personal safety. While the non-consensual sharing of intimate images can often occur as a result of the ex-partner of a victim distributing images of the victim for the purposes of seeking revenge, it also can involve acquaintances or complete strangers distributing the images. The practice is generally intended to cause harm, distress, humiliation and embarrassment, whether through the actual sharing and distribution of those images or through the threat of sharing, often in an attempt to control, blackmail, coerce or punish a victim, commonly referred to as sextorsion. Other motives might include sexual gratification, supposed fun, social notoriety and/or financial gain. The explanatory memorandum to the bill acknowledges the harmful consequences as well. It states: The non-consensual posting of an intimate image is a serious breach of a person’s right to privacy. It involves the sharing of a personal and intimate image with a person or people with whom it was not intended to be shared. Not only is this a fundamental breach of trust by the person sharing the image, it often has long lasting detrimental consequences for the person depicted in the image. …   …   …    The posting of an intimate image without consent is also an attack on a person’s reputation. Not only does it cause harm and distress for the victim, it can also have broader impacts for the victim’s reputation. The Australian public recognise the abhorrence of this practice and the significant harm it causes victims, and expect an appropriate regime to be enacted to prevent and minimise harm to victims or potential victims. Labor believes, and we have long believed, that the significance of this harm warrants criminal penalties, plain and simple. And we are pleased that the government has come around to this view. I wish to turn to options for redress. Labor supports victims having a range of options available to them to deal with the harmful issue of image based abuse. While not all victims of image based abuse will want to enact criminal proceedings, some may prefer to go to the eSafety Commissioner under the civil regime and others may wish to go to the platforms directly. Labor acknowledges and appreciates that the more prominent social media providers and content hosts are working very hard to develop innovative technological measures or already have robust processes in place intended to assist victims whose images have been shared without consent. Labor encourages these social media providers and content hosts to continue this good work. We note that the bill will not prevent victims from approaching these services in the first instance, rather than the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, if they so choose. Labor recognises the strong partnerships that social media services and content hosts have established with the commissioner and encourages them to continue, as this will be pivotal in protecting Australians against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Labor also understands how important it is to have a strong legal framework in place to strengthen the commissioner's ability to resolve matters informally and in a graduated manner according to seriousness. Labor acknowledges that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner will seek to use established relationships with social media service providers and content hosts to facilitate the taking down of images and, thus, a removal notice or other enforcement action may not be required in every case. At the other end of the scale, Labor also understands how important it is to have a strong legal framework that recognises the criminal seriousness of this form of abuse. Against this backdrop, Labor notes some of the key concerns of the DIGI Group, as stated in its submissions to the department's consultation on the discussion paper on the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. These concerns include that the bill duplicates existing industry efforts to remove image based abuse and may not represent the most targeted or effective use of taxpayer resources and may even disincentivise industry innovation in addressing image based abuse. The bill does not require victims to first exhaust companies' complaint channels, for example. Also, the bill may not improve compliance around the removal of image based abuse, given that major digital platforms already operate efficient take-down policies, some of which see the removal of offending content faster than the 48-hour time frame stipulated in the bill, and given that the eSafety Commissioner is likely to continue to encounter difficulty in compelling overseas sites and rogue operators. In view of these concerns, Labor moved an amendment that was carried in the Senate to ensure that within three years of the commencement of the bill the minister should cause to be conducted a review of the civil penalty regime for the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, along with the preparation of a report and tabling of a report in each house of the parliament. There is a similar provision in section 107 of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 in relation to the cyberbullying regime. Labor thanks the Senate for their support of this amendment. In conclusion, as I said, Labor will support this bill and the government amendment to this bill. I reiterate the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in his November 2016 White Ribbon Day speech nearly two years ago: So called revenge porn should be a crime across Australia but it is not. Criminalisation of so called revenge porn should be a Federal law, not just left to a patchwork of state laws, consistent with the Commonwealth DPPs recommendation. Labor is pleased that we have finally reached the point of making those words a reality. 19:20 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher In rising to speak in support of the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2018 and the government's amendments today, I'd like to begin by congratulating the government on listening to Australians and letting them be the guiding force behind this change. Through extensive consultation during 2017, those impacted told us that their most important concern was ensuring that images that have been posted on the internet or on social media are rapidly removed. I'm proud to be part of a government that has listened to that feedback and is delivering effective and timely removal of non-consensually-shared images. It's critically important that we pass this bill and protect men and women from what is becoming an increasingly common type of online abuse. The responsibility for the non-consensual distribution of intimate, nude and sexual images lies entirely with the individuals who choose to distribute them, and they should face serious consequences for their actions. However, as we, rightly, condemn those abusers who share the images and legislate to protect innocent people from them, we should not be afraid to also reiterate the importance of being aware of one's own security online and taking steps to help to protect oneself from falling victim to this form of abuse. Unfortunately, a great many of the images involved in this kind of abuse were created consensually or taken by the complainant themselves. Though this does not in any way excuse those that share them without consent, it is a simple fact that voluntarily allowing intimate images to be created and to be possessed by others substantially increases the risk that an individual will leave themselves vulnerable to the vagaries of human relationships. Just as we inform the public about precautions we can take to protect ourselves from any other type of crime or abuse, I believe we should also seek to educate both men and women in Australia about the risks of these breaches of trust, and to encourage them not to allow images of themselves of this kind to be created in the first place. I would urge everyone in Fisher and throughout the country to be aware of their own personal safety in this regard and not to consent to these images being taken in the first instance. Put simply, I would suggest that people just don't take photos of themselves in compromising positions or allow others to do so. It's not worth the risk. And do you know what? It's not rocket science. But, if there is anyone out there for whom this is a form of self-expression and for whom it is important enough to take the risk, I would urge them to make sure that they retain control of the images produced and do not allow any other person to possess them. If anyone watching believes that they have been subject to image based abuse, I'd encourage them to immediately contact the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, which is already able to provide a great deal of support and, in many cases, has been able to successfully have images removed. Since early 2018, the eSafety Commissioner's office has received 217 reports of image based abuse involving 349 separate sharing locations. The commissioner has been successful in having image based abuse material removed in most cases but, unfortunately, those reported represent only the tip of the iceberg. Research by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University has found that one in five Australians aged between 16 and 49 have experienced the non-consensual sharing of intimate images. Unfortunately, as many as one in two people with a disability are affected. Younger Australians in particular are also highly represented in this group, with one in three teenagers aged 16 to 19 and one in four people in their 20s being adversely affected. These statistics only include those who have discovered that their images have been taken and distributed, and chances are there are many more where they haven't been discovered. A study by the Social Science Research Network in the US found more than 3,000 websites which host intimate images shared without consent, with many giving the full names and even contact details of those photographed. Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, you and many others in this place, if not all, know the consequences and how devastating they can be. Those impacted by image based abuse of any kind are twice as likely as others to report experiencing high levels of psychological distress. The eSafety Commissioner tells us that many of those impacted experience long-term anxiety, fear and depression. As many as 49 per cent of complainants in one US study reported receiving unsolicited cyberstalking or harassment from strangers who had seen their images. Reports from all over the world attest to the fact that, in some cases, this abuse can, sadly—very sadly—lead to suicide. Parents, please remind your children, even if they're over 18, that if they take part in what is referred to as sexting they lose all control over those images, and chances are they will never get them back. They could end up, for example, being posted on the dark web by paedophile groups, who share such images worldwide for profit. The coalition government has already taken action to deal with this increasing threat. It was the coalition that established the Children's eSafety Commissioner in July 2015 and the Turnbull government that expanded its role to encompass e-safety information and support for all Australians. In total, the government committed $10 million to support those affected in 2016-17, including $4.8 million to allow the eSafety Commissioner to develop and implement an online complaints portal for image based abuse which delivers fast access to very tangible help. In the latest federal budget, the government allocated an additional $14.2 million to facilitate the ongoing delivery of new and existing initiatives. These include new resources for frontline workers and school chaplains, targeted materials to support vulnerable Australians and online safety training to pre-service teachers at university. This action to date has been important and welcome, but I believe that as parliamentarians we should all play a part in raising awareness of these issues. Like many electorates around the country, my electorate of Fisher includes nearly 10,000 young people aged between 18 and 24, who are particularly at risk, as well as thousands more students at 13 secondary schools, who are, regrettably, increasingly facing cyberabuse of all kinds. I myself have four daughters, all of whom are now young women. The distress that an incident of this kind would cause them, and the possible consequences for their careers, their relationships and perhaps even their mental health, are hard to fathom. I've therefore taken a particular interest in the issue of cyberabuse. In February this year, I invited the eSafety Commissioner, Ms Julie Inman Grant, to the electorate of Fisher to promote the work of the office and to help educate the community about how they can be safer online. Julie spoke at my event at Kawana Waters State College about cyberabuse of all kinds and provided advice on how students can report it. I'm following up this work with a practical e-safety awareness poster which I'm distributing to schools and other prominent community locations for display. I've worked with the relevant ministers to explore what more we can do to criminalise the worst forms of cyberbullying and have met with the Prime Minister's generous support with the world's leading social media companies to seek change at a corporate level. As such, I'm grateful to the government for bringing forward this latest piece of legislation which will complement existing criminal offences at a state and Commonwealth level and ensure that we get this content offline as quickly as possible. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Gender Equity 95 19:30 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I rise to speak on the topic of gender equity. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency reports that in 1997 the gender pay gap among full-time workers in Australia was 16½ per cent. Twenty years later, in 2017, it had narrowed to 15½ per cent. If we continue at that pace, narrowing the gender pay gap by half a percentage point every decade, then in a mere 310 years Australian women will be earning the same wages as Australian men. I suspect if you told Jessie Street, Vida Goldstein, Louisa Lawson or Eileen Powell that it was going to take until 2328 for Australia to close the gender pay gap, they would have told you that we weren't doing a good enough job. We have also a gender gap in superannuation balances: for those aged 55 to 64, men have an average balance of $310,000 and women an average balance of $196,000. Gender equity matters of course for Australian women, but also for Australian men. We've had a debate in this place today about the virtues of diversity, and one of the facts that's worth reminding ourselves of is that diversity has an economic pay-off. Diverse cities are more productive. Diverse companies are more productive. Diverse countries are more productive. Diversity helps new ideas spring up, so firms and organisations that embrace gender diversity will not only benefit women; they'll benefit men as well. Yet, in Australia, we have a strikingly large gender pay gap, particularly at the top. I mentioned before the average gender pay gap of 15½ per cent. Work done by Hiau Joo Kee, while she was a colleague of mine at the Australian National University, looked at this across the distribution and whether it was a question more of sticky floors or glass ceilings. She found that for the bottom decile of earners there was effectively no gender pay gap. For the top decile, the gender pay gap was 27 percentage points. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency reports that for finance it's 26 per cent. Among managers, the gender pay gap is 29 per cent. We see that as inequality has risen in Australia it has led the gender pay gap to be wider than it would otherwise be. If we look in this place, we see a significant gender gap in terms of representation. Parliaments should look like the communities they serve, but currently women comprise only 32 per cent of those serving in the House and the Senate. There is, it must be said, a gap across the parties. Even a casual observer of question time these days notes the substantially larger number of women on this side of the House than on the coalition side—among Labor members, women currently make up 46.3 per cent; among the Liberal Party, 23.5 per cent; and among the Nationals, 9.5 per cent. If you look globally Australia is ranked 50th by the Inter-Parliamentary Union for women's parliamentary representation, which puts us behind both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. When you turn to boards, we see an even larger gender pay gap. Women currently comprise 44.5 per cent of positions on Australian government boards but, among ASX 200 board directors, just 26 per cent. The gender gap among CEOs is larger still. Only 14 of the ASX 200 CEOs are women—that's just seven per cent. More Australian companies are run by men called John than are run by women. At the moment, there is only one woman running a top 20—CEO Shemara Wikramanayake, who recently become the first female CEO of Macquarie Group. It's important that we bring more prominence to the research around this important work being done on flexible work by Claudia Goldin and Alison Booth. Michelle Ryan and Alexander Haslam have done studies on the notion of a glass cliff—that women may be promoted to top roles in times of trouble, with Kim Campbell, Jill Abramson, Marissa Mayer, Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence being examples that immediately come to mind. Armistice Centenary Grants Program 95 19:35 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I'm sure it will please those present to know how well Capricornians are receiving the great community grant programs this coalition government is delivering throughout the region. The most recent of these is a suite of grants to help our communities commemorate the centenary of the Armistice. The Armistice Centenary Grants Program is a program of one-off grants designed to help engage communities, especially our kids, in the history and the importance of the conclusion of the bloodiest war in our history. Across the nearly five years of battle some 416,809 Australian men volunteered to fight for king and country. Take a moment to let that sink in: 416,809 young men. Such a number, taken from a country of fewer than five million, makes Australia one of the biggest per capita contributors to the war effort. As we all know, volunteering for war is not simply a case of buying a ticket to adventure. Tragically, our young nation lost over 60,000 sons forever, with a further 156,000 suffering a range of injuries through battle, gassings and time spent as prisoners of war. There is no escaping the fact that this war and those that followed played a huge role in shaping the national image of Australia: this new Federation of British colonies continues to be a source of awe and inspiration for generations of Australians. The signing of the Armistice at 11 am Paris time on 11 November—the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month—signalled the end of the bloodthirsty calamity of the First World War, sealing victory for the Allied forces and defeat for Germany. Since 2014, the centenary of the Great War and myriad events that comprised it have been used as poignant reminders of the hell of war. With November fast approaching, we will reach the centenary of the Armistice and, with it, the end of five years of centenary commemorations. I'm proud to be part of a government that is so committed to our regional communities by providing the Armistice grants funding to help communities commemorate such an important moment in our history. Five groups across Capricornia have been successful in garnering funding for their Armistice centenary efforts. Schools, local government and RSLs will benefit. Home to one of the country's most unique Anzac Day services, Finch Hatton RSL Sub Branch will receive $8,421 to create an honour wall with framed photos and information on the servicemen and women of the Great War. In the north of my electorate, Mackay Regional Council will use $10,910 in federal funding to conduct an assessment of the heritage value of the region's First World War memorabilia. This will surely lead to a better understanding of the community's assets and help uncover some real gems. I'm particularly pleased to note that the 1st Light Horse Regiment CQ and the Rockhampton Historical Troop Museum will be able to display their fantastic collection of historical military uniforms at the Rockhampton Heritage Village. This will be $15,947 well spent, as visitors to the heritage village get a better understanding of the attire of battle from the last 100 years. As so many have said for so long, the history and the message of Anzac is carried forward by our children. That's why I'm so pleased that we also have two schools who'll receive grants to help keep the story of the Anzac alive. St Mary's Catholic Primary School in North Rockhampton will construct a metal mural with media presentations and artworks around the school's flagpole. This project will receive $3,500 in federal funding, which represents great value for money given how impressive I'm sure the finished product will be. Finally, the installation of a memorial wall dedicated to the servicemen and women of this monumental conflict will be constructed by St Lawrence State School's P&C using $10,000 from the Armistice Centenary Grants Program. St Lawrence is a tiny town located on an isolated section of the Bruce Highway. I'm sure this project, whilst small, will have a lasting effect on the school and the community. These grants make small community-building projects possible. They help create jobs whilst also helping our community remember and honour our military past and the men and women who gave everything for our freedom. Lest we forget. Home Care Packages Program 96 19:40 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell When will this government hear the voices of older Australians who are waiting for care at home, the voices of the 105,000 older Australians who are waiting for care at home, the voices of older Australians such as Enid and Warren who have come to my office for help this week? Enid is 94 and is vision impaired. She looks after her husband, Warren, who is 97 and is living with dementia. As Warren's illness progresses, Enid is finding it harder and harder to care for him, cook for him, meet his personal care needs and keep him safe at home. Enid and Warren receive some care at home, but it's not enough. In April last year they were approved for higher, level 3 care. They are still waiting. For 16 months they have been waiting for this care at home. They have continued to contact My Aged Care and their care provider, but to no avail. Enid called my office this week out of desperation. They don't want to bother anyone; they just need help and they need it now. Enid knew my late father, Grant, who passed away this year after living with younger onset dementia for more than five years. They had met at Catholic Healthcare's Warnervale Wellness Centre, eaten sandwiches and talked politics. When Enid asked for my help this week she said it was because she couldn't do it anymore. To make matters worse, Warren had said to her: 'I don't know why you were even bothering to call. We'll be dead before the package comes through.' Their desperation is heartbreaking; their need is real. My office contacted My Aged Care only to learn that Enid and Warren were not even on a high-priority list for home care. They were considered medium priority. They have been waiting for 16 months, Warren is 97 and living with dementia, and they are not considered a high priority. My Aged Care staff have now requested a new assessment of their needs in the hope Enid and Warren can be escalated to a high-priority list—another assessment, another list, another wait. Enid and Warren are not alone. As I said, they are two of the 105,000 older Australians who are waiting for home care. Seven hundred and fifty people who are waiting live on the Central Coast in my electorate. Many are living with the dementia that my dad lived with. Enid and Warren are two people who matter. This couple illustrates the state of home care in Australia and the failure of this government to do anything about it. It promised great things in the budget but delivered not a single cent more for aged care. It released 14,000 new home care packages over three years, but the waiting list grew by 20,000 in six months. That won't keep up with demand, let alone the wait list—a wait list of 105,000 older Australians just like Enid and Warren. What's worse is that the government has robbed residential aged care to pay for home care, and the cuts in residential care have begun, with job losses for aged-care workers in my community. Last month I welcomed Labor's Medicare taskforce chair, the member for Newcastle, and deputy chair, the member for Macarthur, to my electorate of Dobell, where we held a roundtable to discuss aged care. We heard from older Australians about their fears and from carers about their struggles, from staff about their working conditions and from providers about their challenges to do more with less. In the morning we visited an aged-care facility where the University of Newcastle operates their 'Senior Smiles' program to look after the oral health of residents and where a children's playgroup meets each week. In the afternoon we heard that another aged-care facility was shedding the equivalent of 10 full-time staff, affecting cleaning, recreation and physiotherapy services. This is the reality for aged care in our community—aged-care facilities partnering with others to provide important services for their residents and cutting staff to make ends meet. In residential aged-care facilities, in home care and in respite care there are hardworking, caring staff doing their best every day for older Australians. From everyone there is a commitment to quality care for older Australians. From everyone there is a concern that quality care is becoming harder to deliver. They are being let down by this government, which is failing older Australians. It is not sufficient for the government to claim record spending on aged care. That is only due to population growth. That spending is not in line with demand and need. The government must immediately release more home-care packages and stop the cuts to residential aged care so that older Australians such as Enid and Warren, who have reached out to me this week, can have the care they need and deserve. I note that the minister is in the House at the moment. I implore you, Minister: Enid and Warren—they are 94 and 97; one is visually impaired and one is living with dementia—are waiting for another assessment to be escalated to become high priority. They've been waiting since April of last year for more in-home care. They need it now. It's urgent. I implore you: please act to help people across Australia like Enid and Warren. Banking and Financial Services 97 19:45 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra The Turnbull government has cracked down on bank misconduct. Our reforms have included giving more powers and resources to ASIC and APRA, the Banking Executive Accountability Regime and the establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. Last December, the government also agreed to establish the Hayne royal commission. The royal commission has uncovered several instances of serious misconduct in the banking sector. I was a strong advocate for the establishment of the royal commission. For many years, I've been concerned about the circumstances that surrounded the Commonwealth Bank's takeover of Bankwest during the GFC. Following that takeover, the Commonwealth Bank began revaluing the Bankwest commercial loan book. In many cases, according to the valuers, the value of commercial property on which loans had been based dropped dramatically. As the properties were valued less than they had previously been, the Commonwealth Bank was able to trigger the default of business loans under the non-monetary default clauses in the loan agreements, even though in many cases the borrowers had been meeting their regular repayments against that loan. Bankwest victims do not dispute the Commonwealth Bank's right under the loan agreement to call in their loans. The central allegation of the Bankwest victims is that the Commonwealth Bank, in exercising their power under these agreements, acted in a way that might entitle the victims to the right to equitable relief for unconscionable conduct. Bankwest victims believe the Commonwealth Bank's behaviour has never been adequately examined. Despite inquiries by two parliamentary committees in 2012 and 2016 and the report of the small business ombudsman Kate Carnell in 2017, the controversy surrounding these cases has not abated. At the conclusion of her inquiry, Ms Carnell concluded: About a third of these cases were simply poor business decisions where the bank appears to have acted reasonably, a third a mixture of poor business decisions and poor bank practice and a third with very real issues where bank conduct is unacceptable and possibly unconscionable. Ms Carnell's conclusions deserve to be taken seriously. While the small business ombudsman and my parliamentary colleagues were as thorough as they could be, they didn't have the power and resources of a royal commission, nor did they have the forensic questioning skills of a royal commissioner and counsel assisting. They were therefore not able to get to the bottom of these matters. These cases needed to be publicly aired and properly adjudicated by a qualified person who could test the claims and the counterclaims of the victims and banking executives. The Hayne royal commission provided hope for a fair outcome for the Bankwest victims. The royal commission was supposed to be a chance for the victims to have, as it were, their day in court and to be able to cross-examine the bank's executives and to be cross-examined. I don't carry a brief for the victims. I'm equally happy for either the victims or the banks to have their cases disproven and for them to be embarrassed in a full public hearing. What I want to see is a thorough public investigation of the bank's behaviour that will answer any outstanding questions on the matter. For years, the victims and advocates—people like Peter McNamee, my heroic constituent and party member—have been walking these corridors urging parliamentarians to look at these cases and try to get to the bottom of the bank's conduct. The Hayne royal commission was supposed to quell the controversy. Unfortunately, the royal commission has so far only spent three days of public hearings and considered four case studies on the Bankwest matters. None of these cases have been the subject of previous inquiries. There was no cross-examination by council for the Bankwest victims or the relevant Commonwealth Bank executives. In my respectful opinion, the commission has inadequately investigated the pattern of behaviour by the banks. It did not publicly re-examine the eight cases which the parliamentary joint committee and Kate Carnell had done a deep dive into, nor did the commission call Ms Carnell as a witness, despite calling other regulators in this area. The commission is due to deliver its interim report at the end of next month, but questions of justice for the Bankwest victims remain unanswered. The conduct of this royal commission is very different to the conduct of the recent child abuse royal commission. In that inquiry, victims got to tell their story and counsel for the victims were able to freely cross-examine their abusers. This inquiry is being done on tight time frames with fewer witnesses called. No-one is suggesting that this royal commission should call every Bankwest victim, but calling a few more witnesses and answering a few more questions could put the matter to bed. Therefore, tonight I'm calling on the Royal Commissioner to reopen the Bankwest matters and hold public hearings into the dozen or so case studies which Kate Carnell and the parliamentary joint committee considered. I'm also calling on the royal commission to put to the Commonwealth Bank executives the five questions raised by Kate Carnell in her statement of 25 June 2018. Finally, I'm calling on the Commonwealth Bank to support calls to reopen these matters. The bank have always protested their innocence, and it's in their interest to have the public controversy quelled through an open process of investigation. But I strongly believe, in examining these cases, this will help everyone involved to move on with their lives. Failing to do so will reduce the standard of the royal commission. (Time expired) Migration 98 19:50 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio Tonight I stand in total opposition to the appalling speech made yesterday by Senator Fraser Anning. In my first speech to this parliament, I spoke about what made the Australian character so wonderful: a sense of egalitarianism, of mateship. But I also said our history bore witness to an innate fear which had also characterised our nation and how that fear had led to shameful policies such as the White Australia policy. There is a trend in global politics today which asks people to give voice to those fears and to make them the guiding light when exercising a vote. Yesterday was an ugly local expression of this brand of politics. There is nothing noble or enlightened or sophisticated about bigotry. It is the product of small-minded, inward-looking, fearful thinking. Bigotry will not help build our country or solve the many real problems facing Australians who are struggling with wage stagnation. Indeed, it will do the opposite. Bigotry hurts the very many Australians who are the victims of it, like Muslim Australians, such as the member for Chifley or the Victorian Minister for Sport, Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Tourism and Major Events, who are every bit as Australian as Senator Anning and who are making an incredible contribution to our nation. Bigotry stands in the way of a prosperous Australia. Our nation has one-quarter of its population born beyond its borders. Australia is more invested in the idea of multiculturalism than almost any other place on earth. There is no better expression of the centrality of this story and its importance to our future than the wonderful celebration of multiculturalism that is the Pako Festa, which occurs each February in Pakington Street, Geelong West. Bigotry and the White Australia policy are the polar opposite of this story. They speak to an outdated idea of a much narrower vision of Australia which never really existed. But it is also a vision of Australia which, if it were allowed to proliferate, would leave Australia isolated from our region and the world and would see the Australian people become impoverished. The extraordinary book Australia's Second Chance by George Megalogenis, which traces the economic history of Australia through the lens of migration, makes it clear that the White Australia policy was an economic disaster and that prosperity has always followed Australia pursuing a significant permanent migration intake. From a humanitarian point of view, Senator Anning's words were repugnant, but it is also true to say that asking people to politically engage on the basis of fear is to ask them to politically engage on the basis of poverty. The politics of fear was given a particularly disgraceful voice last night, but it happened within a context. Everyone in this parliament knows how the politics of fear can be exploited. It worries me that senior figures on the conservative side of politics are calling for massive cuts in the permanent migration intake when this would be a disaster for jobs and economic growth. It worries me that the former Deputy Prime Minister has just written a book in which he repeatedly talks about the plight of the poor white regional fringe. Why does he need to qualify that idea by saying 'white'? And it worries me that government ministers spuriously talk about the violence of African gangs when the use of that term risks demonising a wonderful community and inciting hatred towards its members. These lesser acts all indulge in the politics of fear, and they need to stop. Today we saw a fantastic demonstration of bipartisan leadership within the parliament, but beyond today it is incumbent on the government to demonstrate leadership on multiculturalism which eschews bigotry and the politics of fear at every turn. The use by Senator Anning of the phrase 'the final solution' will stand in infamy as one of the most shameful contributions ever made to this parliament, and his resolute failure to apologise for the use of the term is damning. The member for Kooyong rightly implored Senator Anning to visit a Holocaust museum to properly understand what the final solution was. If he had an ounce of character, he would do this and then decide whether he wished to continue to own these words. Tonight I resolutely stand in solidarity with Australia's Jewish community. When I spoke in my first speech of the fear that has been a part of Australia's past, I made the point that it is time for Australia to face this fear and move beyond it. The fear experienced by the earliest European settlers belongs to another age. In a contemporary setting, fear will only hold our nation back. But the wonderful side of our character—mateship and a sense of togetherness—is at the heart of a successful multicultural Australia, and it can take us into the future. At our best, we do multiculturalism as well as anyone in the world and our multicultural society, in an increasingly globalised world, is the best hope for Australian prosperity and for Australia to take its place as a global beacon of a peaceful and civil society. Dairy Industry 99 19:55 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Australia is in the grip of an unrelenting and unforgiving drought that is wreaking havoc on farmers and destroying their livelihoods. Australian dairy farmers are also in the grip of an unrelenting and unforgiving price war being waged by the supermarket giants, Coles and Woolworths, that is also destroying their lifestyles and livelihoods. The Australian government is providing $576 million in assistance to drought-affected farmers, and we have indicated that more support is on its way. I commend Minister David Littleproud in doing this fine job, but my dairy farmers remain in Coles' and Woolworths' vice-like grip, which is getting tighter and tighter as these supermarket giants squeeze every last cent out of the dairy supply chain. When it comes to the dairy industry, Coles' 'Down, down' slogan applies equally to Woolworths, with both supermarket giants hitting dairy farmers 'down, down' as far as they can go until they're out of existence. Coles and Woolworths are squeezing Queensland's dairy industry to death, killing off locally produced fresh milk, and they will ultimately make consumers in our state rely on long-life and powdered milk. The Queensland Dairyfarmers' Organisation estimates that, since the Coles and Woolworths dollar milk pricing started, dairy farmers have been squeezed out of the industry in droves, with the number of Queensland dairy farmers plummeting from 566 to 380. Milk production has been cut by 3.1 per cent between 2012 and 2017, and now around 160 megalitres of milk is imported into Queensland to meet demand. And this strangling grip is having a devastating effect on the wellbeing of the farmers themselves, with many reports of mental stress and suicide being caused by the financial stress that Coles' and Woolworths' dollar milk pricing is inflicting on the dairy industry. If the supermarket giants don't ease this squeeze on the dairy industry, charge a fair price for milk, inject money into the supply chain and ensure that farmers are paid a fair price for their product, there should be a revolt against their tyrannical conduct. I believe in the market, but, where the market fails—and I believe the supermarket giants are well and truly failing dairy farmers—the government must force these market manipulators to play fair. Where is the fairness with Coles and Woolworths selling a litre of milk for $1 today—the same price for which they sold milk in 2011 when they started the dollar milk price war on Australia Day? I can't think of anything more un-Australian than the devastating impact that Coles' and Woolworths' milk price war is having on the dairy farmers. The supermarket giants forced down the price of dairy farmers' produce when they started selling dollar milk, and they've kept the price down ever since. In real terms, farmers have faced cuts to the price of their milk year on year ever since it started. How can they have us believe that a dollar in 2018 is worth the same as it was in 2011? With inflation, a litre of discounted milk that sold for $1 in 2011 should now be selling for around $1.16, at least. And the milk supply chain is getting squeezed further. Now I'm hearing from dairy farmers that, due to Coles further squeezing the price through the processor, the protein content in their milk has been devalued in upcoming contracts. This will further diminish the value of their product and just shows how low the supermarket giants will go. After seven years of dollar milk, the time has well and truly passed for it to end. I was extremely disappointed by the ACCC's failure to respond to the request from the Queensland dairy industry and take action against Coles and Woolworths, but I note that the ACCC inquiry into the dairy industry recommended the establishment of a mandatory code of conduct. I fully support that recommendation, and I'm working with my colleagues to deliver a mandatory code that extends from the farm gate through the supply chain and into the boardrooms of Coles and Woolworths, making the supermarkets charge a fair price for milk, so the farmers can receive a fair price for their product. After next week, I'll be hosting a dairy roundtable meeting in Gympie with agriculture minister, David Littleproud, and local producers. Taking action against Coles' and Woolworths' dollar milk pricing is at the top of my agenda in Wide Bay. House adjourned at 20:00 NOTICES 100 NOTICES

Wednesday, 15 August 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan) took the chair at 10:00.

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 102 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Euthanasia 102 10:00 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner In 1997, as the Commonwealth parliament sought to remove legislative rights from the ACT and the Northern Territory, then Liberal Chief Minister of the ACT, Kate Carnell, appeared before a committee of this parliament and said: … what is at issue here is nothing less than the democratic rights of the citizens of the ACT … She referred to the proposed Andrews bill as 'limiting our self-governing powers'. Ms Carnell emphasised the long-term effects of depriving citizens of democratic rights enjoyed by those in the states. But the Andrews bill passed the parliament, and the restriction of the democratic right of territorians is with us today. Current chief ministers, Andrew Barr and Michael Gunner, said, 'It's about our rights.' As Andrew Barr puts it, this remains 'fundamentally undemocratic'. He continued: One group of Australians are trusted through their state and territory parliaments to be able to deal with these matters [but] other groups, those who live in the territories, are not. And that can't be allowed to stand. As he pointed out: One thing Canberrans definitely don't need is assisted thinking. Territory rights are about restoring equality to territorians and their legislators. As Senator Malarndirri McCarthy expressed from her experience: … as a legislator and as someone elected by the people I had never felt so powerless as a parliamentarian. I had never felt so powerless, as a representative of the constituency of Arnhem and the people of the Northern Territory, that I had no voice. I had no say, along with 24 other members of the Northern Territory legislature. Senator McCarthy, personally, does not support the current proposal for euthanasia. She shares the same position as Senator Dave Smith from the ACT and Luke Gosling, the member for Solomon, here in this House. They have their own uncertainties about euthanasia itself, but strongly support the territories' rights and the repeal of the Andrews bill. As I made clear in this House in a speech on 17 August 2015, I'm personally a supporter of euthanasia—like four in five Australians, including four out of five Anglicans, three out of four Catholics and nine out of 10 Australians of no religion. It ought to be viewed fully as an issue of territories' rights. I find it shocking that Senator Seselja, who is meant to stand up for the ACT, did not take the position taken by his Liberal predecessor Kate Carnell but has instead chosen to vote to restrict the democratic rights of Canberrans. This is about restricting the rights of territorians. Territorians should not have their rights restricted in this way. We need to repeal the Andrews bill, which is what my private member's bill with Luke Gosling aims to do. (Time expired) Corangamite: Building Better Regions Fund 102 10:03 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure to rise and celebrate the wonderful projects which have been awarded funding under the Building Better Regions Fund. We know what an important program this is for regional Australia, including in my electorate of Corangamite, where the Turnbull government is working so hard to support so many worthwhile projects in our community, providing the vital funding for community infrastructure and other important projects. There was great celebration in Apollo Bay when we announced $180,000 which will upgrade the existing 25-metre community pool into an indoor heated facility, which is very much needed in Apollo Bay. This of course adds to the $20,000 we previously provided under the Stronger Communities Program. Congratulations to everyone in Apollo Bay for a wonderful campaign. They really do deserve this facility, and it's just a shame that the local council in Torquay has not embraced the need for a swimming pool and, in that case, an aquatic centre, like has occurred in Apollo Bay. Another very significant grant is $1.5 million for Cottage by the Sea, which does an extraordinary job in looking after some 1,500 disadvantaged children from all around Australia. This is an organisation which has been operating for a very long time—well over 100 years. This is the first time ever it has received government support. This is for a much-needed upgrade, and I'm really proud of how we have contributed to this wonderful organisation. The big grant that we announced was $5 million for a multipurpose indoor stadium for basketball, netball and other sports in Torquay. That's now fully funded and I'm really proud that we are now ensuring that that project will go ahead. There's also $360,000 for another soccer field in Torquay and $269,000 for the Geelong touch rugby association for King Lloyd Reserve. They're really important community infrastructure and sporting infrastructure projects. I also want to reflect on the wonderful Kids Plus Foundation in Geelong. In a previous round of this fund, the Turnbull government provided nearly $1.5 million and that has enabled Kids Plus, which looks after children with physical disabilities like cerebral palsy, to do an incredible job in the Geelong community. They're now building a new centre, in partnership with Deakin University, on Deakin University land at the Waurn Ponds campus. That will be absolutely transforming for some 250 children with a disability and their families. The next round of the Building Better Regions Fund will be shortly announced, and I'm looking forward to supporting more projects in the Corangamite electorate. Homelessness, Macquarie Electorate: Thompson Square 103 10:06 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie When we talk about someone being homeless there are probably stereotypical images that flash in people's minds, but the nearly 100 people, mainly women, who joined me in Windsor to discuss older women's homelessness know another reality. Women over 60 are among the most at-risk groups in our community. As part of national homelessness week, I thought it was time to shine a spotlight on this issue. I was joined by the shadow minister for homelessness, Senator Cameron, and Jenny Ranft from Wentworth Community Housing. Domestic violence, marriage break-ups, gambling addiction, poverty and inequality can all contribute to homelessness. While homelessness affects all ages and genders, the number of women couch-surfing, in temporary accommodation, in overcrowded housing and sleeping in cars has almost doubled over the past four years, and it's probably undercounted. The Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains, in my electorate, are not immune. The statistics are grim. The estimate of older women experiencing homelessness on the night of the 2016 census was 6,866. This was a 31 per cent increase from the 2011 figures and a significant jump in five years. There was also a big jump in the number of older women renting in the private rental market. In 2006 there were around 90,000 older women in private rentals. That had doubled by 2016. Labor has a comprehensive suite of policies to combat homelessness and improve housing affordability, including reinstating a minister for housing and homelessness. I'm so proud that the community I represent cares about this issue and is willing to be part of the solution. We are at a crisis point in Windsor. The New South Wales government is removing historic box drains from Thompson Square and covering over for ever the impressive 200-year-old convict-built barrel drains. This will happen over the next few nights under the cover of darkness. It's essentially heritage vandalism of some of Australia's oldest colonial remnants. I don't think this Georgian square, the oldest public square in the country, should be having a modern concrete bridge built through it at all. It should be bypassed, but if the New South Wales government is determined to give the Hawkesbury only one single new lane across the river at the very least it should let people see what's about to go. When I spoke to archaeologists during my visit to the site in April they thought organising a public opening was relatively easy to do, but they said they hadn't been asked to do it by the New South Wales government. Well, I asked, and there has been absolutely no response from the New South Wales minister for roads or the local member, who happens to be the treasurer. This site is unique. I found it amazing to see the quality of work and the ingenuity involved in channelling water through the early settlement, and others deserve to see it too, before it's too late. Battle of Long Tan: 52nd Anniversary 103 10:09 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On this Saturday, 18 August, we commemorate and remember the 52nd anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. It was a battle that took place in a rubber plantation near Long Tan in Phuoc Tuy Province in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. We remember the 18 Australians who were killed and the 24 who were wounded. We remember that 11 of those that lost their lives were national servicemen and that a further 13 national servicemen were wounded in action. It was a battle that showed the courage and the resolve of the Australian Defence Force to fight and to preserve the freedom and values of our nation. It is difficult for us to understand what it would be like in such a battle. I would like to quote the words of Private Terry Burstall, who participated in the Battle of Long Tan: We recovered the bodies of our friends who had been laughing living beings the day before. Nothing takes the supposed glory out of war more quickly than the sight of dead mutilated friends. Unfortunately it brings about a hardening of feeling toward your enemy that pushes normal human feelings of compassion to the back of the mind. It brings conflict down to a very personal level and gives you the licence to remain aloof from the suffering of others as long as your own little band … is protected. We lost over 500 Australians in the Vietnam conflict. There was shame for our nation in the way we treated those service men and women when they returned. We should have been holding them up as heroes, but they were demonised by many sectors of Australian society. This is to our eternal shame as a nation. Today we recognise and we understand those mistakes. This Saturday, I'm sure, with all members of parliament, we'll stand and commemorate all those Australians who served and fought in Vietnam. Mayo By-Election 104 10:11 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Three months ago I was gutted to announce my resignation. To put my community through the inconvenience of a by-election was heart-wrenching, and the decision to stand again took some soul-searching. However, I received so much positive feedback from my community, I felt I had to stand. Despite the fact that this by-election has been one of the longest on record—close to nearly 80 days of campaigning—it was through the encouragement of my community that we powered on. This was a campaign driven by people power. I did not have the resources of a major party. I was driving around in my dad's old car that I borrowed from him, putting 18,000 kilometres on the clock. I was working out of a tiny storeroom of my lovely accountant, Adam Oaten, who thought I'd just be there for a month. Adam, now your name is in Hansard! I didn't have a million-dollar budget, but I did have my community behind me. Our campaign was driven by a team of 800 volunteers—800 people who letterboxed, who put flyers out. I only had a few flyers—that's all I could afford. They held garage sales, they doorknocked, they built A-frames and they stood in the rain at pre-polls. Many of them had never been interested in politics before. These wonderful people of my community had my back at community forums. They publically championed our record of achievements here. They even paid for full-page advertising in our country newspapers, telling people why they should vote for me. Some of my volunteers formed a ukulele band, Sharkie's Sharks, and hosted a singalong, raising nearly a thousand dollars. Tony Wright, from TheSydney Morning Herald, turned up to the fundraiser, and he wrote a piece on us, calling us 'folksy'. You know what—we didn't mind at all! I have the support of my community because I put them first, before party politics, before big donors. I listen to the people of Mayo and I am here to improve policy outcomes for Mayo and for this nation. We are a small team, but we work well with government. We hold government to account, but we are also here to work with you. Millions of dollars of much-needed federal funding has been attracted to Mayo and South Australia, and millions more has been promised. Like I did in the 2016 election, I will ask the government if they will honour those promises to my community, because promises are not made for a candidate; they are made for a community. I would like to finish by thanking my crossbench colleagues—the member for Indi, the member for Denison, and the member for Kennedy—who travelled to Mayo to support me during the campaign. Your support made the world of difference to me. Being the member for Mayo has been the most rewarding role I have had in my lifetime and I'm honoured to be given the opportunity to represent my community again. Political Correctness 104 10:14 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax One year ago, I rose to add my voice to a growing chorus of voices warning of a slippery slope of political correctness and socialist virtue signalling. Today, these threats to our way of life are more widespread and universally rampant than ever. About this time last year, the Queensland Department of Education issued a directive to stop primary school children giving each other Christmas cards featuring Christian symbols, including pictures of baby Jesus. Then, in December, we saw major retailers choosing to market Christmas trees as 'white forest trees', thinking the word 'Christmas' might offend. Then, in January, it was announced that Commonwealth Games volunteers should not be saying the words 'ladies and gentlemen' or 'boys and girls', as these terms might cause offence. Then Australia Day became a virtue-signalling opportunity for left-wing councils, who sought to deny Australians their day of national pride and celebration by seeking to shift citizenship ceremonies to another day. Then, as Easter approached, social media activists were out there in force, openly campaigning to take the cross off hot cross buns, again because it might offend non-Christians. In May, news broke that councils in Victoria were considering a ban on Thomas the Tank Engine andWinnie-the-Pooh, on the perverted presumption that these books provide a poor direction to children on gender. In June, the Greens had yet another go at abolishing the Lord's Prayer from Senate sittings. Just nine days ago it was reported that the Australian Defence Force Academy issued a guide instructing personnel, including officer trainees, not to use offensive gender terms like 'him' and 'her'. Only yesterday, eight left-wing mayors claimed that there wasn't an African gang problem in Melbourne, despite 50-plus African youths rioting in Taylors Hill last Wednesday, terrifying residents and smashing police cars. So there you have it. We are one year on from my first raising concerns about the slippery slope of political correctness, and it continues. We need to speak plainly and openly about this descent into madness. We need to call it out. Despite those opposite calling, even in these few minutes, against what I've just spoken about, we need to be very clear that there is a slippery slope. Every time we allow it to happen, we dilute our values as a country and we weaken our way of life, and that's a threat we need to take seriously. Brand Electorate: Schools 105 10:17 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand Over the winter recess, I had the chance to visit three local schools among the many schools in my electorate, all very different and all quite amazing. The suburb of Baldivis within the Brand electorate has been one of the fastest-growing in the country, and new families and residents continue to choose to call it home. It is no surprise why if you look at the nearly new Baldivis Secondary College and the wealth of learning opportunities the fantastic staff are providing for local students there. I was delighted to attend a performance at the college by Bell Shakespeare, Australia's national theatre company which specialises, of course, in the word of the Bard, William Shakespeare. Bell Shakespeare's learning ensemble, The Players, bring Shakespeare into the classroom—and, boy, did they bring it with a formidable and grim Macbeth. More than 400 years after Shakespeare dipped his quill in his ink pot, lessons can still be learnt in this place about seeking power for power's sake—but I'm not going to dwell on that today as I acknowledge the great work being done across my community in its schools. I would like to thank the great team of teachers and staff at Baldivis Secondary College for welcoming me to their school to enjoy the great performance by Bell Shakespeare of 'the Scottish play'. I often visit the many high schools and primary schools in my electorate to meet with students studying politics and law, as well as students in general humanities and social sciences classes. It's always an honour to talk to them about my role as a federal representative and more broadly about the role of the modern parliament of Australia. It's always a pleasure to visit Gilmore College, and I would like to thank personally Ms Lesley Brown, one of the college's dedicated humanities and social sciences teachers, for again inviting me to visit the college to discuss politics and law with the terrific students. The third school I would like to talk about and acknowledge is St Vincent's School in Parmelia. The school was first founded in 1956 in Kwinana to support the children of the workforce that built the BP refinery. And even though it moved site a number of years ago, it continues to be an institution in the local community. I can tell you its local fete is not to be missed! I had the pleasure of speaking with the year 5s and 6s. They are a credit to their school, asking questions and making me very welcome. I would like to thank St Vincent's and the assistant principal, Jayson Peacock, for inviting me to this beautiful school in amongst the eucalypt trees. I'm looking forward very much to this year's fete. What is so very pleasing to see at these visits is how students instinctively understand that 'the political is the personal' and vice versa. Students asked me about the cost of airfares, because in this economic climate in my electorate I can tell you that children are very aware of the cost of things—from daily groceries to their holidays, which not many of them get to go on, quite frankly. This is more so now than ever when so many local families, nearly 10,000, in fact, have had their household budgets decimated when this Liberal government stood by and took away their penalty rates. Capricornia Electorate: Energy and Water 105 10:20 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia It's been a while since we were all back in parliament, and it certainly is good to be back to represent the great people of Capricornia. The recent break from parliament has provided a great opportunity for me to get back to these wonderful people and spend some time around the electorate. Getting up to Collinsville was a key priority during this break. It is home to one of the country's oldest coalmines. For almost 100 years, the Collinsville coalmine produced high-quality Bowen Basin coal to power Australian homes and industry needs. Until recently, Collinsville was also home to the most northern coal-fired power station in the country. The 180-megawatt power station not only delivered much needed electricity to the north but good solid jobs for hundreds of locals. Collinsville's role as an energy hub continues today. While the coal-fired power station has long since closed, the Collinsville Solar Farm takes up some of the production slack left behind. This new 42-megawatt solar farm includes 166,000 solar panels and produces enough energy to power nearly 7,000 homes. Within a stone's throw of this plant lies the energy giant of the area, Collinsville Mine. Now operated by Glencore, the Collinsville Mine produces some of the world's best-quality thermal and coking coal, perfect for making strong, sturdy steel and for powering the industries that create the jobs and wealth for the nation. The story of energy in Collinsville is a long one, and promises to continue for many years to come. Whether the energy source is dug from the ground or collected from the sky, there is a great future for Collinsville to continue delivering the power the north needs. While electricity is one side of the prosperity coin in the regions, the other is certainly water. Water infrastructure has dominated my agenda in this place since I arrived in 2013. The success we had in shaming the state government into matching our commitment to build Rookwood Weir meant delivering thousands of jobs for Central Queenslanders. This does not mean my fight for water infrastructure is over, though. A suite of other potential water infrastructure projects across Central Queensland are in my sights. The Connors River Dam, south of Nebo, and Urannah Dam, upstream of Collinsville, offer superb opportunities to build the economies of our interior by further invigorating the energy, mining and agricultural sectors, and driving jobs. We have backed the Urannah Dam project by funding its feasibility study—a study which, I'm sure, will highlight that more water for the Collinsville area will mean more production, more jobs and more opportunity for a better future for Central Queensland. Petition: Persecution of Christians 106 10:23 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Last year I presented a petition handed to me by Mr Colin Johnston, of the Barnabas Fund, drawing attention to the persecution of Christians around the world. Today, I present a second petition signed by 3,754 people on the same theme. This petition draws the House's attention to the plight of converts from other religions and calls on the House to: (1) fulfil its obligations under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to protect the rights of all Australian residents whose have converted from other religions, including Islam; (2) promote and protect UDHR article 18 through Australia's UN engagement and foreign aid policies to ensure no-one shall be subject to coercion which would impair their freedom of religion or belief; (3) give priority status to asylum applications from those at risk in their own countries because they have converted and to fully recognise the complementary protection provisions and non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law; and, (4) give consideration to religiously persecuted minorities, especially converts from other religions whose lives are at risk due though their religious laws or local culture, and to grant protection visas under Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. Today in too many places in the world Christians are being targeted with acts of aggression, discrimination and ridicule. Even in Western countries with a Christian heritage, Christianity is increasingly being scorned and denigrated. It is, of course, much more serious when a person's Christian faith results in their brutal killing or torture. The kidnapping of young girls by militant Islam group Boko Haram is also linked to anti-Christian sentiments. Over the past year, my office has been supporting an Australian residency application by a Christian man from Nigeria. I quote excerpts from a letter this man wrote to Minister Peter Dutton in 2017: My murdered uncle, a prominent Christian, was first targeted by the Islamic sect Boko Haram, in northern Nigeria where he had lived all his life. He fled to Awka in south-eastern Nigeria when his house was burnt down by the sect group. On 12th December 2013 he was on a commercial bus travelling from Awka to Enugu when Boko Haram members stopped the bus. He was recognised as a Christian and shot alongside other Christians on the bus and set ablaze. A friend who was also an ex seminarian and the financial secretary of the Catholic Youths Organisation in my parish, when I was president of the organisation, was beheaded along with his mother on their farm in my home town by Boko Haram members. I have met this young man who is now married to an Australian woman and is pleading to be given permanent residency in Australia because, having served in a leadership position of a Christian youth group, he gravely fears for his life if he returns to Nigeria. The case of this man highlights the concerns of the petitioners. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HK5 The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. Mr Zappia HWB I seek leave to incorporate the petition. Leave granted. The document read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to trade-exposed plight of converts from other religions especially from Islam. We therefore ask the House: 1. to fulfil its obligations under article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) to protect the rights of all Australian residents who have converted from other religions Including Islam 2. to promote and protect UDHR article 18 through Australia's UN engagement and foreign aid policies, to ensure no one shall be subject to coercion which would impair their freedom of religion or belief 3. to give priority status to asylum applications from those at risk In their own countries because they have converted, and to fully recognise the complementary protection provisions and non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law 4. to give consideration to religiously persecuted minorities, especially converts from other religions whose lives are at risk due to their religious laws or local culture, and to grant protection visas under Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian programme from 1 citizen Berowra Electorate: Thornleigh West Public School, Berowra Electorate: Goodstart Early Learning Child Care Centre 107 10:26 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I want to take this opportunity to talk about two wonderful educational institutions that I visited in the electorate of Berowra in the last week. Thornleigh West Public School has created an amazing environment where children are supported, cared for and encouraged to flourish. A big part of that is due to Thornleigh West's amazing parents and citizens association, led by the indefatigable Vanessa Erickson. Last Friday, in celebration of Education Week, I had the privilege of being a guest during their Friday school assembly. I was treated to a series of superb performances from the school dancing club, the junior and senior choir and school band, and the students performed a fantastic dramatisation of Paul Kelly's 'From Little Things Big Things Grow'. My highlight of the assembly, though, was the senior choir's performance of a song called 'A Duck Named Sybil', written by my constituent Rachael Collier. The song is about a duck that belongs to Stuart Jones, the owner of Brewhaha, which is a famous and much-loved cafe in Hornsby. So it was the perfect exhibition of my electorate's community spirit and talent. I want to offer congratulations to Principal Chantal Mamo, who's recognised for being nominated for the Principal of the Year award. The families of Thornleigh West know that their children are in the hands of a dedicated principal who values educational excellence and sound values. I also want to commend Alex Redford who was officially recognised as a fully-qualified teacher at the assembly. On Friday I was also lucky to have the opportunity to visit the Goodstart Early Learning Child Care Centre in Berowra. There, Karen Wallace and her deputy, Heather Miller, lead a team of enthusiastic and hardworking educators. Karen is a highly respected member of the community, having worked at the centre for over 20 years. I want to commend her for the significant contribution she's made. The children at the centre are highly engaged in play based learning, and they develop confidence and autonomy. The nought- to three-year-olds showed interest when I had the opportunity to read to them. I was particularly impressed by the program for the three- to five-year-olds, who were learning about ancient Egypt, making pyramids out of paper, reading picture books about mummies and decorating a mask of Tutankhamen. One member of Karen's team has worked at the centre for over 20 years and runs a program that explores the works and styles of great artists, such as Picasso, van Gogh and Monet. Over the years, the children have produced their own interesting interpretations of those most famous works. One child, Ollie, who is only five, presented me with a sign urging me to help the farmers. Ollie should know we are working hard to help the farmers and deliver drought-relief assistance packages. I want to commend him for proving that it's never too early to lobby your local MP! I thoroughly enjoyed my visits to both these educational institutions. They are two of the many educational institutions we have in Berowra. And I'm very lucky to have 51 outstanding schools in the electorate—public, independent and Catholic—and they educate our growing population of 26,000 students. I want to commend both the Thornleigh West Public School and the Goodstart Early Learning Child Care Centre Berowra for giving the children in my electorate an excellent start in life. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 If no member objects, constituency statements will continue for another 30 minutes. Aged Care 108 10:30 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter As members of parliament, we should always be mindful of the role older Australians have played in the development of our great nation. Many of them lived through the toughest of times to improve living standards for future generations—standards we now enjoy today, as do our children. Indeed, many went to war to keep us safe and to preserve our nationhood. They paid their taxes for many years, but they don't enjoy the benefits of a universal superannuation system as working people do today. They should be a priority for government—for every government—and their care and protection should be a matter of absolute bipartisanship in this place. We must keep them safe and ensure that they have a decent place to live, can afford the essentials in life and have access to the health care they need to maintain quality of life for as long as is possible. I don't believe that we are succeeding sufficiently in those objectives. I recently officially opened an event to mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, where we were reminded of our failure to sufficiently protect elderly Australians from both physical and mental abuse. Sadly, I learned on that occasion that about 92 per cent of abuse perpetrated on elderly people is perpetrated by another member of the family. I don't believe our pension payments are sufficiently keeping pace with our cost of living. And it appears we are failing to ensure older Australians have access to the health care they need when they need it. As highlighted on the ABC's 7.30 recently, GPs are finding visits to aged-care facilities all too hard. Indeed, their visits, despite our ageing population, have declined 13 per cent in just three years. Our GPs are busy, and visits to aged-care facilities are time-consuming, both in getting there and once they arrive there. The care issues they encounter on those visits can be quite complex and, again, time-consuming. The monetary compensation they receive for visiting aged-care facilities is less than that which they would receive if they saw patients in their own surgeries. And of course the Medicare rebate freeze has not helped. The Practice Incentives Program has to be adjusted to provide more incentives for GPs—or, alternatively, the rebate needs to be revisited so that GPs can see our elderly Australians. HMAS Tobruk 108 10:33 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to inform the House of the status of HMAS Tobruk. As everyone knows, it was a long fight for the people of my electorate to have HMAS Tobrukdelivered into our region to be a dive wreck. We were successful some time ago when Minister Marise Payne announced that the Tobruk would be provided to Queensland. We were successful—I have to say, in consultation and conjunction with the Queensland Labor state government—in having the Tobruk delivered into the Hervey Bay area. It was placed basically between Bundaberg and Hervey Bay, in around 30 metres of water. We and the state government were successful in preparing the ship for scuttling—which took quite some time, I have to say. We were successful in getting the ship into position. But, unfortunately, on the very last day, at the very last hurdle, when the ship was scuttled on 29 June, the ship turned onto its side and is now resting on the bottom on its starboard side in 30 metres of water. Don't get me wrong—this will still be a fantastic dive site. But it will not be the site which we developed, which we fought for and which would have provided the greatest economic benefit. The reason for that is quite simple. If HMAS Tobruk had been intended to be on its side, we would have scuttled it in much shallower water. The capacity for less experienced divers to experience HMAS Tobruk as a dive site is now much more limited. And I say to the Queensland state Labor government: it's now time. The ship was scuttled on 29 June. They put out a press release on 9 July to say that they were investigating and looking to scope opportunities. They made statements to the Courier Mail. In fact, Minister Leeanne Enoch said on 1 August that she is unable to say how much it will cost to right the botched scuttling of the ex-HMAS Tobruk. Here we find ourselves on 15 August no further progressed. As all of us know, the longer this ship stays on its side at the bottom of the ocean, the more difficult it will be to put it into the position in which it should be. I say to the state Labor government again: surely the contractor were insured—that is what insurance is for; that is its purpose—and we should activate that insurance through the contractor. If it was not insured, clearly that is their fault and that is their incompetence. It's up to the Queensland state Labor government. It is past time to make a decision on what they are doing with this ship. Our operators need to be able to access it. They need to maximise the economic benefit, because for our region it means jobs. There is nothing more important than jobs in our region. That is why we fought so hard to deliver this ship to our region. I congratulate all of those involved, including state members, senators and local councillors, who contributed their hard-earned to get this to fruition. In closing, I congratulate Senator Steve Martin from Tasmania for securing a dive wreck for Tassie. They were our competitor at the time. They now have a ship of their own. Vietnam Veterans Day 109 10:36 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman Approximately 4,000 veterans live in the electorate of Longman. Today I would like to introduce to the Federation Chamber just two of those veterans who live in my electorate. First of all I would like to introduce Darryl Shipp. Darryl is the Queensland state secretary of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. Darryl served as a leading aircraftman in the RAAF. As I said, he is now the state secretary in Queensland. He now spends his time continuing to work in the community. Of course, he spends a lot of time at Remembrance House in Burpengary helping veterans. The other person I would like to introduce is Jock Young. Jock is the secretary of the Bribie Island sub-branch of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. Jock served as a sergeant in the No. 35 Squadron. He now spends his days working with the community. In fact, he helps out community groups like Dragons Abreast that paddle on the beautiful Pumicestone Passage. He also fills his days helping the veteran community. It's a really great privilege to once again be invited to two ceremonies this Saturday for Vietnam Veterans Day, an incredibly important day. The Caboolture sub-branch will be celebrating Vietnam Veterans Day at Remembrance House in Burpengary. They will start with a march and finish with a service at the Progress Road memorial. I'm looking forward to joining John, Paddy, Bruce, Trevor and their wonderful secretary, Elfie Cox. It'll be an absolute honour to join them. Later in the day we will head over to Bribie Island, where I will join Reverend Colin Baxter, Doug, Ray, Arnold, Jill and Jock. We will start with a march as well on Bribie just down the road from the RSL and finish with a service at the memorial park across the road from the RSL. It will be the 26th anniversary of this event on Bribie Island. The VVAA motto is: honour the dead and fight like hell for the living. It is an absolute honour to be invited again to participate in those services on Saturday. I say to every serving, retired and remembered service man and woman: thank you for your service. Our community thanks you for your service. Our country thanks you for your service. Stone, Mr Nicholas, Goldstein Electorate: Achievement Awards 109 10:39 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein New York City has been enjoying the Melbourne coffeehouse experience for a while now. We all know when we travel that coffee can sometimes be a questionable commodity in some foreign markets. Of course, Melbourne has the best coffee in the world. We all do understand this. That's why we have trailblazers in New York City like Nicholas Stone, who is the architect of a magnificent export, a Brighton resident and a former AFL player. He has set up Bluestone Lane cafes in New York. Good on you, Nick! Show them the way. Embodying the Goldstein entrepreneurial spirit, Nicholas took the style and aesthetic experience of our great Melbourne cafes and transported it to the other side of the globe to educate the antipodes. The first espresso was pulled at Bluestone Lane in 2013. Since then, Nicholas has expanded the enterprise to 30 stores across six cities. With an exhaustive menu now on offer, Bluestone Lane delivers the full Aussie cafe experience and has accommodated celebrities including Hugh Jackman, Taylor Swift, Leonardo DiCaprio and Margot Robbie. Our Prime Minister has also popped in for a 'spro', which is slang for 'espresso', I'm reliably told. Nicholas has also secured a $20 million deal with private investment firm RSE Ventures to grow his brand in the States and abroad. His enthusiasm is giving Americans a consistent Melbourne-style cafe experience all over America. Congratulations, Nicholas, on your incredible achievements and keep going. Recently, we had the opportunity to honour some of the high-achieving citizens of Goldstein at our community morning tea. In the wake of Sandringham Yacht Club's being named club of the year at the 2018 Community Clubs Victoria annual awards, Goldstein certificates of achievement were awarded to Commodore Rob Davis; Richard Hewett, the CEO; and Bill Stubbs, one of the committee members—all champions. We also congratulated Mrs Jennifer Simms for her ingenuity in starting a new child-friendly cafe in Cheltenham. She was joined by her husband, James, and their children, Lincoln and Primrose. We also gave Goldstein community service awards to Tim Stroh, who recently published A Deeper Truth, which aims to explore evidence based theories for human nature and behaviour; to Master Benjy Orwin, nine years of age, who started Socks for Support to encourage donations of warm socks for children in need; and to Mrs Shirley Glance OAM, who recently received a Queen's Birthday award, as did Bev Brown. All of the other people who received an award have also made incredible contributions to our community. I would like particularly to thank Bev. She recently caught, or, I should say, saved, a grey-haired flying fox—that's what she does. She was very kind to name it 'Tim', before she released it. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 110 10:42 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond One of our most important and valued national institutions is the ABC. We in the Labor Party are committed to properly funding and supporting the ABC so that it can continue to provide much-needed services right across the nation and especially in our rural and regional areas. The Prime Minister and the members of the Liberal and National parties have launched the largest attack on the independence of the ABC in a generation. Since 2014 this government has cut millions in funding to the ABC, which has seen 800 jobs slashed and a shameful drop in Australian content and services. This is all despite the government's now-broken election promise 'no cuts to the ABC'. We all remember that. This year alone, this out-of-touch government has cut $83.7 million from the ABC's funding. Our community has had enough. The fact is 17 million Australians consume some form of ABC content every week. In regional Australia, in particular, the ABC plays a vital role in keeping communities connected with local news and emergency information. In my area, in northern New South Wales, our local ABC plays a unique role in providing local news, community information and relevant emergency information—for example, last year during our devastating floods many locals turned to the ABC to get critical messages and safety updates related to the flood. The ABC is part of our national fabric. That's why Labor will stand up for the ABC and fight against this government's ideological attack against our public broadcaster. A Shorten Labor government will reverse the Turnbull government's unfair $83.7 million cut to the ABC. This investment demonstrates Labor's commitment to the ABC's independence and to maintaining the ABC as our comprehensive national broadcaster. The unique programs and services of the ABC should be maintained to provide diversity and insight. One of my local constituents, and highly regarded member of Friends of the ABC, Neville Jennings, said, 'If we take a typical Monday evening on ABC TV, we have quality programs like The Drum and 7.30, a well-regarded national news bulletin, programs like Back Roads and Australian Story that reflect our national identity, the award winning Four Corners program, an analytical MediaWatch program and a very topical Q&A program that tries hard to provide a balanced selection of panellists. Where else in the world would you be able to see that sort of line-up on one television station?' I totally agree with Neville, and I stand with him and the community in supporting the diversity and integrity of the ABC. Labor believe that the ABC is one of the most important institutions in our democracy, and we will protect our public broadcaster because we put people and the services they rely on first. In contrast, the Liberals and Nationals only look after big business and the banks. Their priority is a $17 billion tax handout to the big banks. The fact is the only way to save the ABC is to change the government and elect a Shorten Labor government. Swan Electorate: Sideffect 110 10:45 Mr IRONS HYM Swan Late last month I held a community drug action forum in my electorate of Swan. I teamed up with the City of South Perth and a not-for-profit organisation called Sideffect to host a forum for students, parents and teachers about the consequences of illicit drugs. Sideffect was started by Rodney Bridge after the death of his son, Preston, who died at the age of 16 after taking a synthetic form of LSD in February 2013 during his school ball afterparty. Following his family tragedy, Rod found out that the LSD substance was made up of 25I-NBOMe as well as a shopping list of other synthetic drugs. Rodney Bridge believes Preston lost his life that night based on one choice and, had he known what he was taking, he would have made an entirely different decision. Educated choices cannot be made without education. Sideffect was born out of the understanding that people need to know more about these drugs in order to make informed choices. The consequences of taking drugs, especially synthetic drugs, need to be heard and reiterated so we can stop this epidemic in its tracks. So Rodney Bridge has spent the last five years building up Sideffect to ensure our children are educated so that no family must go through what his family went through. The Sideffect forum was part of the Swan Anti-Methamphetamine Initiative, and it was great to have so many of my constituents brave the wild and woolly weather with the rain. The students, parents, teachers and neighbours who attended were all impacted on by Rodney's story and the work he's now doing with Sideffect, and I'm certain all present found the presentation to be an eye-opener. The forum was also a fantastic opportunity to announce that such a deserving organisation like Sideffect has been granted $150,000 from the coalition government to scope a new drug awareness program and expand the very important work that he's doing. The funding the organisation got was part of the $712 million the coalition government has invested into strategies to minimise drug and alcohol abuse since 2016-17. I'd like to thank the Sideffect team of Rod, Dave and Alec for their fantastic presentation and the City of South Perth, particularly the CEO, Geoff Glass, for his support for this community initiative. I've received an enormous amount of feedback from those who attended. One constituent called my office last week to let me know that she's called four different high schools in my electorate of Swan to encourage them to host their own Sideffect forum. She was very pleased to advise that three of the four had already booked Sideffect for their education program. This is a prime example of how communities can band together and tackle the issue of drugs. There's more work to be done, but I'm confident that with Sideffect and the community on board we're taking a big step in the right direction. I'd particularly like to thank the Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, for taking a deep interest in this initiative. It will help to serve and protect the children of our community. Indigenous Affairs 111 10:48 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith The number of prisoners in our nation's jails continues to reach record highs. The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that over 42,000 prisoners were in full-time custody in March of this year—that's an increase of 38 per cent, or 11,646 prisoners, over the past five years. We all know that putting people in prison costs money. It costs governments money, it costs the Australian people money and it costs in terms of them being incubators, unfortunately, for re-offending. The largest increase in prisoners has been in remand, Indigenous and women prisoners. In my electorate of Kingsford Smith, we have Long Bay jail, which is a maximum security prison hosting a sizeable population of prisoners, about 1,400 to 1,500. Unfortunately, too many of those prisoners are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australians. Each year, I go to Long Bay jail for NAIDOC Week celebrations and, unfortunately, every year I go, the number of Aboriginal prisoners in Long Bay jail has increased. It's obvious from having conversations with them that many of them lack basic literacy and numeracy skills. When we talk about Closing the Gap, we know that this is an area where Aboriginal Australians lag behind the rest of the country. That's why education must be one of the key components for helping to reduce the cycle of re-offending that comes with putting people in prison. In particular, prison education programs with qualified teachers play a vital role. Yet in 2016, the New South Wales Liberal government cut 31 education and teaching positions at Long Bay jail. They got rid of most of the qualified, experienced and passionate teachers—committed staff who'd made dedicated contributions to the rehabilitation of inmates. I just cannot see how this decision can be good for anyone in society—to take education out of prisons. I was at Long Bay recently for NAIDOC Week celebrations and the chaplain there told me that there are no education programs at all left in Long Bay Prison. That's because it's been outsourced to a provider, BSI Learning, and that's been a disaster at Long Bay jail, because there are no education programs. I don't know what the provider BSI Learning are doing, but they're not doing anything in Long Bay prison. Short-term cost-cutting decisions mean our community ends up paying a much higher price in the long run and it means that inmates can't get the kinds of skills that help them get ready for life outside of jail and that help them get job-ready and to reintegrate into our community. It's another lousy decision from a lousy New South Wales government that's hurting our community. (Time expired) Page Electorate: Constituents 111 10:51 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Ena Pearce was recently honoured by the Goonellabah Hornets Soccer Club for her passionate commitment to the club for the last 50 years. If ever there were a queen of soccer mums, it would have to be Ena. At 81 years of age, she is the most avid and unashamedly one-eyed supporter of Goonellabah Hornets, having done the soccer mum task for seven of her eight children from when her eldest child, Daryl, donned the club shirt in 1967. She ran the canteen for many years and would regularly have her car stacked to the brim with supplies required for sale. Once all her boys had outgrown the club, Ena's commitment to the Hornets did not stop. Her love affair has been for over 50 years, and, as she says, it will continue for as long as God gives her the strength to be there. Well done, Ena. Jeff Snow, an Alstonville firefighter captain, has called it a day. After serving the community for over 42 years as a firefighter, he will be missed by all. Jeff was one of the emergency services' first responder personnel, which is a vital and extremely important task for the safety of our region. The job can require you to be on call 24/7, which, when raising your family and running your own business, is a very testing time. He will continue to work as a mechanic in his own business. He was awarded both the National Medal and the Fire and Rescue Good Conduct Medal. I congratulate Jeff for all his involvement with the community and risking his life for others. Jeff, I wish you a happy and safe retirement from the service, and thank you for a job well done. Many of the Lismore Richmond Rovers Football Club players have reached impressive milestones this season. Life members Carlo Borra and Robbie Armbuster have both recently surpassed 650 games each. The following players have each accumulated over 400 games with the Rovers: Allan Duroux, Craig Hamshaw, Scott Johnson, Andrew Marshall, Jason Matthews, Scott McDonnell, Scott Murphy and Tony Perkins. I would also like to congratulate Russell Dent, who has accumulated 315 matches, all in the Premier Division. Craig Jenkins was recently recognised by Far North Coast Football. His dedication to the Rovers goes back three decades. When sons Tim and Michael started playing, he responded to the call for a coach and then in 1986 he began compiling club records for every competitive game played. Of course, Craig hasn't been there alone. His wife, Dianne, has always been by his side, supporting his passion and helping to create an extraordinary legacy for the Rovers. Congratulations to all the Rovers who achieved these milestones. Riding for the Disabled Ballarat 112 10:54 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat Last week, it was my pleasure to join in the celebrations for Riding for the Disabled Ballarat's 40th birthday. For 40 years, RDA has brought joy and relief to people with disabilities in Ballarat and their families. When RDA began in Ballarat, Australia and the world was a very different place. In 1978, Ballarat was about 40,000 people smaller and, perhaps most importantly, the way in which our community treated, helped and cared for those with disabilities was very different. It was only in 1998 that the Disability Discrimination Act came into effect, finally enshrining the rights of those with disabilities into law. While there is much still to do, our community as a whole is more accepting, understanding and caring of those who have differing ability levels and who face additional challenges in their lives. Throughout all of this period of change, both in the disability sector and in the wider world, RDA has been a constant in the Ballarat community landscape. For 40 years, RDA and their dedicated team of volunteers have provided a vital service to the community, allowing everyone to experience the joy and therapeutic benefits of horse based activities. RDA's motto is 'developing ability and enriching lives,' and no group that I know could have fulfilled these lofty goals any better than the RDA in Ballarat over those years. This ability to help others has only grown in recent years, with the move to a wonderful new facility at the equestrian centre. I remember well, back in 2010 when we were working to find funding for the organisation, that the dedication and hard work of everyone at RDA really did help to make the case. With that same commitment, the move to the new site could not have been more of a success. Throughout all of the past 40 years, there has been one common thread—and that, of course, is the volunteers who make RDA Ballarat possible. In particular, I want to acknowledge in this place the work of four volunteers: Diedre Giles, Camille Rice, Joyce Williams and Pat Fisken, who have been there from the start. Thanks must also go to the Rinaldi family, who have generously allowed the use of their horses for RDA for the past 40 years without accepting a cent in exchange. Without the tireless work of these dedicated volunteers and many others who have come and gone over the years, RDA would not have been able to help so many people in our community. I know that when I thank them for their work—and of course, the lovely Bob Bath, who is their president, for his leadership and dedication—I speak on behalf of the many, many families in my community who RDA Ballarat's generosity has touched over the past 40 years. University of Queensland 112 10:57 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Members have no doubt heard my previous congratulatory comments about the continuing achievements of the University of Queensland, based in the heart of the Ryan electorate. UQ's successes and world-leading research and capabilities set it apart from other universities in Australia and throughout the world. Members will recall the recognition of UQ's medical research in a number of my speeches I regularly give, with people like Professor Ian Frazer, Professor Mark Kendall, Professor Maree Smith and Dr Kate Schroder. These are all leaders of significant research undertaken at the university, which has led to some remarkable discoveries and life-changing medical advances. In weeks just past, I was thrilled to read that UQ has now topped a global ranking of universities when it comes to mining and mineral engineering. The 2018 ShanghaiRanking's Global Ranking of Academic Subjects separates universities by five fields containing 54 subjects, marking their performance in various courses such as engineering, life sciences, medical sciences and natural and social sciences. Significantly, UQ's achievement in mining and mineral engineering—one of the 22 subjects listed under the engineering category—was notable as the only first-place entry for an Australian university. I congratulate UQ and all involved in the faculties of mining and engineering for this well-deserved recognition as leaders in your field. The innovation coming from the University of Queensland never ceases to amaze me. The universal language of science draws the brightest researchers from all over the world. Recently I was delighted to join Senator Seselja at UQ to announce $1.8 million worth of funding as part of the Cooperative Research Centre Projects program for local company Sustainable Organic Solutions, SOSBio. SOSBio is currently trialling a project to develop eco-friendly fertilisers for sustainable farming. The project will primarily take place in Queensland at cane farms in Maryborough, Childers and Ingham, as well as at a sugar research centre in Thailand. Expected to reduce fertiliser costs and improve plant growth in the tropical agriculture industry, the project will trial a new eco-friendly fertiliser technology containing plant-growth-promoting Rhizobacteria and innovative adaptive-release organic fertiliser to improve tropical agriculture and horticulture. This unique formulation is expected to reduce fertiliser costs, improve plant growth and minimise the runoff of nutrients from tropical farms to waterways. The CRC-P Program is a critical element in the Turnbull government's commitment to innovation and helps businesses, industries and research organisations work together on short-term projects to develop practical solutions to challenges in key industry sectors. As a government, the coalition understands the significant economic and environmental benefits of inventive businesses like SOSBio. I look forward to seeing the outcomes discussed by company CEO Dr Nikolai Kinaev and his research team. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:00