2018-09-13 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Thursday, 13 September 2018

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

BILLS 1 BILLS Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 1

Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 1 Second Reading 1 09:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 is to amend the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (the act) to make minor technical changes necessary for the remaking of the Shipping Registration Regulations1981(the regulations). The bill does not alter the policy intent or effect of the act or the regulations. Internationally, shipping registration and nationality is addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. Australia is a party to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Australian government takes these responsibilities very seriously. Shipping registration in Australia is administered under the Shipping Registration Act and the Shipping Registration Regulations. Registration on the Australian General Shipping Register and the Australian international shipping register enables such ships to claim and demonstrate Australian nationality when in foreign ports and places those vessels under Australia's sole jurisdiction when they are in international waters. There are currently about 12,000 vessels recorded on the Australian general shipping register which permits ships to fly the Australian national flag or the Australian Red Ensign. We have a responsibility to the owners and operators of these ships to get shipping registration right. The Shipping Registration Act passed into law in 1981. Since then, it has been reviewed multiple times, along with the Shipping Registration Regulations. The most recent review of the Shipping Registration Act undertaken by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) and the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities identified a small number of provisions be amended in accordance with best practice drafting principles before the regulations can be remade. The bill makes the following minor technical changes to the act: enhancing the head of power for regulations where it is unclear; removing the requirement for the Regulations to prescribe forms for shipping registration certificates, instead allowing the AMSA to approve the forms of certificates; and updating wording to reflect modern drafting standards. Currently in some provisions of the act the head of power needed to give the regulations authority is either missing or is unclear in its wording. This bill will correct those uncertainties by clarifying a head of power for those regulations and will also provide a head of power which provides AMSA with the capacity to act as the authority under the act and the regulations. Enabling AMSA to approve the forms of certificates will make it easier for shipping registration certificates to be updated and reduce the regulatory burden on Australian industry and will also provide AMSA with the flexibility to alter the form of a certificate to suit industry needs. This is in contrast to the current situation, where any changes to the form of certificates must be prescribed by regulation and tabled in parliament. The proposed amendments will preserve the effect of the current regulations but will remove the requirement for forms to be prescribed by regulation, meeting modern drafting standards and allowing regulatory flexibility. Without these changes, the regulations would not be remade in accordance with the clearer Commonwealth laws principles as advised by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Australian government is committed to making Commonwealth law clear and easy to understand and accessible for the community. These reforms are a reflection of that commitment, and will benefit all current and future shipping registration stakeholders. Minor technical changes to the act are required before the regulations can be remade. The regulations are due to sunset on 1 April 2019. If the regulations are not remade by 1 April 2019, there will be no mechanism by which shipowners can register their vessels in Australia, or through which transfer of ownership and registration could occur. Therefore it is imperative that this bill be passed in a timely manner. The Australian government is committed to ensuring Australians can continue to register ships in Australia in a timely manner. These reforms are necessary and appropriate and will modernise shipping registration legislation, making it clearer and easier to understand for stakeholders. I commend the bill. Debate adjourned. Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 2

Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018

First Reading 2 Second Reading 2 09:36 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise today to introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 to provide an entitlement to five days unpaid family and domestic violence leave for all employees under the Fair Work Act. The bill ensures eight million Australian workers will have access to this leave if they experience family and domestic violence. The tragic events we have witnessed in Western Australia only this week are a potent reminder of the heavy toll taken by violence on Australian families. Again I express my deepest sympathies for all who have been touched by these terrible events. The scourge of family violence strikes at the heart of our communities and continues to impact far too many Australians. It causes great pain and anguish to those who experience it, their children and their loved ones. Its debilitating effects ripple out and compound from there. Too often it threatens workers' ability to hold down a job—to provide for themselves and their families, to participate fully in the workforce and to fulfil their potential. As Minister for Women, I know that women are significantly more likely to experience family violence and deal with the consequences for their livelihoods and careers. At a time of record levels of female employment and a record low gender pay gap, this bill will help protect Australian workers at their time of greatest need, and in doing so support their financial security. It will ensure they can take time to deal with the impact of family and domestic violence and help overcome the obstacles it creates—confident that their job is protected while they do so. It will provide time to seek support and counselling; to involve the police and authorities; to attend court hearings; or to relocate and get re-established. This government has a strong commitment to fairness, and this extends to maintaining a genuine and balanced safety net for those in our community who need that support. By enshrining the leave in the National Employment Standards, all employees covered by the Fair Work Act will be guaranteed the minimum leave entitlement, regardless of whether they are: full time, part time or casual; or covered by awards, enterprise agreements or individual arrangements. And a full five days leave will be available each year, from the anniversary of the date they commenced employment. Importantly, however, the leave will not be available to individuals who seek to take it as perpetrators of family and domestic violence. In addition to this bill, the coalition government is taking comprehensive action to address family violence. We have zero tolerance for violence against women and children, committing well in excess of $300 million to address their safety. In the most recent federal budget we committed an additional $54 million for women's safety initiatives, including $11.5 million for 1800RESPECT, $6.7 million for DV-alert, $14.2 million for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner to help make cyberspace safe for women, and $22 million to combat elder abuse. This bill extends the decision of the Fair Work Commission in March 2018 to grant five days' unpaid leave to employees covered by modern awards. At that time, the coalition government made a commitment to extend the entitlement to up to an additional six million people covered by the Fair Work Act. This bill delivers on that commitment. It also ensures a level playing field for employers. Many small businesses employ their staff under a modern award and hence their staff already have access to the leave based on the Fair Work Commission's decision. This bill will ensure big businesses, which are more likely to employ staff under enterprise agreements and individual arrangements, will also need to provide this minimum leave entitlement. I know good employers already provide caring and compassionate support to employees who experience family violence. Enshrining this leave in the National Employment Standards extends a guaranteed entitlement to workers who do not currently have access to such leave. The Fair Work Commission made its decision to provide five days' unpaid leave after carefully considering extensive evidence and submissions from unions, employers and other interested parties. The commission indicated it will revisit consideration of this issue in mid-2021. Providing five days' unpaid family and domestic violence leave for all employees covered by the Fair Work Act is the right step to take now. I urge all members of this House to support the bill and to pass it quickly, so that up to six million additional workers are guaranteed access to this important, new workplace right without delay. Debate adjourned. Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018 3

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018

First Reading 3 Second Reading 3 09:42 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The government stands shoulder to shoulder with our farmers, to ensure they can survive against the severe and widespread drought that has affected so many. There's no question that our farmers are the backbone of the nation, with farming families providing the produce all Australians rely on to feed our families. For this reason, the government has an important role to play in backing our farmers in difficult times, and this government is committed to doing what we can to help drought affected farming families across Australia. The government can't make it rain. Lord knows we wish we could. But we can ensure that farming families and their communities get all the support they need to get through the drought, recover and get back on their feet. On 19 June 2018, the government extended the availability of the farm household allowance from three to four years, effective from 1 August 2018. On 5 August 2018, the government announced a $190 million package of immediate additional financial support to help farming families and their communities fight one of the worst droughts of the past century. The package included further significant changes to the existing farm household allowance to provide two lump sum supplementary payments worth up to $12,000 for eligible couples and $7,600 for singles. Also included were changes to the assets test to allow thousands more farmers to access support. These changes provide many farming families what they sorely lack during drought—cash income. This income helps put food on the table and cover basic expenses such as bills and school fees, and will flow through to businesses in country towns doing it tough. The package also included increased funding for mental health support, rural financial counselling and small grants for rural and regional not-for-profit community groups. The package took total support provided by the Commonwealth government to drought-affected households and communities to more than $576 million. At the same time, the government announced the long-term measures to improve the resilience of rural communities to handle drought conditions. They were being developed across government in response to the issues raised with the then Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources during their listening tour of New South Wales and Queensland in early June 2018. On 19 August 2018, the government announced the appointment of Major General Stephen Day, DSC, AM, as the National Drought Coordinator. The government also announced the further expansion of direct assistance and concessional loans to aid drought-affected farmers, increasing total assistance to $1.8 billion. This includes: additional funding for the Drought Communities Program; extending drought loans through the Regional Investment Corporation; a dedicated drought preparedness round for the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund; extension of funding for the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative; regional weather and climate guides (through the Bureau of Meteorology); streamlined farm household allowance application forms and processing; and providing an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets. This bill gives effect to this tax announcement, the last one, an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow primary producers to immediately deduct the cost of fodder storage assets, first used or installed ready for use from 19 August 2018. Currently, primary producers can deduct the value of fodder storage assets over three years under existing accelerated depreciation arrangements. Providing an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets will make it easier for primary producers to stockpile fodder. It will also reduce compliance costs as primary producers will no longer have to track the depreciation of fodder storage assets for more than one year for tax purposes. This initiative complements the government's $20,000 instant asset write-off for eligible small businesses, which we are extending to 30 June 2019. I ask all members to give this bill their full support so that we can provide farmers with faster tax relief on fodder storage assets, assisting them to better droughtproof their properties going forward. We will continue to engage with farmers to ensure our drought assistance measures meet their needs. Full details of the initiative are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I certainly commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 4 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 4 Reference 4 09:47 Mr HAWKE HWO Mitchell I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Defence High Performance Computing Centre project. The Department of Defence is proposing to construct a new fit-for-purpose high-performance computing centre in the Defence Science and Technology Group precinct at RAAF Base Edinburgh in South Australia. The 2016 Defence white paper noted that the government recognises that Australian defence industry and scientific and technological research and development institutions have a critical role in providing the national support base upon which Defence relies to manage strategic risk. To ensure Australia maintains an Australian Defence Force with the highest level of military capability, the government is making significant long-term investment in Defence's war-fighting equipment and supporting systems, research and development and the skills and training for our Defence people. The total estimated cost of the infrastructure project is $68.8 million, excluding GST. This includes management and design fees, construction costs and costs of furniture, fittings, equipment, information and communications technology, contingencies and risk and escalation provisions. Subject to parliamentary approval of the project, construction is expected to commence in early 2019 and be completed by mid-2020. I commend the motion to the House. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 5

Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Second Reading 5 09:50 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Labor will support this legislation, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. This legislation implements the tariff cuts that the government agreed to maker earlier this year when it signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—otherwise known as the CPTPP. The CPTPP is a trade agreement signed by 11 countries in Chile in March this year. It replaced the TPP that was signed by 12 countries in New Zealand in February 2016. That agreement had a clause in it which required countries representing 85 per cent of the combined GDP of that agreement to ratify it before the TPP could come into effect. That clause meant that when President Trump pulled out of the TPP it killed that agreement signed in New Zealand and forced the other 11 countries back to the drawing board. This agreement is different to the TPP in two substantive ways. First, the economic scale of the agreement or the percentage of the world's economy that it affects is much smaller than the TPP. The TPP covered 40 per cent of the world's economy; this agreement covers about 13 per cent. Second, it's also smaller in scope. Twenty-two provisions that were in the TPP have been suspended in this agreement. They include many of the more controversial sections of the TPP, including the sections on copyright and biologic medicines. The agreement itself eliminates more than 98 per cent of tariffs between signatory countries. For Australian farmers, it will reduce and eliminate tariffs on beef, sugar, cheese, wheat, barley, wine and seafood and expand quotas on rice, butter and skim milk. In mining, oil and gas it will eliminate tariffs on iron ore, copper, nickel, butane, propane and LNG. For Australian manufacturers, it will eliminate tariffs on iron and steel products. It will also give Australian universities the opportunity to expand or open new campuses in Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico and Vietnam. They are some of the economic benefits. I'll talk about the overall likely economic impact of the agreement in a moment. It also has potential strategic benefits. Building an overarching set of trade rules for our region and building stronger trade ties between the countries of the Asia-Pacific is very important. This is where we already sell most of the things that we make. Two in every three dollars we make from trade come from Asia, and this is only likely to increase in the years ahead. It is in our interests for the region to be stable and secure, and trade can help with that. This is not an Asia-Pacific-wide free trade agreement, but it has the potential to grow over time. I have said many times that our long-term ambition should be a regional trade agreement that includes all the countries of APEC. That is the Holy Grail. That's the sort of agreement that could help to ensure that potential trade wars like we are seeing at the moment don't erupt in the future, and could increase stability and security in our part of the world. That is the stated ambition of APEC—an organisation that Bob Hawke helped conceive and Paul Keating built into a meeting of regional leaders. It was under Bob Hawke and Paul Keating—with extraordinary union leaders like my friend and mentor Bill Kelty—that we ripped down tariff walls here at home. The big changes Labor made in opening up the economy in the 1980s and 1990s have helped create now 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth—27 years without a recession. We've helped to create more businesses and jobs. According to work done by the Centre for International Economics last year, the average Australian family's real income today is $8,448 higher than it would have been otherwise because of those Hawke, Keating and Kelty trade reforms. We tend to look back at that time and think what was done then was easy—but it wasn't. Cutting tariffs was important but it wasn't popular. It helped create new businesses and new jobs, but all of that took time. And, while some parts of the economy grew, other parts shrank. It is important that we understand as we are debating this legislation that free trade agreements and cutting tariffs are not overwhelmingly popular. There is a lot of scepticism and concern about agreements like this out there. There are a lot of people who think that all of this is great for big companies but not for ordinary workers. A recent Essential poll found that only about one in five Australians think that trade creates more jobs for Australians. That's a very scary statistic given how dependent we are on trade. You see the same sorts of results in the United States. Trade wars don't just pop out of thin air. There has to be something that fuels them. In the United States at the moment, there are a lot of people who feel like their lives are getting tougher, not easier, and one of the things they blame is trade. That's particularly true in places like Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, where wages are flat and jobs have gone overseas. As Thomas Friedman said in his book, 'If people don't have floors under them they will reach for walls,' and that's what they have done in the United States. It helps explain what's going on right at this moment with the threat of another $200 billion in US tariffs being imposed on Chinese goods and potentially another $267 billion more. This is having a real effect already on us with the drop of the Australian dollar. There is also a lesson for us here. We don't have anywhere near the gap between rich and poor that you see in the United States, but it exists and it's substantial. Just like America, there are parts of Australia doing it tougher than others. Look at parts of North Queensland, where youth employment is 17.6 per cent. Look at my own electorate in Western Sydney, where unemployment is double the national average. We know, because of what Hawke and Keating did, that the way to create jobs is to tear down tariff walls, not build them. But we also know not everyone benefits equally from free trade; some do better than others. Part of our job here is to understand that and put into place the sorts of policies that help to make sure that, as we open up our economy, we don't grow apart. That's why when Hawke and Keating were cutting tariffs, they also set up Medicare and compulsory superannuation. If we win the next election, we will do the same sorts of things such as making our tax system fairer by giving bigger tax cuts to workers on modest incomes and by putting more money into our schools, our TAFEs and our universities so that more Australians get the skills they need to work in this big, open and fast-changing world. But if we want more people to support free trade, open markets and agreements like the one we are debating here, we've also got to be more open and more honest with the Australian people. That's why I've been calling on the government to conduct independent economic modelling of this agreement. I'm not the only one who has been calling for independent economic modelling of trade agreements, so have the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Minerals Council of Australia, the Harper review, the Productivity Commission, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, the Senate Standing Committee on Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth. But despite all of this, the government belligerently has refused to get this agreement independently modelled. Fortunately, though, someone else has. The Victorian Labor government has commissioned an independent economic analysis of the CPTPP and so have a number of Australian business groups. They've all reached the same conclusion: that the agreement will provide relatively modest economic benefits in the short term, and there is the potential for more significant economic benefits in the longer term if more countries in the region sign up to the agreement. The analysis commissioned by the Victorian government concluded that while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, no sector would be worse off as a result. The analysis commissioned by a number of Australian business groups—including Ai Group, ACCI, the BCA and the Minerals Council of Australia—estimates that by 2030 the agreement would increase Australia's national income by $15.6 billion, boost exports by $29.9 billion and lift investment in Australia by $7.8 billion. It also concludes that the economic benefits of this agreement are about 25 per cent less than the original TPP. This sort of independent economic analysis, I think, is really important. It doesn't over hype the potential benefits or the potential impact of an agreement like this, like some have, but it does show a positive impact. That's important given the scepticism that a lot of people have about deals like this. That's why I've been calling on the government to do it, and why, if we win the next federal election, all trade agreements will be subject to an independent economic assessment. There are two parts of this agreement where Labor would have done things very differently. The first is the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement section, and the second is the waiver of labour market testing. As part of the CPTPP, the government has agreed to waive labour market testing for six countries: Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. This means that an employer will be able to bring in workers from these countries without first checking if there's an Australian who can do the job. Frankly, this is the sort of thing that makes Australians very angry. It's not protectionism to say that before a company brings in an electrician or a carpenter or a mechanic from overseas, it should first have to check if there is an Australian who can do the job. It's just common sense. Ironically, at the same time as it's removing the requirement to advertise jobs in Australia before advertising them overseas, the government is doing the opposite when it comes to agricultural land. In February the now Prime Minister announced that before agricultural land could be sold to foreign investors, it first had to be offered for sale to potential Australian buyers. If it's good enough for land to have to be advertised here first, it's good enough for jobs. If the Prime Minister and this government were really serious about being on the side of Australians, they'd understand this. They shouldn't have waived labour market testing in this agreement or the others that they've signed. If we win the next election, we will not waive labour market testing in the trade agreements we sign. We'll also work to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in the countries where the Liberals have agreed to waive it. We'll take the same approach when it comes to ISDS. Labor does not support the inclusion of ISDS clauses in trade agreements. That's because these provisions provide foreign corporations with increased legal rights and can be used to sue governments for legitimate policy decisions. The EU is changing its approach here, and there are reports that the United States is considering removing these provisions from NAFTA. This agreement extends our ISDS obligations to one country, Canada. If we win the next election, we will negotiate with the Canadian government to remove the application of this clause between our two countries by way of side letters. That's what the new New Zealand Labour government has done. It has signed side letters with four countries that are part of the CPTPP. The effect of these letters is that the ISDS clause in this agreement does not apply between New Zealand and these countries. Australia has also signed a similar letter with New Zealand. This shows that it's possible to set these clauses aside, and that is what we will seek to do. To his credit, the former minister for trade, Steve Ciobo, also acknowledged that this was possible in his speech introducing this bill. I think we can go further and do more than just that. There is more that we need to do to make sure that the trade agreements we sign are subject to the proper scrutiny of this parliament, that they have the benefit of more input from business, unions and other organisations as they're being developed, that they're subject to comprehensive independent assessment at arm's length from government and that they don't include the sorts of clauses I've just talked about—ISDS and the waiver of labour market testing. That's why I'm going to move, as part of this debate, the following second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name. I move: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that: (1) the Coalition Government has waived labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six new countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as including investor state dispute settlement mechanisms which Labor does not support; and (2) Labor believes the way Australia negotiates trade agreements needs to change, and a Labor Government will: (a) seek to remove ISDS provisions from existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot sign an agreement with such provisions; (b) seek to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service suppliers in existing free trade agreements and legislate so that a future Australian government cannot waive labour market testing in new agreements; (c) legislate that all new free trade agreements would be subject to an independent national interest assessment before it is signed to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement; (d) legislate to create an Accredited Trade Advisors program where industry, union and civil society groups would provide real time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations; and (e) strengthen the role of the Parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCoT) by providing: (i) the Government’s Statement of Objectives for Negotiation to JSCoT for consideration and feedback; and (ii) JSCoT with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations". This represents the next tranche of Labor's plan for trade. In October last year, I announced the first tranche of our trade policies. This is the second and more will follow. If we win the next election, we will introduce legislation that prohibits the sorts of clauses that we are concerned about here in the CPTPP. It will prohibit a future government from signing trade agreements that waive labour market testing or include ISDS clauses. We will also fix the way the trade deals are developed, negotiated and assessed. At the moment, the parliament only gets involved in assessing and scrutinising trade deals once they're done. In other countries, this is done differently. The legislative arm of government gets involved at the start and is kept involved throughout the process. I think that's very useful. That's why we will expand the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, so that members of that committee are consulted at the start of the trade agreement process, are provided with a statement of the government's objectives at the start of the negotiations and ask for feedback. In addition to that, JSCOT will be provided with a briefing by DFAT after each round of negotiations. This will provide valuable input for the team negotiating the trade agreement and will help ensure that, when a trade deal is completed, it's scrutinised by legislators who are familiar with it. We'll also create an accredited adviser program based on the cleared adviser program in the United States. At the moment, DFAT consults informally with business and other organisations in developing its objectives in a trade deal and trying to implement it. This will formalise and expand this process. Accredited advisers would be security cleared and provided with access to draft texts after each round of negotiation. Like the system in the United States, accredited advisers will represent the full span of community interests, including manufacturing, agriculture, digital trade, intellectual property, services, small business, labour, environmental, consumer, public health organisations, and state and local government. We'll also provide public updates on each round of negotiations and will release draft texts during negotiations where this is feasible. I made the point earlier how important it is that trade agreements like this are subject to independent economic analysis and I committed Labor to doing that in the first tranche of reforms I announced last year. Today, we take a step further. At the moment, DFAT provides the parliament with what it calls a 'national interest assessment' of the signed agreement. DFAT is full of exceptional people who do extraordinary work on our behalf, but getting the same team that negotiated a trade agreement to provide a report outlining why it is in the national interest is a bit like marking your own homework. If we win the next election, we will subject all trade agreements to an independent national interest assessment that includes independent economic modelling and looks at the social and the strategic impacts of the agreement. These reforms were announced by me on Tuesday, but they've already been backed by organisations like the Export Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Both major parties support free and fair trade. We all realise that we are a trading nation. We rise and fall on what we sell to the rest of the world. The opening up of our economy over the last four decades has made us a stronger and wealthier country. It's also made the things that we buy cheaper and the average Australian family something like $8½ thousand a year, on average, better off. In an age of rising doubt and scepticism about the impact of globalisation and free trade, we have to get better and be more open about the way we do this. And we have to listen to what the community is telling us. The reforms that I have announced today are part of that. Doing better trade deals, though, is not enough. It's the start. Trade agreements can open doors, but more Australian businesses still need to walk through them. That is where even more work is needed. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the amendment seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Blaxland has moved that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:11 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax You have to hand it to the coalition when it comes to nation building. Whether it comes from income tax reform, infrastructure investment or support for small businesses, the coalition not only gets it; the coalition gets it done. When it comes to delivering the ingredients for a strong economy, the coalition leaves Labor for dead. Look at the scoreboard. Firstly, there's the jobs score, with well over one million new jobs in five years under the coalition. There were 412,000 jobs created just last year, the strongest jobs growth record in history. Secondly, there is the growth score. You need look no further than last week's national accounts figures to get that score. With real GDP growth scooting along at 3.4 per cent under the coalition, our national economy is growing faster than any G7 economy, and that includes the United States. It is well above the OECD average, which is currently running at 2.5 per cent. As crucial as they are, it's not just about jobs and growth. All key sectors right across the Australian economy—household consumption, business investment, dwelling investment, public demand and exports—are all up for the year. The strength of the Australian economy under this government is an undeniable fact, a fact that underwrites the security, lifestyle and wellbeing of 25 million Australians. Without a strong economy, all the hospitals, schools, infrastructure and even our national security would be in peril. Why is the coalition better at managing the economy? Why are coalition governments, from Menzies to Morrison, strong economic managers, while Labor has been hit and miss at best and absolutely catastrophic at worst? One reason could be that the coalition backs the aspirations of hardworking Australians and has a plan to create the opportunities that aspiration needs to flourish. A big part of that plan is maintaining the best environment for businesses to grow and employ more Australians. That's our plan and it works—as the results show. There are few better examples of the coalition's plan in action than trade—specifically, the coalition's record when it comes to initiating and delivering free trade agreements. The coalition believes that the best way to create Australian jobs is for Australia to follow an ambitious and pragmatic trade agenda. This has been a consistent strategy for the coalition since the days of the Howard government, but it's an area where Labor has dropped the ball time and again. While the coalition and most Australians are delighted with trade agendas, Labor is not. While the coalition is delighted by the opposition's decision to finally back the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP-11, the truth is that the only thing Labor has ever had the capacity to do with free trade agreements is back them. Not once has Labor ever initiated, negotiated end to end and closed a free trade agreement. That's a telling statistic. Not once has Labor been capable of initiating, negotiating end to end and closing an FTA. That is telling, especially when you consider how important free trade is to the Australian economy and to the prosperity of all Australians. Yet you see under this coalition government, since the election in 2013, closures of FTAs with Japan, Korea, China and Peru, and here we are today with a bill in the House discussing the TPP-11. I find it extraordinary that the shadow trade minister, who spoke just before me, formed part of his debating points on the belief that the coalition government needs to change how it negotiates FTAs. It's a bit rich coming from Labor, which has proven itself—and the stats say this—incapable of closing a deal and incapable of initiating, negotiating and closing FTAs, and yet the shadow minister is more than happy to stand in the chamber and try to lecture the government that's closed Korea, China, Japan, Peru and soon the TPP-11 and try to provide gratuitous advice about how things might improve. The one thing that I heard the shadow trade minister mention was the idea of parliament playing a more intimate role in engaging in the FTA negotiation process. I found it particularly cute that the shadow minister decided to use words such as him 'announcing an idea today' when, in actual fact, the Trade Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is currently reviewing the role of parliament in this regard. But, again, that's okay—it's Labor's typical form, and we see it across every area of government, including FTAs, where they would jump on the bandwagon and try to take the credit. So be it, but, again, they have no standing to try to lecture the coalition when it comes to free trade agreements. From the very first decades, whether it be the New South Wales colony with John Macarthur or all the way up to today when we're talking about the TPP-11, Australians have been reliant on trade. That's beyond question. I'm proud to stand in support of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, which we are discussing here in the House today. These bills will amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act to introduce new rules of origin and introduce new preferential customs duty rates for goods imported into Australia from nations that are parties to the TPP-11 and, in so doing, formally ratify that agreement. As one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded, the TPP-11 is set to eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs across a trading zone with a combined GDP of some A$13.8 trillion and close to 500 million consumers. The geographic and economic scope of the TPP-11 is immense. Already, even before the treaty comes into force, nearly one-quarter, or 24 per cent, of Australia's total exports, worth almost $88 billion, are to TPP-11 countries. This is set to grow substantially once the TPP-11 comes into force, that being some 60 days after formal ratification by the first six member countries. It is therefore essential that Australia is among the first six nations to ratify the treaty, with Singapore, Mexico and Japan already having ratified the deal and others close to completing the process. The early access to TPP-11 markets by nations other than Australia would clearly not be in our national interest. The direct benefit to Australian farmers, producers, manufacturers and service providers in improved market access and a boost to exports will be significant. Recent modelling shows that the TPP-11 would lift Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and deliver $15.6 billion in net annual benefits by 2030 while exports are forecast to rise by four per cent or approximately $30 billion per annum. A significant improvement to investment flows for Australia is also expected. Independent analysis forecasts inbound investment to increase by $7.8 billion while outbound investment by Australian businesses should increase by $26 billion. There are also very tangible benefits for producers and exporters courtesy of the TPP-11, including significantly reduced tariffs on Australian beef imported into Japan so that, within two years, Australian beef will enjoy a 13 per cent tariff advantage over US beef; improved access for Australian dairy products imported into Japan, Canada and Mexico; new access for Australian sugar to Japan, Canada and Mexico; and the elimination of all tariffs on sheepmeat, cotton, seafood, wine, raw wool, horticulture and manufactured goods across the free trade zone. Exporting professional services will also see a significant reduction in regulatory risks, including improved levels of transparency to help Australian service providers compete freely and on an equal footing. Australian tertiary and vocational education providers will enjoy guaranteed special access to Brunei, Japan, Malaysia and Mexico and will be able to provide online education services across the entire trade zone. There will also be new opportunities for Australian businesses chasing government procurement and service contracts in many member countries. The innovative approach taken by the architects of the TPP-11 is well demonstrated by, for the first time in a trade agreement, member countries guaranteeing the free flow of data across borders for service providers and investors across the trade zone. Another innovative approach taken by the architects of this deal and one I'm personally delighted to see is the inclusion of a dedicated chapter in the agreement that aims to encourage small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in government procurement. The TPP-11 is the first regional trade agreement to include such a small and medium enterprise, or SME, chapter, and this is vitally important. As chair of the trade subcommittee of this parliament, we're currently amidst an inquiry into how small and medium businesses can better leverage Australia's string of free trade agreements. Let me assure you: the inclusion of a chapter in this TPP-11 deal specific for SMEs is being welcomed across the sector. Moreover, I suspect—I hope—that specific chapters for small and medium businesses will become a more regular feature of free trade agreements. Not only is Australia a nation with many small businesses—2.2 million, in fact—but we're fortunate to have so many at the forefront of their respective fields internationally. They are companies that have unique, cutting-edge intellectual property that needs to not only be recognised and protected but leveraged to the hilt. In recent years, due to the approach of this government, we have seen more and more small and medium businesses win work through government procurement. One area where I have particularly seen this in play is in the defence industry, where multibillion dollar contracts have an increasing percentage of Australian industry content, and much of this is going to our small and medium businesses. This is not just delivering more jobs for locals but helping identify small and medium businesses that are genuinely world-class—businesses that could well have been left undiscovered in the broader marketplace if it weren't for this government's approach. Further, it's leading to greater investment in these small and medium businesses and the unique intellectual property that they possess. And one step further, if I may: when large multinational primes start engaging more and more small and medium businesses in their delivery of major government projects, they discover assets, ideas and talents which they can then bolt on to their global supply chains, effectively providing market entry strategies for small and medium businesses that are often otherwise very localised. It's within this context that I praise the architects of the TPP-11 for their inclusion of a chapter for small and medium businesses, which will help create the opportunity for these businesses to flourish and for their ideas to take root internationally. The TPP-11 in no way threatens Australia's existing domestic policy or regulation in areas such as health, the labour market and intellectual property. These remain secure and unaffected by the treaty. Under the TPP-11, Australia is not obliged to recognise overseas qualifications, experience or licences from TPP-11 countries or elsewhere. The TPP is truly one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching trade deals ever concluded since the inception of the World Trade Organization. The benefits for Australia are great. While this deal is an opportunity that would have been completely missed if Labor had won the last election or if the government had sought their guidance and taken their advice, today here we are with the TPP-11 almost over the line. 10:26 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I rise today to speak on the complexly named and equally complex in detail Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, which is cognate with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. I'm pleased to stand here today in support of the amendments proposed by the shadow minister for trade and investment, the member for Blaxland, and also in support generally of the motivations behind what is now known as the CPTPP. I stand alongside my colleagues with an unwavering commitment to protecting Australian jobs in trade agreements, a commitment to boosting transparency in the development of trade agreements and improving the way these agreements are negotiated in the first place and from the commencement. Because of these commitments, I can stand here in this chamber and support these amendments put forward by the member for Blaxland. I can say to the people of Australia that, yes, Labor is listening to your concerns. We understand and share these concerns around this agreement, and our priorities are first and foremost to you, the people and workers of Australia. There has been significant debate over the past several years on the merits of free and open trade, not just in this place but across parliaments and economic forums across the world. Indeed, the decision by the 45th President of the United States to revoke and pull out from the original TPP is a large part of the reason why we as Australians find ourselves in this position. The original TPP in 2016 had 12 signatories: Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Singapore, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. In early 2017, with the election of the 45th President, the United States withdrew from the agreement, meaning it was unable to come into force. The agreement, now known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is now between the remaining 11 signatories of the original TPP, of course including Australia. It is smaller than the original agreement and represents 13 per cent of world GDP, compared to the 40 per cent in the original agreement. The bills debated today implement the tariff cuts as agreed to when Australia signed the CPTPP and eliminated 98 per cent of tariffs between member countries, as well as suspending 22 provisions that were part of the original agreement and were regarded as contentious. It was a novel approach, adopted to revive the TPP. As I have said before in this place, I pay tribute to the very complex and hard work that trade negotiators involved in this put into coming up with this renegotiated TPP, and in particular the leadership shown by Japan in the absence of the US. Free trade agreements are legitimately contentious enough as it is at the moment, but that does not mean that they are wrong—quite the opposite. It means they must be done right and done right from the very beginning. That is why we have listened to the legitimate concerns of many stakeholders as part of the issue, including the broader labour movement in this country. Many have raised concerns, including about the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and the waiver of labour market testing for six additional countries in the CPTPP. To quote my friend the member for Blaxland, 'It's not protectionism to say that, before a company brings in an electrician or a carpenter or a mechanic from overseas, it should first have to check if there is an Australian who can do the job; it's just common sense.' The member for Blaxland is absolutely right. It is why Labor has committed to fixing this should we be elected to government in the future by the Australian voters. It is why Labor, in the national interest, has been closely scrutinising the CPTPP to make sure it is a more progressive agreement than many of the previous multilateral trade agreements and that it will include protections concerning the environment, labour standards and anticorruption provisions. We have watched other countries around the world and their reactions and approaches to free and open trade. The United States, once the largest proponent of this ideal, has partially retreated from free trade objectives. This agreement was talked about by the former US President, President Obama. His administration understood the issues of free trade that we face today. In his statement on the subject, he reaffirmed his commitment to the working people of America, and I quote: Right now, the rules of global trade too often undermine our values and put our workers and businesses at a disadvantage. TPP will change that. It eliminates more than 18,000 taxes that various countries put on Made in America products. It promotes a free and open Internet … It includes the strongest labor standards and environmental commitments in history—and, unlike in past agreements, these standards are fully enforceable. When looking at our American neighbours it is not too hard to see similarities. Indeed, much of what we have here in Australia in the context of a modern 21st-century nation democratic nation is also found in the US. We share common ideals and defence and trade relations and, until recently, we shared a common view on the benefits of free and open trade done intelligently and correctly. It is not hard to see why the US have taken their current position. In the past, these agreements have been skewed in favour of business without proper regard for workers and their rights and progress without proper regard for its implications. The backlash from the manufacturing interior of the United States against this agreement, then, comes as little surprise. As a result of this, there are heightened tensions in the global sphere as tariffs are raised on commodities like aluminium and steel, and these tariffs are directed at the Asia-Pacific region and particularly China. However, even with this occurring, it doesn't represent a failure of free trade so much as a failure of communication and consultation, a failure of due diligence and a failure to understand the benefits of trade. It can clearly be seen how the TPP would benefit the US economy, with particularly significant advances in trade and agricultural services. The US puts this at risk by allowing its main competitors to gain increased market access while the US loses ground in market share. We can take a look at our other neighbours in the region and their history on the issue. As we know, as much as it may be in the headlines, the US is not the only nation that has been advocating for an agreement like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is important to recognise the regional impact agreements like the TPP will have. As such, it is incumbent on us to engage more with our Asia-Pacific neighbours in this regard. Thailand, Korea and Indonesia are all considering a progression in their negotiations with the TPP and to possibly enter it. In joining, they would bolster the argument that the TPP would be a more fulsome regional trade agreement covering more of the Indo-Pacific region. For economies undergoing significant development such as Vietnam and Malaysia, agreements like the TPP offer a larger consumer market and therefore a greater chance for prosperity—and that's important in this region. The greater the prosperity that developing nations like Vietnam and Malaysia can have and enjoy is better for the whole region and therefore much better for Australia. During the negotiations between Hanoi and Washington on the TPP, part of the agreement was that Vietnam had to legislate to recognise and legalise some independent unions, allowing them to strike and seek out assistance from foreign labour organisations. We can look at Vietnam's constitution and how it enshrines the right of all workers to engage in protest and strikes. However, until recently, until these negotiations, there was very little legislation to back up these rights of workers—rights that workers enjoy here in Australia. The salient point is that by making it part of the original TPP agreement it is helping to strengthen and broaden the appeal of fair industrial relations laws transnationally—and that's not stemming from parliamentary processes necessarily but from free and open trade. It is wrong to suggest that the benefits of free trade are just economic. They can permeate every facet of machinery of government in any government in the world, and that is what we are seeing in Vietnam right now as a benefit of the CPTPP. Free trade can have a hugely positive impact in changing values and attitudes and bringing them in line with a modern and progressive 21st century. Free trade agreements like the TPP are not designed in a vacuum; they are continually moving and fluid and work as an institutionalised platform for the liberalisation of trade flows around the world. If I can continue on the positive transnational impacts of this approach, I would like to touch very briefly on the university sector. The sector is one of the biggest sources of export income, and until fairly recently it was not fully understood what impact these agreements would have on the tertiary sector. These types of agreements can vastly benefit the Australian economy; that much is true. However, the two-way street that is international trade brings with it greater opportunities by allowing greater access to overseas student bodies and a more streamlined approach in the facilitation of international research projects, which are very important to this nation. I'd like to speak about the difference between the approach of this side of the House and the approach of those opposite. As I mentioned before, the CPTPP includes the ISDS provisions, which give foreign companies the ability to sue the Australian government. Labor opposes the inclusion of these provisions in any trade agreement, now and into the future. The member for Blaxland, the shadow minister, outlined these in more detail, and they are set out in the amendment to this motion, so I won't go into it in detail. A Labor government would not pursue agreements that include these provisions and would negotiate to remove them from agreements where they have been included by the current government. We know there is a precedent for this to happen. The New Zealand government under Prime Minister Ardern has successfully negotiated with four countries to remove ISDS provisions, which were negotiated by the previous, conservative government of New Zealand, through additional negotiation in the form of side letters to the now CPTPP. Key regulatory measures outlined in these agreements are ongoing and indeed need to be strengthened, including in areas of transparency and corruption, with requirements to criminalise associated behaviour; greater developments in ecommerce, including protections on privacy and equalisation of content; and, importantly, labour standards, including requirements needed to enforce these standards and prevent child or forced labour. The Australian Labor Party supports free trade and open markets. Open markets lift people out of poverty and create higher-paid, more-secure jobs. To quote directly from a recently published report called Expanding the TPP?by the Perth USAsia Centre in Perth, written by Dr Jeffrey Wilson and my friend and colleague Hugo Seymour: The CPTPP also provides regional economies a 'lever' to resist coercive trade practices by the Trump Administration … US absence also imposes costs on the US economy, particularly in terms of preferential disadvantages for the agriculture sector in accessing Asian markets … In this way, the CPTPP functions as a strategic hedge for regional governments to bargain with the US for better trade outcomes. Australians at every level want better trade outcomes as well, which is unsurprising given our status as a key trading nation. Our future economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell goods and services overseas. If I could make a further observation about the importance of free and open trade, some have observed—and there have been reputable reports on this—that Australia won't gain as much as other nations in this trade arrangement. This may be true; in fact, I'm certain it's true. Nonetheless, it is in Australia's interests for our neighbours to increase their prosperity and their access to consumer markets around the world and throughout the region. As I said before, for Vietnam and Malaysia to have access to a greater consumer base is good for their markets and for their continued and growing prosperity, and in that case it is very good for the region as a whole. Whilst Australia won't benefit from a GDP growth as high as other countries will, the CPTPP will nonetheless help secure our locational security in our geographic region. I think we should remember that free and open trade is not just all about us; it's not just about what's in it for Australia. Free and open trade with other countries is something we should think about from a wider perspective. What's in it for our region? What safety and security do we get out of this? What is the increase in prosperity, and how does it benefit the welfare and concerns of our very near neighbours in the region, who we care greatly about? Global free trade, based on the international rules-based order that is currently being written through the CPTPP, will enable a free, safe and prosperous Indo-Pacific, and, in many ways, that is to the very great benefit of Australia and our neighbours. Multilateralism serves to share benefits. The unfortunate pursuit by the US of a strict bilateral approach tends to lead to the picking off of different countries for different trade agreements, which is more to the benefit of one nation than to the greater benefit of a collection of nations, such as we're seeing with the TPP. Once again, I'd like to congratulate the trade negotiators, who are the unsung heroes in these agreements. They work many long hours in many countries around the world. They witnessed a change of administration in the US which saw their work undone to a large extent, but it was, thankfully, revived again. I pay tribute to the leadership of Japan in this. It has stepped up into a great leadership role in the Indo-Pacific. They should be congratulated on reviving the TPP and allowing Australia to continue a great tradition of free and open trade in this region. 10:41 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. These bills before the House are important steps in the implementation of Australia's obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, commonly known as the TPP-11. This agreement between Australia and 10 of our most important trading partners in the Asia-Pacific region is one of the most comprehensive trade agreements ever negotiated. This agreement continues the Morrison government's successful economic agenda, which has delivered economic growth and prosperity, created new jobs and increased international trade and investment opportunities for our companies, large and small. The coalition government's single-minded commitment to this economic agenda has already delivered real outcomes for Australian exporters in the form of the free trade agreements we have concluded with China, Japan and Korea. This commitment reflects the clear priority this government will continue to give to maintaining and strengthening an open, transparent and efficient international trade environment. The TPP-11 makes our network of existing free trade agreements in the Asia-Pacific region even stronger, providing even greater access for our exporters to key markets such as Japan, Korea, ASEAN, New Zealand, Chile and Peru. It updates provisions to reflect the latest best practices in FTAs, and, probably more importantly, it brings the additional major markets of Canada and Mexico into our FTA network. Both of these countries are in the world's top 20 economies, and both have been impacted by changes in the attitude of the US in that North American area. The countries covered by the TPP-11 have a combined GDP of $13.8 trillion and a population of close to 500 million consumers. These markets already take nearly one-quarter of all Australian exports. By eliminating more than 98 per cent of tariffs on our exports to this massive regional economy, the TPP-11 will open significant new opportunities for Australian businesses. This is why this agreement is incredibly important for rural and regional Australia, including the electorate of Parkes, which I represent. Agreements such as the TPP-11 are critical to communities throughout regional and rural Australia that are dependent on exports for their economic prosperity. Some specific examples of the significant benefits for our agricultural exporters, including for farmers in my electorate of Parkes, are as follows. Australian beef exports in 2017 were $7.5 billion, with around one-third going to TPP-11 countries. TPP-11 outcomes include accelerated tariff reductions in our beef exports to Japan, Mexico and Canada. Elimination of Canadian tariffs on our beef, currently at 26.5 per cent, will be within five years. Elimination of Mexican tariffs on our beef, currently up to 25 per cent, will be within 10 years. This is an important step for our exports into that part of the world. For lamb exporters—this is particularly important for the electorate I represent—there was $425 million in exports of lamb and mutton to the TPP-11 markets in 2017, which is 16 per cent of total sheep and meat exports. There will be the elimination of tariffs on sheepmeat exports to Mexico within eight years and immediate elimination of sheepmeat tariffs to all other TPP countries on entry into force. For our wool producers there is the immediate elimination of all remaining tariffs on raw wool on entry into force, and rules of origin will drive greater demand within TPP-11 markets for high-quality yarns made from Australian wool. For cereals and grains, already $1.6 billion goes to TPP markets. The TPP-11 outcomes will provide significant improvements in market access for our exports of cereals and grains to Japan, including new quotas for wheat, barley and malt; elimination of Mexican tariffs on wheat—currently at 67 per cent—within 10 years and on barley—currently at 115 per cent—within five years; and immediate elimination of all Canadian tariffs on cereals and grains. This is incredibly important as those two countries are now looking elsewhere to strengthen trading ties across the Pacific, and Australia is in a prime position to take advantage of this. For our pork producers, who are doing it very tough at the moment—71 per cent of their exports already go to TPP-11 markets and were worth $88 million in 2017—there will be significant reductions in pork tariffs to Japan, elimination of all Malaysian pork tariffs within 15 years and immediate elimination of Mexico's pork tariffs. For dairy there will be the elimination of Japanese tariffs on some cheese products and expanded quotas on all remaining cheeses; new Japanese quotas for butter and skim milk and new quotas on tariff reductions for ice cream, yoghurt, whole milk powder, condensed milk and infant formula; preferential access to the highly protected Canadian market; and new Mexican quotas for butter, cheese and milk and tariff elimination on yoghurt. For sugar growers, there are opportunities for this sector, which is in a tough spot at the moment: immediate elimination of Japan's tariff on sugar; elimination of Canada's tariffs on refined sugar within five years; a guaranteed share of Mexico's quota for raw sugar; and immediate elimination of Vietnam's in-quota tariffs on sugar. For cotton—another industry that's very important to the constituents whom I represent—there will be the elimination of all tariffs on Australian cotton exports, with most reductions occurring immediately. Our exporters will also benefit from new regional supply chains into the Japanese markets. For example, clothing produced in Vietnam from Australian cotton will benefit from preferential tariffs under the TPP-11, increasing demand for our raw cotton. For rice growers, there will be new quota access for Australian rice and rice flour to Japan, with a new 6,000-tonne quota growing to 8,400 tonnes after 12 years, and, for wine, immediate elimination of Canada's wine tariffs and elimination of Malaysian, Vietnamese and Mexican wine tariffs over a period of some three to 15 years. And it goes on. For horticultural exporters there will be an extended out-of-season tariff on our orange exports to Japan, elimination of all Japanese tariffs on orange exports over seven years and elimination of Japan's tariffs on fruit juices over 10 years. I could go on to seafood and other issues. I was recently in Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore for the RCEP negotiations and chatted with our neighbours in ASEAN. I've got to say that there is great excitement about the TPP-11. This will be the new gold standard of trade in the Pacific region, and other countries are very keen to take part and join the 11 countries that are already signatories to this. Indeed, in Bangkok about six years ago, I discussed this with my counterparts in the Thai government. They are looking to Australia to assist them through the process of being one of the first countries to be added to the TPP-11. Japan is also playing a major role in helping Thailand as well. It's not just agricultural products; it provides opportunities across a broad range of manufactured goods, including iron, steel, aluminium, automotive parts, leather goods and paper products. For our service exporters, it delivers significant gains for exporters of education services. Incidentally, education services are now No. 3 in value of our exports for Australia. From my discussions with our ASEAN neighbours, I think that they are really keen to tap into our education system as they are upskilling their own workforces and own populations to step up to that next level of production and to increase their own economies. They're looking to Australia's wonderful education system to help their economies out. There will be significant gains for our exporters of education services, including our universities, vocational education institutions, school sectors and private training providers. There will be new opportunities for exports of Australian financial services, including banking, insurance and financial management. There will be improved access for professional services from firms across accounting, engineering, architecture, legal services and consulting, providing greater transparency and predictability for this important sector. Incidentally, I met a representative of the music testers—I'm not sure what their title is in Melbourne—a couple of weeks ago. They are the people who provide testing for music students. They are looking at taking advantage of access to these other countries through the TPP-11. A lot of service industries that you might not think about are lining up. They are part of the small and medium exporters and they are the first who will take advantage of this. SMEs are critical to Australia's economic growth and prosperity, generating over $1.8 trillion in sales and employing over 7.4 million Australians. The TPP-11 will make it easier for SMEs to establish new export markets and grow their businesses through tariff reductions; through improved access to regional value chains; and through common, transparent trade investment rules across the region, which reduce the time, cost and complexity of doing business in international markets. There is a need for Australia to move quickly. Already three countries—Mexico, Japan and Singapore—have signed up. Within 60 days of six countries signing up, this trade deal comes into effect. It's very, very important for our exporters that Australia is one of those first six countries. It's very important that we are there on the ground floor when this starts. It's very important for our exporters to be right at the starting line. I have noticed there are some concerns from the opposition around labour market testing. I believe that their concerns are unjustified. Where we have previously made such commitments in FTAs, there has not been an influx in workers from those countries. For example, we have not seen an influx of workers into Australia following the entry into force of Australia's FTAs with North Asian economies, such as Japan, Korea and China. It's also important to remember that we made temporary entry commitments in order to get better access for our service suppliers in return. This was an interest for Australia, so it's a two-way thing. It was part of a deal which will result in $15.6 billion in additional annual income by 2030, as per a report released by the Minerals Council of Australia last week. With skills testing, the TPP-11 does not change the skill and experience requirements that need to be met by electricians and other foreign workers applying to work in Australia. It is important that this doesn't overrule the regulations in this country. Our regulations still have primary force. This means that workers from TPP-11 signatory countries, including electrical workers, remain subject to and must satisfy any skills assessment required by the visa process, which, for electricians and other trades, is administered by Trades Recognition Australia. Workers from TPP-11 signatory countries also remain subject to and must satisfy licensing and registration processes required by state and territory governments. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has confirmed the TPP-11 does not oblige Australia to recognise the education, experience obtained, requirements met or licences of certifications granted in the territory of another TPP-11 party or nonparty. The level of skills that is acceptable in Australia does remain. This does not weaken that. The assessment of skills, qualifications and employment backgrounds for electricians applying under temporary work visas either under the FTA or otherwise is part of the visa assessment process undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs. The Department of Home Affairs has also confirmed that the present process for assessment of skills, qualifications and employment backgrounds for any foreign workers, including the specific occupations listed in your letter, will not change as a consequence of the TPP-11. The ISDS mechanisms will provide valuable protections to Australian investments overseas and still safeguard the government's ability to regulate the public interest and pursue legitimate public welfare objectives. The TPP-11 contains explicit recognition of this right in addition to other safeguards. The TPP-11 also represents an opportunity for Australia to update a number of its investment arrangements with TPP-11 signatories through side letters with Peru, Mexico and Vietnam. Australia agreed to terminate decades-old bilateral investment agreements and replace them with modern standards by the TPP. Finally, there is some concern about the US system of interested stakeholders. The US system of cleared advisers is longstanding and reflects the particular circumstances in the US. This process provides some stakeholders a greater level of access than others. Australia's practice has been to maintain an open, inclusive and flexible approach to consultation, ensuring all stakeholders, not just those with a vested interest, who want to continue can continue to do so. 10:56 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne The trickle-down troika is back. The Liberal Party, the Labor Party and big business are working hand in glove to give big corporations more rights at the expense of everyday people. I expect, from this shambolic Liberal government, nothing less than an attempt to give corporations more rights, to take away requirements to advertise locally first before you bring in someone from elsewhere for a job, and to go and reward a government that is on the verge of backing out of international whaling agreements and starting again. I expect nothing less from the Liberal-National government. But what may come as a surprise to many people is that this blueprint to give corporations more rights over governments and people is now being cheered through and waved through by the Labor Party in this place. We're at a time when we've now got the opportunity to say, 'We've got to go back and renegotiate some of the terrible provisions in this agreement.' They are provisions that contravene the Labor Party's policy, and we even have members of the Labor Party here moving amendments to say, 'We don't like the things that are in these agreements,' at the very moment that we have the opportunity to say, 'We want better treatment.' But what is happening is that this bill is being brought on for debate, and the Labor Party is cheering it through. 'Trade deals' sounds innocuous. You're reaching an agreement with someone else to allow for greater trade. But what is not said in that is that these things aren't really trade deals. They're agreements about how corporations and governments are allowed to relate to each other. They're agreements that say that corporations, in many instances—including multinational corporations—have more rights than the Australian government. Corporations will be able to tell the Australian government what to do if the Australian government ever tries to pass legislation for the benefit of its people. If the Australian government, under these deals, starts to pass legislation that might affect the profits of some of these corporations because we decide it might be in our interest to, for example, require the local advertising of jobs before allowing someone else to come in from overseas, or if we start passing laws to protect our environment or start passing laws to protect public health because we think we want to look after the Australian people, corporations will be able to sue the Australian government in a secret panel where a few people get together—not a big court; a secret panel where a few people get together—and the decisions of that secret panel will be binding. What that means is that this parliament loses its right to govern to protect the Australian people. These clauses are so bad that they're off the table for the upcoming EU negotiations. The EU is not going to ask for these clauses to be in any agreement that might be signed with Australia. Jacinda Ardern, in New Zealand, has had the good sense to negotiate side arrangements so that those clauses don't apply over there. The Labor Party said at its conference, 'These clauses are bad and we don't like them.' But they're in this agreement that the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 is about to bring into effect. These clauses have been used by corporations to sue governments because governments have, for example, tried to take steps to make drugs more affordable or tried to do things to restrict corporations in their treatment of the environment. That's how these clauses are being used. As I say, New Zealand has said, 'We don't want a bar of them,' and they're not going to be in the EU agreements. So why on earth would we now sign up to them, knowing full well what it could mean for the Australian public? Not only that; these agreements, like the agreements before them that Labor waved through as part of the trickle-down troika, say that certain countries—and in this case we're talking about Canada, Mexico, Chile, Japan, Malaysia and Vietnam—get a free pass from the laws that exist in Australia that say you need to advertise locally first. They get an exemption. We are now carving out loopholes in our labour laws that are big enough to fly plane loads of exploited workers through. What we are seeing at the moment, under the agreements we've got, is that these deals not only put downward pressure on wages for local workers but lead to exploitation of overseas workers as well. Overseas workers come in on visas. They get brought in with the promise, 'You'll earn more than in your home country'—and who can fault people for sticking up their hands and saying, 'Yes, I'll go and work somewhere and earn a bit more money'?—but what happens when they come here is that the employers in many instances say: 'Right, we've got you here. If you arc up, we'll withdraw your permission to be here and you'll be on the next plane back. When you are here, you will accept whatever conditions that we want to impose on you.' As a result we see in Hobart a couple of hundred people working in some instances on public works projects on below-legal wages and conditions. We've seen it in Victoria, in Western Australia and right around the country. In Victoria, on the electricity network—and you would think that, if there's anything called 'a project for the public good', it would be our electricity infrastructure—people brought in from overseas to work on maintaining the electricity network are getting paid below what the going rate is and are being exploited. It is all, in many instances, facilitated by these agreements. Whatever requirements might be put in place in Australian labour law to restrict exploitation, these countries get a free pass. Australia will not be able to legislate to say, for example, 'We want to advertise locally first.' It is leading to exploitation right now of local workers and overseas workers, and it's why other countries say, 'We want the right to regulate that.' We are about to sign it away, and the Labor Party is about to sign it away. The previous speaker, the member for Parkes, said—and put aside the advertising point—'Don't worry; at least everyone who comes in will be required to have the same level of skills.' That is just not right. That is not how the skills-testing system works in this country at the moment. In many instances, when people come in here, it's a paper based assessment that is often tick and flick. There's no systematic requirement to vet everyone who comes in to ensure that they're trained up to the same standard. You look at the paperwork and you take the word of the sponsor who's bringing them in. That's not good enough either. That's why, in many instances, what has been uncovered is people who, we would say, aren't trained to the same level locally. We need a thorough overhaul of that. What we're being told is that it's okay; this new agreement won't change it. That's not the point. The point is the system at the moment is thoroughly inadequate. People have been pointing to problems in it for a very long time. What are we going to do? We're now going to expand the number of people and the size of the loopholes through which people can pass. When this TPP was negotiated, we were also told at the beginning that there were going to be seven enforceable international environmental agreements as part of it. So it's all right, we will still be able to protect the environment; corporations won't have greater power over the environment. When we saw the text of the agreement, it only mentioned four, and it turns out that only one of them has any enforceable commitments in it. Climate change is not mentioned anywhere. There are no environmental benchmarks in these agreements. That means that in the future when the Australian government legislate—once we've turfed this rotten mob out and potentially get a government that wants to act on climate change and protect the environment—they can't simply consider what would be good for the Australian people and the planet; we now have to go off and check this blueprint for the corporate takeover of democracy. We have to check these agreements to see whether we might offend a multinational corporation if we were to do something to cut out pollution or protect the environment. If so, maybe we can't do it, because we signed up to a deal that allows a corporation and a secret panel of lawyers to veto what this parliament might want to do. It's not just our future environmental laws, but even our future labour laws. There's lots of talk at the moment about how the system is broken and we need to change the rules. This might stop us changing the rules in the way that we need to, because we will have to make sure, before we change those rules, that it doesn't affect the profits of someone who might have a claim under one of these agreements. That is wrong. That is why people are increasingly angry at governments, because they see governments signing away our rights to big corporations. This another example. That is why the Greens have consistently opposed these kinds of agreements that go beyond a simple agreement with another country to say, 'Let's trade more together,' which in and of itself isn't objectionable. They attach all these other things that restrict what governments can do. It's because of that that we have stood firm against them. You've got the Greens saying this; you've got unions saying this; you've got civil society groups, environment groups, NGOs all saying this. You've even got the Productivity Commission—hardly well-known ideological allies of the Greens—saying that it's often hard to see what benefit these agreements deliver to the Australian public. What we need to do at the very least, before we sign up to this, is to have an assessment of it so that we're not just being asked to take the claims of the Labor and Liberal parties at face value, so we actually see some evidence that it's going to help not just corporations but also the Australian people. That sounds like a pretty sensible idea. I would have thought the government, if they thought this was such a cracker of an agreement, would say: 'Look at the research. We've undertaken a big Productivity Commission analysis of it. Look at the amazing benefits.' There is none of that. It's just, 'Take it on our word that handing over your rights to big corporations is somehow going to be of benefit to you.' And this all happens in the context, as I've said before, that right now one of the parties to this agreement is in a position of wanting to restart whaling. They have already pulled out of the International Court of Justice, but now they want to be able to say, 'We want to go back to having full commercial whaling.' The Australian government should be holding them to account and saying: 'We've got some minimum standards, and if you want to do a deal with us that's about increasing economic activity, there are certain things we want in return. There are certain minimum standards we expect.' As we've already heard, some of those things have been the subject of these negotiations, like asking some other countries to perhaps try to at least say they will lift their labour standards. We've now got a great opportunity to say to Japan, 'This agreement is so important to you, but it's repugnant to the Australian people that you restart whaling, and we can't in good faith sign up to an agreement that increases economic activity between our two countries if part of your definition of economic activity involves killing whales.' But instead of standing up to them, we are rewarding them. This government is rewarding them and saying: 'It's all right, we're going to turn a blind eye to it. We're quite happy to give you a pat on the back and reward you by handing over a big fat reward.' That is reprehensible to many people. There's absolutely no reason to rush ahead with this, especially in the context of so many people saying there are such big problems with it. We could park this until a better deal is negotiated. We could park this until we get the kinds of protections that Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, has negotiated for her people. Park this until labour rights are better. Park this until we remove the ability of governments to be sued by corporations just because they happen to stand up for their people. That's what the Greens will be pushing for. We expect this from the Liberals, but the Labor Party stands condemned today because it's very crystal clear that, no matter what their policy is, they will vote for big business every time. 11:11 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I'm delighted to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, which will implement the Australian government's commitment to free trade and, in particular, TPP-11, which I happen to believe is of similar importance to the future of Australia. I will refer to the member for Melbourne's remarks later in my comments, but I want to say that I think we have yet again seen another demonstration of how his party's approach to these issues will provide a blueprint to drive Australia to become an isolated economic backwater—a 'greenprint' is probably a better way of describing it. I find it extraordinary that, from the representative of a party that spends much of their time arguing for greater international cooperation and regulation, we have this tirade which reflects the fact that their approach is entirely hypocritical. They want that international cooperation and regulation when it's on issues that match their ideological mindset, but when it actually comes to economic activity and economic growth, suddenly that support for international action completely dissipates. I also have to comment that you could change some of the words of the concerns raised by the member for Melbourne, but at their heart you get the same type of fear and, frankly, paranoia you would expect from a right-wing radio host in the United States railing against the United Nations. It is the same type of scepticism, so often unfounded, that we see infecting the international debate today. The reason I support this legislation and the TPP more broadly is that our free trade agenda is a fundamental part of our economic program to advance Australia. I want to reflect on the fact that this is a multipronged approach. It's an approach that's involved reform to our tax system, which we have implemented through legislation over the last two years. The tax reforms are going to deliver personal income tax cuts of a scale and significance that we haven't seen for a generation. Those tax reforms are driving small- and medium-sized businesses by taking some of the corporate tax burden off their back. It's part of our agenda that involves the investment we're making at record levels in infrastructure—in my state, there is groundbreaking infrastructure like the Western Sydney Airport—or investment in congestion busting or new roads, in public transport and rail. In Victoria, for example, there is that wonderful commitment we made to finally, at long last, after 40 or 50 years, build a railway line to Melbourne Airport. It's part of that plan that involves the responsible financial management that we're providing which is giving people such great confidence in the future for the federal government's budget settings and the Australian economy. It's part of that plan which is supporting small business, which on this side of the House we believe is so vital to jobs creation and the economic future of the country. I refer to the corporate tax cuts that are benefiting small business, but obviously there are a range of other measures, such as the instant write-off of assets purchased under $20,000, which are really making a difference to our small- and medium-sized businesses. Finally, it's part of that plan which is helping deliver in an area which I think is vitally important and making sure that Australia is not just in the middle of the pack but also moving to the top half of the pack in relation to innovation and technology. If you look at where the future of Australia's success will lie, there can be no more important area than making sure that we are part of the next wave of technological advancement, which is so important to the jobs of the future. I want to turn particularly, in the context of the TPP, to why I believe that this multilateral free trade agreement is so important. It comes off the back of this government's extraordinary success in advancing the free trade agenda. I'm proud of the fact that this government has been able to sign FTAs with Korea, Japan, China, Peru and, very recently, Indonesia. It is an important part of the economic mix because of both the global implications and those on our own shores. Globally, I happen to believe that free trade has been one of the most important features of our international efforts to provide economic advancement for citizens around the world. It is no coincidence that, over the last 30 or 40 years, we have seen the most dramatic alleviation of poverty around the world being driven by the opportunities that free trade is opening up. I want to refer to one statistic, and that's the fact that in 1981 almost 50 per cent of the world's population lived below the poverty line—I think it was close to two billion people. Today, with a much larger global population, that number is down to one billion people, or 15 per cent of the world's population. Clearly that remains too high, but the fact is that the opening of markets and all of the flows of investment and technology and opportunities for citizens in countries that have previously struggled have helped drive that poverty alleviation success story. More broadly, I happen to believe that open markets and free trade have a dividend which is not just about economic relationships between countries but, frankly, about peace and security. It's often said that no two democracies have gone to war against each other. That is by and large true, depending on how you define democracy. It is also true that free trade is driving closer relationships between nations who develop a stronger economic integration. But it is also driving a closer integration between the peoples of those nations. That's particularly true as our free trade agreements evolve from just simply being about commodities, agriculture and resources to being about the provision of services in each other's countries. It's that person-to-person contact provided through our intellectual know-how and our service provisions—which is particularly relevant to Australia—which is helping bring countries together. I think that there is a real security dividend that is being driven by countries more closely cooperating on the economic field as much as anything else. For Australia, open markets and free trade are particularly important. That reflects the fact that we are by global standards a country with a vast land mass but a small population. We don't have the huge domestic markets of other nations. The opportunity to export our goods and services, our know-how and our skills means that we are not constrained by a domestic market of 25 million people—the world really is our oyster. But that is only achievable by having access to those markets that are important to us. We are a nation that has for so long depended on our capacity to export. Particularly over the last 40 years as we have recognised that the protectionist policies of the past were constraining those opportunities, we have seen the reforms that have been adopted by governments of both political persuasions ensure that we have opportunities that people 100 years ago, frankly, would never have imagined and only ever dreamed of. It's therefore no surprise that, over the last five years, a quarter of our economic growth—which has been leading the world—has been driven by our trade and our exports. That will grow in importance, and it will grow in importance because of our success in developing these free trade agreements. This agreement is an important part of the mix. In the Trans-Pacific Partnership we have a multilateral agreement which provides us an opportunity in nations that represent a combined GDP of something like $13.8 trillion. It's an agreement that is providing us access to markets that represent 500 million people and it is an agreement providing us access to markets in parts of the world that are closest to us, in our own region, on either side of the Pacific. The genesis of this agreement has been a surprisingly painful one in some ways, in that all of us would have hoped that today we were talking about TPP-12, not TPP-11. But we know that, following the election of Donald Trump, the United States decided to withdraw from the TPP that had been embraced by his predecessor. For me, that was a disappointment. Many people argued that it would be the death-knell for this agreement. But through the leadership of Australia and our friends in Japan and in other nations, we have been able to prove those doubters wrong. The fact we have continued to be able to successfully negotiate this agreement stands as extraordinary testament to the commitment and work of people like our former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and our last trade minister, Steve Ciobo. I pay credit to both of them in particular. But for me there is a broader importance in the fact we have been able to sign this TPP because so much of the world is becoming consumed by nationalist populism, which, in my view, drove the US administration to withdraw its support from the TPP. Never has it been more important for Australia to stand firm against many of those pressures which, in my view, do not stand to Australia's benefit but, more importantly, will separate the world and constrain the prospects of economies around our globe. So by supporting the TPP, we are laying a marker to say that Australia, despite some of those pressures internationally and occasionally on our shores, will continue to be at the vanguard for those arguing for closer cooperation between nations, economically and more broadly. I mentioned the fact that the TPP will open up new opportunities for Australian businesses in markets that represent some 500 million people. What is really significant about this agreement is that it will see 98 per cent of tariffs in those 11 countries removed. Many of the speakers before me have spoken about the benefits of this agreement to sectors of the economy that relate to their electorates. Not surprisingly, there's been a focus on the extraordinary benefits this will deliver to our agriculture sector, which is having a renaissance. But, for me as the member for North Sydney, which is an electorate— Mr Katter HX4 You have got to be joking. What do you know about agriculture? Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 I'm coming to that point. For me as the member for North Sydney, which is not an electorate famous for agricultural produce, what excites me about the TPP are the provisions that are included in the agreement that will support those working in our professional and service sectors. We know that, particularly with the growth of the economic opportunities in the middle-class in our region and across the Pacific, we are going to be ideally placed to provide that intellectual know-how in engineering and architecture, in law, in finances and so on, that are going to be increasingly demanded in those economies. And this agreement, as much as it focuses on the agricultural sector, also provides opportunities through the liberalisation of access to those service markets which is going to be important for so many people working in my electorate and so many businesses in my electorate, including those in the thriving innovation sector in North Sydney. I also want to refer to one other aspect of this agreement which is important. We have signed a multitude of free trade agreements over the last five years. What this agreement delivers is not just benefits in those countries like Japan, where we already have an FTA and there are further benefits that will arise, particularly for the beef industry, for example; it means that for the first time we have effectively an FTA with those two North American markets, Canada and Mexico, that are going to be increasingly important to our future prospects, in my view. I particularly touch on Mexico. Mexico is a G20 economy. My view is that over the next few decades we will see increasing opportunities in Latin America, and this FTA with Mexico, joining as it does Peru and Chile, I think, will be very important in that regard. Overall, it's been estimated by recent studies that, between now and 2030, the TPP stands to increase Australia's economic opportunities by something like $15.6 billion. That is just so important, in my view, to our future prospects. Before I conclude, I want to touch on two matters that have been raised by other speakers in this debate. The first is in relation to the ISDS provisions, which seem to rile and get excited many who come to the free trade debate. I want to stress that these are standard inclusions in FTAs that Australia has been part of for many, many years. I want to equally stress that none of the settlement provisions affect the ability of any national government to regulate in legislation in relation to the public interest or for legitimate public welfare grounds. In fact, I would challenge anyone to point to where the capacity of this parliament to legislate for the good governance of Australia has been affected by the inclusion of those provisions in any free trade agreements we've signed to date. What those provisions do— Mr Giles 243609 Plain packaging. Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 The member opposite refers to plain packaging. A challenge was mounted and it failed, which proves the fact that the protections that are involved in those agreements are working as they should. There's nothing in our legal system that stops someone making a claim. What is important is the outcome of those claims. What is just as important is that, as a country with a strong legal system and a great sense of the importance of eliminating sovereign risk, these provisions provide Australian businesses with so much greater certainty in their relationships and dealings with countries where the legal system does not meet or have the standards that we would expect and impose upon ourselves. Therefore, the net benefit of these agreements, in my view, is overwhelming. The other thing that I want to touch on, and the member for Melbourne referred to this, is in relation to the labour market. I want to make absolutely and abundantly clear that nothing in this agreement weakens or lessens the requirements or the skills testing involved in anyone wanting to come and work in Australia. They will apply at the national level and they will apply at the state level. I commend this bill to the House. 11:26 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The last speaker is absolute proof that, if you don't know what you're talking about, you'd better sit down and shut up. It's one thing to be a fool; it's another thing to get up and prove yourself to be one. I very vividly remember getting out of bed and listening to Paul Keating state that Australia would no longer be a giant sheep run and an elongated coal pit; we would be the freest economy on earth. There would be no impediments to products coming into Australia and that would make us strong economically. I picked up one of my boots, threw it at the wall and said: 'Bloody hell'—excuse my language, Madam Acting Speaker Bird—'Now I've got to look after the workers as well! It's hard enough looking after the farmers and rural people; now I have to look after the workers and the trade unions!' That started the very strong relationship I have with the trade union movement. We can see his handiwork and we can see the handiwork of the Public Service and what they've done to our country. We can see it now clearly. I'll tell you another little story. There was a little kid and his daddy had bought a Holden motor car. It was the 12th Holden motor car to come into Queensland. His daddy walked around the car and he said, 'Australians built this car!' He was almost jumping up and down. 'Look, it's got clearance for the country roads in Australia. We don't have many bitumen roads. Look, it's got room for six, because we have big families in Australia. None of the frilly polished wood you get in the British cars or the big Yank tanks. This is a car for the people. This is an Australian car. Australians built this car.' He was filled with pride for his nation. That bloke was my daddy and I happened to be that little kid watching this performance. Australia can't build a motor car. We built our last motor car. Australia's built its last fridge. And who was responsible for this? The people sitting in this House. They are the people responsible for this. They launched on free trade. If you have free trade—and I heard Paul Keating say this—there are only two possibilities. You go down to the wage structures of your competitor nations, namely the Asian countries—China and India and these countries—or you close down your industry. They are the only two possibilities. Not surprisingly, we've closed down the motor vehicle industry. We've closed down the white-goods industry—the last factory closed in Orange three years ago. I was campaigning in Sydney, which I'll be doing again shortly. The glassworks had gone in the area I was campaigning in. The Bonds underwear factory had gone. There were a huge number of people employed there. The meatworks had gone. That is before the government's free trade, and I won't go into that. The motor vehicle parts industry had gone. The aero-engineers had gone—4,000 jobs gone overseas. That's the result of your free trade policies. I defy anybody in this place to point out to me a single nation on this earth that free trades. Let me be very specific. The last landmark study done by the OECD on agriculture set the value of government to farmers at 41 per cent. That meant farmers throughout the world get 41 per cent of their income from the government. No-one was below 37 per cent. All of them were pretty close to 40 per cent in their support levels for their farmers—41 per cent of their income coming from the government. There were only two exceptions: Australia and New Zealand. Interestingly, the country that was on 36¾ per cent was Canada. You have to say, well, the colonial spot marks are showing here, aren't they, in flashing neon lights—the three British colonies are the only countries on earth! They trained us to be colonial genuflectors and mendicants. They trained us that way. Flip a 20c coin, and on the back of it is the picture of a lady in England. She might be a lovely lady. I'm no republican, but I don't know what an English lady is doing on our coins. It's about time we started growing up. It's about time we started growing up and becoming Australians. Let's have a look at Mr Keating's handiwork. I've spoken about Sydney. I'll speak now about North Queensland, my electorate. The free marketeers deregulated the tobacco industry. Now there is no tobacco industry. We lost over 2,000 jobs at Mareeba. At Myrtleford in Victoria they lost over 3½ thousand jobs. What for? In the dairy industry we lost 1,500 jobs. We lost $1 billion in export earnings as a result of the deregulation of the dairy industry, and my area suffered the loss of 1,500 jobs. We were getting 59c for our dairy product; after deregulation we're getting 41c. Woolworths and Coles wrote a letter of thanks to the government and the Prime Minister of Australia saying, 'Thank you, we just made another $1 billion a year.' The price went up 25 per cent for the consumers and down 30 per cent for the farmers. Fishing—partially free trade; partially our green friends, at it again. We lost 1,200 jobs in fishing. We lost 2,000 jobs in timber. Whilst some will argue, again, that it was the closure of the timber industry by the Greens, it was also the fact that we can't compete against the timber coming in from overseas. The timber industry is gone. We deregulated the wool industry. When it was regulated, by Doug Anthony, that great man, the price for wool throughout the world—we were the world's wool industry—went up 300 per cent. When Keating undermined and then abolished the marketing system, the price dropped to one-third of what it was before. What a coincidence! Well, I did economics at university, and it's not a coincidence. In each case you are selling into an oligopolistic marketplace. There are only two people to sell food to in Australia—Woolworths and Coles—and there are only two people to buy it from. And you preach to us about free trade! Well, go and preach it to Woolworths and Coles and then go and sue your university for the stupid education it gave you. Seventy per cent of the sheep in our wool industry have now gone. We have no wool industry. And yet, when Keating deregulated that industry, it was our biggest export item. It was bigger than coal. We were on $6,000 million a year in the wool industry and coal was on $5.9 billion a year. So, with his policies, Keating single-handedly destroyed the industry. Now, if you dumb politicians are not getting the message, I can tell you that the Australian people are going to start giving it to you, big time! All I can say is: in my homeland, where six or seven per cent of Australia's population live—North Queensland—we're giving it to you right now. You're down to 30 per cent, both of you, and we're up to around 25 per cent. In fact, with One Nation we've got more than 30 per cent, more than you blokes. So it's only a matter of time before the rest of Australia starts to understand what you have done to your nation. Australia has made its last refrigerator. Australia has made its last motor car. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have lost their jobs. You must understand that if you want to buy your biros, your glasses, the leather in your shoes and the cloth in your suit from overseas then you've got to sell something, and this country's got nothing to sell now. You've destroyed it. There are only two things that we sell now: iron ore and coal. And thanks to the education system and the brainlessness of this place, 60 per cent of Australia wants the coal industry closed down. When I say that, I'm not plucking figures out of the air. The coal industry is worth about $100 billion a year to the Australian economy in export earnings. The iron ore industry is worth about $120 billion. The next item down might be gold, beef or aluminium; they're all about $12,000 million. But they're nothing compared to the big two. So it's quite right for me to say this country only has two exports now, and 60 per cent of the nation wants one of those exports closed down completely. My colleague in Queensland, Shane Knuth, a member of parliament for our party, said, 'Mr Beattie told us that if we deregulated the electricity industry there would be competition in the market and the price of electricity would go down.' Well, the price of electricity in Queensland had been $670 for 11 years, similar to Victoria and similar to South Australia. New South Wales hides the figures; we can't get the figures out of New South Wales. But for 11 years the price was $670. For the next 11 years it soared from $670 straight up through the roof to $2,400, and it's not stopping there. Well, surprise, surprise! We were producing it at cost. It was a government owned facility, and we produced the electricity at cost and passed that cost onto the consumer, which was $670. Now the electricity industry of Australia is owned by four people. Forty per cent of it is actually owned by a foreign government! The Chinese government owns a number of companies that own 40 per cent of the Australian electricity industry, and quite frankly they can put the price of electricity up to whatever they feel like putting it up to. It is a deregulated industry with only four people in the marketplace. When I went to university, I was told in an oligopoly there would be no price determination by the interplay of market forces. The price would be set by the oligopolists at whatever price they felt like setting it at. So this oligopoly has to set it at $2,400 instead of $670. Well, surprise, surprise! I mean, jeez! It was going to bring down the cost of food, remember that? 'Once we deregulate and the farmers can no longer get a fair price through their marketing boards'—those greedy farmers!—'then you'll get cheap food.' Well, well, well. I've only got the smallest commodities here that I could get in the time I had. Milk went from 85c to $1.99, so we didn't get a good deal on milk. The farmers got 30 per cent less. They were on 59c and they went down to 41c. They get 30 per cent less. The consumer was paying 85c, now he's paying $1.99. It seems to me that it's gone up by about 300 per cent, or 200 per cent—whatever the hell it is. Potatoes were 99c and now they're $2.44. When I submitted this in 2008 before a government committee, I picked six of the most common items. I couldn't get the figures for bread or meat, because they were too complicated, but I could get them for eggs. The farmer was being paid $1.40 for his eggs. The consumer was paying $4.85 for his eggs. (Time expired) 11:42 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne It is my great pleasure to speak in favour of the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, because they will allow the ratification of the TPP-11, which is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever negotiated. It will eliminate tariffs and allow us to trade in a much more beneficial manner with 11 countries with a combined GDP of $13.8 trillion, and it will give us better access to 500 million customers around the Americas and Asia—in Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Many people have spoken in this chamber already, and I'm very pleased to hear that our colleagues in the opposition have seen fit to promote and support this legislation. The member for Blaxland's comments were noted quite eagerly. Common sense, business sense, history and analysis show that trade delivers jobs. Australia is a trading nation, and this TPP-11 will give a massive boost to people in this country who trade, like our farmers, our manufacturers, our service providers and our small-business men and women. All exporters are big winners. Exports means Australian jobs that involve exporting are a lot more secure and jobs will grow when trade grows. History is full of examples. If you go back through the history of time, in the Mediterranean there were the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. In the Middle Ages there were the Venetians. The Dutch built great empires out of trading. The United Kingdom traded and became very wealthy as a result. Trade delivers income for our nation and it delivers growth in jobs. In 2017, nearly one-quarter of Australia's exports, worth $92 million, went to TPP-11 countries. So this agreement and this ratification process, which is enabled by these two bills and another one before the House, means that we will get better access and a reduction in tariffs. History has shown that trade delivers growth, wealth and jobs for the nation that's trading. There has been extensive modelling demonstrating exactly that. Analysis by Brandeis International Business School, Johns Hopkins University and the Minerals Council and many other business and economic modelling demonstrates that we will see an increase of $15½ billion in net annual benefits to our national income by 2030. There are people in Australia who don't really appreciate what exporting does for our nation. We are a net exporter of all the raw food products that people depend upon around the world, whether it's beef, sugar, dairy or grains—you name it. We export food stuffs practically all around the world. If we weren't exporting, there is no way that the Australian market could cope with the amount of food and fibre that we produce. The coalition has been supporting free trade, as you know. We've had agreements with Japan and Korea. They have been enormously beneficial for people who are exporting. You don't have to be a big individual business that is seen as an exporter. Beef producers and dairy producers in my own electorate of Lyne are exporters. Whether they're exporting through Wingham Beef Exports or meat processing or cheese producing in Wauchope, they're all able to export on more beneficial terms because of this agreement. The words that we've heard coming from members of the Greens and Centre Alliance are not reassuring, because it just demonstrates that they don't understand the benefits of trade. We have sugar millers and sugar producers up and down the east coast of Australia. Improved access to Asian markets and the big new ones, Mexico and Canada, will be exponentially beneficial to people in the sugar industry. My colleagues in Page, Dawson, Capricornia and Flynn—all these people will have business men and women producing sugar that will get better access. I've got winemakers in my electorate who export into the Asian markets. Better access into Canada and Mexico will open up greater export opportunities. As for wool producers, the member for Kennedy mentioned in former times that trade and tariff reductions ruined the wool industry. I think he's been misguided in his analysis. We have had some industries that have become uncompetitive, but I would respectfully advise the member for Kennedy that free trade is not the cause of the demise of some of our industries; it's us becoming inefficient because of green tape, industrial tape, red tape and, as he also mentioned, an increase in electricity. But, for our raw product exporters, free trade is the lifeblood that they depend upon. It's not just raw product producers but also service industries that will benefit from this agreement. It's so important that we ratify it. People that run IT, data management, architecture, engineering and service industries in mining and agriculture will get better access to the emerging nations in Asia and, as I mentioned, Canada and Mexico. Recent reforms in the professional services sector in areas such as Vietnam will allow us better access than other countries that aren't party to this deal. Legal and architectural services in particular are getting a really great deal out of this. For mining equipment services and technologies, which are our bread and butter because we have some of the best mining engineers and mining and engineering service companies, Mexico is changing its regulations. This will give them preferential access into that new expanding market. In this deal, as I mentioned, individual producers of cotton, sugar, beef and dairy are in effect exporting, because it's not all consumed in Australia, but other services in the small and medium-sized enterprises get access on preferential terms to those that aren't part of this wonderful TPP-11. Service industries that could potentially export exist in my area. We have a lot of young IT companies in Taree that are developing services that they could export into this area. As I mentioned, there has been some reluctance from members of the Greens and Centre Alliance and from the member for Kennedy. This agreement has been analysed by four committees. Several of them have reported already, in a favourable sense. The whole world analyses these trade deals because it understands that trade brings wealth. Exporting goods brings wealth into our nation, and it means that those businesses can employ and grow, and that's what Australians want. They want us to have a strong economy because the economy delivers the income, for governments state and federal, that provides all the services that we depend upon and the funds for our pensions. It's so important that we grow our exports, and this agreement will do that. There was some reluctance from the member for Blaxland. He mentioned labour market testing in his speech. I just want to make a few comments about that. I can understand where he's coming from. If you're in an industry in regional Australia, the hassle of trying to get overseas workers to come to your area is considerable. There's nothing in this agreement that means anyone will get a lower wage or have different standards of qualification; all those things have to be met. There is labour market testing. Every company advertises jobs. The first place they go is to the local market. They only turn to overseas workers if they can't get people in regional Australia or people with the skills that they need for their job. In effect, there is always practical labour market testing rather than hamstringing the agreement by putting in things that our trading partners don't see as free and equitable trade terms. It's interesting to see that since we've signed these trade deals with China, Japan and Korea, where this issue that there'd be a flood of overseas workers was brought up, the number of overseas 457 workers has actually reduced. The nature and timing of this agreement are important. If we don't get this ratification process through promptly, we will deliver a competitive advantage to other people who have signed up. We need to get these ratification processes in train. That's why we need to understand that time is important, because I want my dairy producers, my beef producers, my nearby sugar producers and all my service industries to be able to compete on favourable terms. As you know, we are a competing nation with New Zealand for dairy exports. They're party to this agreement as well. We wouldn't want to lag behind our nearby neighbours in competing in the dairy space, for instance. Our beef producers from Wingham are big exporters. Most of it goes to Japan and Korea. The terms we already have in the existing agreements get improved by this. Nothing is worse. I can't see why anyone would have any reluctance, when you really appreciate the massive growth of trade and wealth for the nation, to support this bill. The agreement will come into force 60 days after ratification, and several countries have already ratified it. We need to get on board and get our processes in place. The last comment I'd like to make is about the ISDS provisions, which a lot of the opponents of free trade throw into the mix to justify not going ahead with free trade agreement. The ISDS provisions have existed in all our trade agreements in shapes or forms since we've started having trade agreements, because they protect people from Australia who are trading in those countries as much as people trading in Australia with our regulations. It puts a level playing field in there. The other thing that is thrown up to oppose this is that it will change the way our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and intellectual property rights in Australia will change and that the PBS system of getting subsidised medicines would change. Those provisions won't change. It has been very well negotiated that our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme won't be adversely impacted by trade sanctions under the ISDS. It was a red line that none of our trade agreements would ever cross. So I say full steam ahead. It's an excellent deal for Australia. It's an excellent deal for people who are exporting. It will increase trade and it will increase the wealth of the nation, because trade brings jobs. A strong economy makes the wonderful services that all our people depend upon. Their health services, their education services, their pension and all the other things that governments provide come from taxes that we raise from our economy. We need a strong economy. We've been delivering massive jobs growth, in part because of these earlier trade deals. I commend this bill to the House. 11:57 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie I rise to support this bill, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, and related bill and, in particular, to speak about the amendment that the member for Blaxland has moved, which I see as key to Australia having a transparent and open trade negotiation system as we move forward. Listening to the member for Lyne, I have to say that I admire his optimism and his hope for the benefits that this agreement may bring. But one of the key issues that Labor has with the way the agreement has been negotiated is that there has been no independent modelling. There has been no Australian-funded independent modelling to look not just at the economic benefits but also at the social benefits—and I want to talk about some of those aspects. It isn't just this side of the House that believes independent modelling is important. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I've had the privilege of working through two inquiries, one into the first TPP and the second into TPP-11. I think all members were very clear in our report that independent modelling is a favourable thing to have in general on a trade agreement. You can read the committee's reports and the committee's comments on that. For this agreement, in particular, it should have been vital. I'm not the only one calling for it. Independent economic modelling has been called for by some of the largest business and industry groups in this country, including the Australian Chamber of Commercial and Industry, the Minerals Council of Australia. The Harper review and the Productivity Commission have called for independent modelling, as have the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment and Growth. So there is a general belief that, before we proceed, it is much, much better to have independent modelling. So I welcome Labor's longstanding commitment that if we take office we will introduce this. What's concerning is that the modelling that has been done might burst the balloon a bit of some of the people who think that this is going to suddenly, in the next few months, bring about massive change. The Victorian government did undertake modelling. Any modelling that has been done has shown very modest improvements in GDP over a decade—so not modest improvements next year, but modest improvements over a decade. In fact, it's clear that organisations like the Minerals Council, the Business Council, the Australian Food and Grocery Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the National Farmers' Federation, the Winemakers' Federation and others weren't satisfied with the modelling that had been done. They commissioned their own. Recently, Peter Petri and Michael Plummer, two US economists, have produced a report, which I think we should be honest with the community about in terms of the benefits it says will flow through. The new modelling shows that the Australian agriculture sector stands to make zero gains under TPP-11. The report also acknowledges that durable manufacturing will shrink in Australia by two per cent under TPP-11 and that any increase in exports will be completely offset by increased imports. So, yes, there will be some winners, but we need to be really up-front about who the losers will be. The report commissioned by the industry groups showed that Australia's grains exports would not change at all under TPP-11 and all other agriculture could actually decline. They also say there will be less than 0.5 per cent added to GDP in a decade's time. To put that in context, that is 1½ days of Australia's income. That is the benefit we could expect to see. The point really is that we need to have independent modelling that this parliament has absolute confidence in as we progress negotiations and discussions around trade agreements. I absolutely support our position that that becomes mandatory. The other issues raised in this place around this agreement really go to the process around which the agreements are negotiated. As a member of JSCOT, I'm surprised that the committee that's meant to pull apart a treaty and look at it doesn't get to do that until after Australia has signed it—before it's ratified but after it's signed. That process really limits the ability of a committee. A committee that works hard to find agreement on these things is really not going to make a lot of difference, given the current process that we have. So I absolutely support that there is a need to subject treaties to proper scrutiny by this parliament. We also need to include businesses and unions and all the other community stakeholders much more effectively in the negotiation process. Right now they are essentially locked out. They get told things after the fact. This is not how it is done in the EU or the United States. We do need to move to a better process. I will talk about that in more detail. We are also clear that we won't accept ISDS in treaties that we negotiate when we ultimately come to government. I think that is a really important thing. While members on the other side seem to dismiss that, I have deep concerns about ISDS. If I can talk about the process of negotiating a trade agreement, one of the things that operate really effectively in other parts of the world—remember that we are negotiating with places all around the globe and our process needs to stand up to the same scrutiny that theirs does—and what gives people confidence in those places that an agreement that a government signs is going to be in the best interests of that country is that they have a program similar to what we're calling an accredited trade advisers program. This means that you will need to agree to keep certain things confidential, but it gives you an insight into the process of negotiation as it happens. This seems eminently sensible to me. An accredited trade advisers program would allow all sorts of industry groups with different interests, the union movement and civil society groups to give real-time feedback on the agreement. It is too late for these groups to raise really significant issues after an agreement has been signed. The accredited trade advisers program that we are proposing is a very positive step forward. In terms of strengthening the role of parliament in trade negotiations, using the existing Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and requiring a government to put to that committee a statement of objectives for negotiations and for there to be consideration of that and feedback to government, we're really giving transparency to something that has not just an impact next year but an impact for decades down the way. It would also involve JSCOT, the joint standing committee, having a briefing with departmental officials at the end of every round of negotiations. This is a really sensible check and balance on a document that this parliament would be asked to endorse. As I say, this is something that is done in other parts of the world. Accredited advisers, for the first stage, need to be security cleared. A whole lot of things would have to go around that, but I think we can trust business groups and I think we can trust unions and civil society to respect those things, knowing that they are having genuine input into what a government will ultimately decide and ask this parliament to support. It would need to represent the full span of community interests, including manufacturing, agriculture, digital trade, intellectual property, services and small business. Small businesses do not seem to get the benefits of these agreements that big businesses sometimes receive. They really need to be involved. People involved in the labour market, environmental groups, consumer and public health organisations, as well as state and local governments, should all have the opportunity for input. I think they are very sensible reforms. While they were only announced earlier this week, they've already been endorsed by the Export Council of Australia, the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Some of the other points that have come up in the course of the joint standing committee inquiry relate to issues around labour market testing. I remain concerned about the consequences. We will need to be vigilant in the implementation of the agreement. TPP-11 waives labour market testing for what are called 'contractual service suppliers' for six of the countries in the partnership. That means workers from Canada, Peru, Brunei, Mexico, Malaysia and Vietnam will be able to be offered jobs without Australians being offered them first. That is a lot to ask a community to accept, and there needs to be absolute vigilance in the way that is implemented. At a time when many in Australia are concerned about underemployment and low wages, we need to look at the impacts of that. I should point out that the independent modelling done by the industry groups looked at the impact of the TPP-11 on wages. The report is only brief on wages, but it does indicate that wages would, after a decade, grow by only a minuscule amount of 0.46 per cent per year, or about $10 a year in 2030. That is another area we need to follow closely. The other issue that has set alarms off for me is around skills testing. I'm really grateful to the ETU and the ACTU for the work that they did with the committee on identifying concerns about skills testing. We say people can only come to the country when their skills are considered to be on a par with those in Australia. Unfortunately, getting the measure of that could potentially have life-threatening consequences when it comes to industries like construction and, in particular, the electrical-contracting sector. Australia has exceptionally high standards for electricians' work. You don't get to become an electrician only because you know how to fit a light bulb in a domestic environment. You are required to cover a whole range of electrical-contracting skills. I can see the member for Hinkler nodding on other side. Mr Pitt interjecting— Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Indeed, it is a very high skill set, and that's because we take seriously the lives of the electricians doing the work and the lives of people who will be working in the buildings or on the sites where that work's been done. I do note the concerns that have been raised about less-qualified and inexperienced tradespeople working in Australia because they may not be subject to our rigorous testing processes. Again, these are issues that we take very seriously. Finally, another area that Labor will address when we ultimately take government is the area of ISDS. It does get dismissed by people who say, 'This doesn't really count for us; it's not really a big deal,' but let's be very clear about what ISDS is. ISDS allows a foreign company to sue the Australian government where there is an agreement in place that this is allowed to happen. That court case then gets heard not in an Australian court and not in a court of that other country but in a completely separate judicial process. Having heard the unpacking of that process, I have to say it raises huge concerns about the outcomes. Even if a finding goes in favour of the country that has been sued and it's not found to have been a breach, there are still enormous legal costs that are involved for a country that has to go through an ISDS challenge. It has always been the view of Labor members of the committee and it will now be Labor policy that we will not allow agreements to be negotiated with ISDS clauses. I note that New Zealand, with Jacinda Ardern as prime minister, has written a side letter with the countries to remove ISDS from the agreement. We would certainly be seeking to do that. As we look at this legislation, my advice to this parliament is to be open and transparent with communities about what is really involved. We need to be brutally honest about the benefits and we need to be brutally honest about the downsides. 12:12 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the related bill before the House. This government has already negotiated, signed and delivered a number of free trade agreements right around the world with Japan, China, South Korea and Peru. We continue to advance an aggressive trade agenda because on this side of the House we know that trade means jobs. More trade means more jobs. We are a trading nation. In my contribution today, I want to make this more personal. In particular, I want to talk about some individuals in my electorate: a gentleman by the name of Enio Troiani—better known as ET—David Pickering, Giuseppe Barazza, Rob Zahn, my good friend Leone Aslett and my very good mate Scott Collins. I can see you're wondering where I'm going here, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, so let me make the link for you. As part of the TPP-11 agreement, we have negotiated a very good outcome for the sugar industry, which for me is personal. This is something that I've been involved in for decades. In fact, my family are still harvesting contractors in the Bundaberg region. I have been involved in the sugar industry for as long as I can remember, literally. I was an apprentice and then a tradesperson inside the sugar industry. I've worked as an engineer and as a manager. I've had all sorts of different positions over many, many years. However, I now find myself in the federal parliament talking about a deal which will be of benefit to them. Enio Troiani and David Pickering, who was actually a couple years older than me when I started my apprenticeship, were tradesmen. Leone Aslett started her career as a clerk. Giuseppe Barazza was a chemical engineer. Robbie Zahn was a fitter and turner who came through the system, as was Scott Collins. These were local people who took up the opportunity for an apprenticeship, a traineeship or similar positions with Bundaberg Sugar. Enio Troiani is now the general manager for Bundaberg Walkers foundry. David Pickering is the general manager for Bundaberg Sugar. Leone Aslett is the chief financial officer for Bundaberg Sugar. Giuseppe Barazza runs the Bundaberg refinery. Robbie Zahn is the mill manager for Bingera mill, and my good mate Scott Collins is a mill supervisor at that same mill. These were local people who took an opportunity for training and worked their way through the system inside what, at the time, was a large company, with roughly 1,600 employees across 15 different business units operating around the state of Queensland. Mr Katter interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 The link is this: these individuals have their jobs because of trade. The sugar industry is overwhelmingly an export industry. Without those exports, these people would not have been able to get a position, pay for their house, pay for their children's schooling and work their way to some of the top levels of this individual company, Bundaberg Sugar, which is providing jobs in my electorate. It happens because of trade. The TPP-11 will be of great benefit for the sugar industry. As we continue, if we look at seafood, Urangan Fisheries' Nicky Schulz is a long-time fisherman in Hervey Bay. He was born there, he lives there, works there and now owns Urangan Fisheries, which is famous for things like Hervey Bay scallops, which I'm sure you've heard of, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta. Australian Ocean King Prawn Company is owned by the Murphy family, who have gone on to develop a slipway in Hervey Bay, doing maintenance for the different ships and boats which progress around the bay area. All of them are involved in exports, and seafood will get a great advantage from this. But if we do not continue in these opportunities for trade, to do these agreements, to ensure into the future that they are ratcheted down, tied up and locked up, we may find ourselves in the position that others are in. If we look at what is happening between the US and China right now, they are in a trade war, let's be frank. Australia is protected by agreements like this. We need to build those agreements because, at a personal level, it is a what provides jobs for our people, particularly in the regional centres. Locally, we've had expansions with an organisation called Pacific Tug. Pacific Tug have announced that they will open an operational slipway— Mr Katter interjecting— Mr PITT 148150 and a 1,200 tonne ship lift in the town of Bundaberg at the Burnett Heads port. They will have hundreds of employees doing maintenance, using local providers, local skilled tradespeople and individuals from the service industry. They will be able to service the Pacific fleet from this location. Trade allows all of these things to occur. Trade delivers one in five jobs in this country. The stronger our trade position, the better we are as an economy, the better we are as a nation and the more opportunities we have for our people. What is the alternative? The alternative is the one put up by the Leader of the Opposition. He wants to put the economy into reverse; he wants to jump in the car and go backwards. In fact, he has stated that he doesn't think the TPP should move forward. He wanted to run away and put up the white flag. He wanted to surrender. We did not take that view. We dropped down a gear, we put the car into four-wheel drive and we charged on, and we have delivered the TPP-11. I acknowledge that the US are not included, but the door is always open. Mr Katter interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Kennedy. The member for Hinkler has the call. Mr PITT 148150 I would say to those in the US who may well be listening: the door is not closed for you. You can obviously come in and join the TPP-11, and I would encourage you to do that. I'm sure Mr Trump is listening very closely to our presentations here in the House today. As I've said, a quarter of our economic growth over the last five years has relied on trade. The last lot of GDP figures are well over three per cent growth. That is an outstanding result for this country. It is the best we have had in many years, and trade is one of the main drivers for that success. We have delivered over a million jobs in the last five years, as we said we would. Trade is a huge component of those opportunities. In my electorate, you only have to look at the macadamia industry. Bundaberg is now the largest producer of macadamia nuts in this country. That was not the case 10 years ago. That market has to go somewhere, and that product has to be sold somewhere. We must recognise that we are a nation of just 25 million people. For those of us who travel overseas—I know many in the chamber take those opportunities—in China, we wouldn't even be a tier 1 city, or we would only just be a tier 1 city. We effectively have the equivalent of the population of Shanghai, or a little bit more. We cannot sustain all of our operations in this country if we simply close our doors and rely on those opportunities for our local people. We are a trading nation. We must continue to trade. Regardless of whether you look at agriculture, resources or the coal industry out of Queensland, it is an enormous driver of regional economies and regional jobs. Can I note that the Queensland Labor government absolutely take those opportunities through royalties. I don't hear any noise from people like Annastacia Palaszczuk about putting away the royalties from coal because it's just such a terrible word for some of those individuals in the Queensland state government. In my view we should continue to open mines, in particular in the Galilee Basin. The Galilee Basin has the potential to deliver tens of thousands of jobs over the lifetime of the mine. Its potential is enormous. Right now Australia is exporting record levels of its resources. We should continue to use those resources for our benefit. We can continue to sell to the world, but we should use the resources for our benefit, for our people, and for Australians, in particular those who are looking for apprenticeships and traineeships. I know the now cabinet minister, in a former role, had put forward a plan by this government to deliver 300,000 apprenticeships and traineeships around the country. As a very fortunate recipient of an apprenticeship, I can tell you that it gives you that opportunity to learn and develop skills which you otherwise would not have had. Those are skills that I still use now, even though I find myself here. The process of delivery, the process of planning out a job, of identifying where you need to finish from where you need to start and the steps in between, is an incredibly important part of life, and it can be taught as a skill to an apprentice or a trainee. You don't have to go to university to be successful in this country. The TPP-11 will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs for 11 countries with a combined GDP of more than $13.8 trillion. That $13.8 trillion is an enormous amount of GDP, and we want a part of it. We have the opportunity now, with the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, which we have never had before. One of the points I would like to make is to thank the team in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I think all members of this House should take that opportunity. There are thousands of public servants who work incredibly hard to deliver these deals, working very long hours. As a former assistant trade minister, I can tell you that you find yourself in some very interesting parts of the world, but, no matter what time of the day or night you open your door to go to work, there is a member of the department standing outside. I thank them for their commitment to our country and for the work that they do. The lead negotiators for these trade deals do it very, very tough. They work incredibly long hours in difficult circumstances because—once again, let's be frank. What do we want? We want to pinch someone else's domestic market. What do they want? They want to pinch ours. If that is the starting point for a trade negotiation, we can imagine how this goes. We have been successful in a balanced outcome which will be of enormous benefit to this country. We continue to fight for our local sugar producers, our seafood producers, our macadamia nuts, our agriculture, our resources and our services. In my electorate of Hinkler one of the other very important parts of the economy is tourism. For tourism there is no better place in Australia to go—I know I'm biased—than to travel to Hervey Bay or Bundaberg or Childers or Woodgate and see the wealth of opportunities for tourists in that region. It is worth tens of millions of dollars to our region and thousands of jobs. When we get expansion in infrastructure around motels, around opportunities to see the reef, to see the whales, to see the turtles at Mon Repos—I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, that you will take the opportunity when you can. The loggerhead turtles nest in very few places around the world, but Mon Repos beach at Bundaberg is one of them. It attracts tourists internationally. It is a world-renowned, environmentally friendly facility, well worth seeing. I will continue to advocate for anyone who wants to come to our region, spend a few dollars, stay a few days and see all of these opportunities. Trade agreements provide those opportunities, particularly through services arrangements, right across the board. If we look at our arrangements with China, we now have open-skies arrangements into Adelaide, for example. Adelaide is seeing a real benefit from the ability of tourists to travel directly there. It's not just the capital cities. The regional areas within a two- to three-hour drive get that opportunity as well. These international tourists want to see our regions, and everywhere in Australia is a unique opportunity. Anywhere you go in this great country is a fabulous place to visit. I know that those in South Australia are taking advantage of that. They tell me there's some great wine down there. We are actually exporting enormous amounts of that now, particularly into China. I know they have a great advantage for our sugar products exported into South Korea. The last time I looked at those numbers we held around 75 per cent of the entire market into South Korea. We have better arrangements now into Japan. If we look our sugar industry and we look at the world market price right now, it is down to 11.18c a pound in US dollars on the New York Stock Exchange. In recent years that has been above 20. Unfortunately, when I was in the industry it got as low as 4½. However, it is a fluctuating, cyclical industry. Every time that we can sign one of these trade agreements, which gives an advantage to our people in terms of the tariffs and the forward-facing price, that is good for that industry and that is good for the people that they employ. When we look at the way that this is tied together from agricultural producers and from individuals all the way through the sugar-milling process to the refinery and to the raw export markets, that is jobs. It is jobs at ports, jobs in mills and jobs on farms. It is future training and a future opportunity for our people. The TPP-11 is an incredibly important trade deal and, as I said earlier, the door is still open for the US. The door is still open for the United States, if it wants to join in on the TPP-11. We are negotiating trade agreements right around the world—for example, with the EU. We're now talking to the United Kingdom in terms of their Brexit opportunities. I have lots of people in my electorate who recall, with great fondness, the arrangements in the early seventies with Britain, particularly for our wheat exporters, our sugar exporters and our dairy exporters. I'm sure we're looking to provide those opportunities again. If we are out there delivering better trade opportunities, then we are out there delivering better job and training opportunities and we are improving the future of this country. I say to those opposite: congratulations on supporting the TPP-11. I know this is a longstanding practice, in terms of trade and foreign affairs, but it's important, as a nation, that we continue to grow our trade opportunities, because more trade means more jobs and more strength to our arm. 12:27 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman Labor supports the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and the amendment. The reasons have been ably expressed by my colleagues in this House this morning. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, for the work that he has done in the consideration and consultation involved in dealing with this very important issue. Serious issues still exist with the CPTPP. Labor have committed to dealing with these issues should we have the privilege of forming government. Trade agreements these days have become far more complicated than early agreements that focused on tariffs as the main trade barriers. They are now complex, deeply detailed documents that have become more about the rules of trade and have created more barriers, in some ways, to trade than merely breaking down tariffs. Whilst I recognise the need to engage with global markets on trade and that international trade is vital to our future and economy, there needs to be very deep vigilance in a transparent and accountable way about what these trade agreements actually contain. They need to be accountable to those in this country who stand to be affected, either positively or negatively. We all seem to understand that there are winners and losers in these processes. They need to be accountable in a way that allows all stakeholders—businesses, farmers, workers and their unions, public service providers and civil society—to be consulted. Trade agreements should have, at the heart of their intent, not only the intent to protect profits and business interests but the intent to raise living standards for all people of all the nations involved in these agreements. I note that the CPTPP has a labour clause. This has been hailed as a great advancement in these agreements. Whilst, yes, it is good to have a labour chapter, the labour chapter that is in this agreement has very few teeth. It does not refer to any of the ILO conventions. There are very few enforcements for violations of any of these clauses and these things that are necessary, supposedly, to support and protect workers' rights. For example, there are no enforceable penalties for violations of enforced labour or child labour; it merely recognises the goal of eliminating forced labour. We can use these agreements to improve the lot of everybody involved, of all citizens, if we are prepared to negotiate openly and transparently and give such things as labour chapters real teeth. Closer to home, it should mean that these agreements should show that they do not encroach on the aspects of society that are dearly held and valued by our communities. Many trade agreements have come to do just that. They encroach on parts of the economy that are vital to our wellbeing. They have come to encroach on the realm of governments in making their own laws and decisions in the best interests of their citizens, giving special rights to corporations through ISDS clauses. They encroach on the rights to access and deliver state-run essential services like health care, education and water. They encroach on the delicate and important management by governments of national immigration policy. They encroach on the ability of governments to properly and carefully regulate their labour markets and the skill standards of our professional workers. They encroach on our sovereign rights to determine how we protect our environment. They encroach on the need to determine Indigenous rights in things like land rights for First Nations peoples. These things should not happen. Our concerns with the CPTPP go to many of these issues. I'm pleased that a Labor government will address the harmful aspects of trade negotiations by introducing new rules for trade negotiations generally and by dealing with some of the more harmful aspects of this particular agreement. Let's take the ISDS as an example. This agreement includes an investor-state dispute settlement provision which gives foreign corporations the ability to sue the Australian government. These provisions have been wound back from those in the original TPP, but they are still there. Australia has been sued under one of these agreements, the previous trade agreement, over our plain packaging on cigarettes. In very poor countries like El Salvador, those governments have been sued by corporations over mining interests. These are countries that can ill-afford the long, tedious and expensive court cases that unfold—court cases that are held in courts that are not necessarily run by the rule of law. Labor and the broader labour movement will oppose the inclusion of ISDS provisions in trade agreements. A Shorten Labor government will not sign agreements that include these provisions, and will negotiate to remove these provisions from agreements where they have been included by the Liberals. We know we can do this because a precedent has been set by the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Labour market testing is another area of contention and concern with this agreement. It waives labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six countries: Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. Labour market testing is incredibly important. It means that local workers can have access to jobs before overseas workers, who, we know, are unfortunately relentlessly treated with fewer rights and have concerning conditions of employment. Their local conditions are undermined because they are exploited. As we have heard so often in the media, they're exploited right around this country through being underpaid and through what can often be termed 'modern slavery' conditions. A Shorten Labor government will not sign trade agreements that waive labour market testing for contractual service providers. We are committed to negotiating to reinstate labour market testing for contractual service providers with all countries where the Liberal government has agreed to waive it. Independent economic modelling is another issue that is incredibly important. I note the member for Macquarie focused on this in her contribution. Despite calls from business and recommendations from the Productivity Commission and various parliamentary inquiries, like the Harper review, the government has refused to commission independent economic modelling for this agreement. We know broadly, from the Productivity Commission, that these sorts of agreements at best have very modest or small benefits to Australia and at worst have negative effects. A Shorten Labor government will commit to conducting independent economic modelling for all trade agreements before they are signed. Some members of the Labor movement have raised serious concerns that the agreement will waive the skills assessment requirement of Australia's immigration system. A Shorten Labor government will enforce mandatory skills-testing requirements in this agreement and not waive them in future agreements it signs. Mandatory skills testing is important to maintain the standards and safety of Australian citizens, and trade agreements should not trade things like this away. Lastly, on the issue of accountability and transparency, it is important that all stakeholders know what is being negotiated. As I said earlier, we have a right to know where we fit into a category. Are we a winner or are we a loser? Is there any way that we can consult and improve the outcome for many of us in this country when it comes to negotiating these agreements? I'm pleased to say that a Labor government will legislate to create an accredited trade advisers program where industry, union and civil society groups can provide real-time feedback on the draft trade agreements during negotiations, and a Labor government will strengthen the role of the parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, or JSCOT, by providing the government's statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback and giving JSCOT briefings at the end of each round of negotiations. I am pleased that a Labor government will change the rules of trade negotiation. These new rules will actually mean, I believe, that Australia will have better benefits from international global agreements, which, as I said, should benefit everybody and should raise the living standards of all concerned. 12:36 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It's often accepted as a statement of fact in the world of politics and the media that trade is undeniably a good thing. People will say that it's very important that we embrace freer and more open trade, and they'll tell us how important it is. But it's one thing to say something's important and another thing to actually prove it, because people feel the impact of this debate in different ways in the community. People aren't necessarily accepting that freer trade of itself is just something that is undeniably good for them. They experience it in different ways and have for many years. At any rate, in some parts of the country—and having grown up in a working-class family, especially as the son of a metalworker—the whole issue of freer trade has been one that's been pretty contentious. People have had to, over the course of the eighties and the seventies, I think it's fair to say, go through the booms and busts. We used to have situations where there were periods of time where people were out of work for long stints, digging into their own family savings and probably only having one breadwinner in the place bringing in the income. Then they saw the economy take off again, got the jobs and travelled far to conduct that or do those jobs themselves, only to wait for another 18 months, two years or maybe three years before things went back to the usual cycle of a bust. We've seen that happen. As a teenager, I saw what Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating were doing in trying to change the way that we undertook trade in this country. They said that trade liberalisation and opening up the country would be important, and it is. It is important in a market where we've now got 25 million people being able to find more people interested in our goods and services, which is an economic priority. Being able to make that happen is important. But, having said that, as people were going through the process of opening up our economy to provide for freer trade, they were understandably concerned, and you certainly saw that there were people—again, I'll come back to the case of metalworkers—who would wonder whether they were competing against others who were doing the same job for less. That is a big concern to people. They wonder: 'Is this sustainable? Will I lose pay because I'm competing against someone who's working at half my rate and doing the same sort of work that may not necessarily'—in their minds—'be the same quality?' These are the types of arguments you have to confront when it comes to the whole issue of trade. But you'd also see, as that process opened up, Australians here working through their companies with other companies in other parts of the world on joint ventures. People would be performing jobs or parts of work where they would contribute their part in a joint venture to team up with another company operating in our region. You'd see them being able to do that work, and you'd see the economic value reach out across borders. We've seen export markets open up where local firms employing local people have been able to supply products internationally, and that has seen those firms sustain those jobs a lot longer. I guess the question is: when you look back at over 25 years of constant economic growth in this country, has it been a fluke? No. There were a lot of changes that had to be made, and one of the ingredients of that was trade. It is no accident that we've had the stretch of economic success that we've had. Some big decisions have had to be made, decisions that people have questioned and wondered about: 'Are they worth it?' But the reality is that those decisions have seen things change, and for the better. Trade reform has been a big part of that. While I myself am pro-trade, I'm not necessarily pro the way that these agreements have been done in the past and even up to the point of this agreement. The types of ideas that the shadow trade minister spelled out to this chamber earlier today, captured in the second reading amendment that he's put forward, are really important. As I said, you might think it's important that we, as a nation of 25 million people, have a way to trade our products on the international stage in a much freer way. But the way that those things are underpinned through these agreements and the way those agreements get reached—that system has got to change, and we've been saying that a number of things need to happen. A lot of these agreements land in this place, and there is very little chance to change the outcome. The negotiation has gone on for a considerable period of time. No-one knows the framework in which the negotiations took place. No-one knows what priorities were placed within the negotiations. No-one knows what we said we would stand by no matter what and what we would be prepared to negotiate on. And, by the time the agreement gets to this chamber, it is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition with little room to move. In this agreement that we're talking about today, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, there are a number of things that people would have deep concerns about—for example, the ability for firms from Canada to use investor-state dispute settlement provisions to extract an outcome against Australian firms. That would concern a lot of people. A lot of people on the Labor side of politics are completely opposed to ISDS provisions and have been saying that these should be weeded out. In this agreement, those provisions have been opened up to Canada. The other element of this that we've got deep concerns about is in relation to labour market testing. The ability of six countries now to send in workers to— Mr Katter interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 You're big on freedom of speech except when someone else has a different view. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Chifley has the call. Mr HUSIC 91219 Thank you. The issue of labour market testing and the ability of six countries now to bring in people instead of testing whether or not a local worker is able to perform that job is of deep concern. Mr Katter interjecting— Mr HUSIC 91219 And again, Member for Kennedy, people constantly have to listen to you in silence; I don't need you yammering while I'm making a contribution, thank you. Mr Katter interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order! The member for Kennedy will take his seat. The member for Chifley has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr HUSIC 91219 Thank you. So the point that I make is this: in other parts of the world, countries do stand up for local workers being able to perform that work. In November, for example, during my visit to Singapore, I learned that the Singaporeans, under the free trade agreements that they've struck, have systems set up to ensure that, before local workers are overlooked, they're given the chance to (1) know the job is there, (2) apply and (3) be trained up to meet the need of international firms operating in Singapore. This is not something that is radical or different to what is happening on other parts of the planet. It should be something that happens here. This government has been quite prepared to wave away labour market standards as they pertain to the protection of local Australian jobs. We've said that this is something of deep concern to us. We have been saying that we need to ensure that this changes into the future. These are the types of things, these elements in the agreement, that we have said need to be changed. We've said that the parliament and the public should be updated after each round of negotiations on trade agreements—which is what we're arguing in our second reading amendment—and that economic modelling should be commissioned for all new free trade agreements. This is important. As I said earlier in my contribution, it is one thing to say that trade is good, but it is another thing to actually prove it. We have been saying for ages that international economic modelling should underpin these agreements. It hasn't been done for this one. As the shadow trade minister indicated in his contribution earlier today, there have only been a few places where this agreement has been tested, including through the Victorian state government, which has tested the agreement and said that on balance no sector should lose out and has been able to provide some evidence on this agreement. But it shouldn't be left to individual state governments to do this. This should be part and parcel of any trade agreement that is being put forward to the nation's parliament and, importantly, to the Australian community, so that their confidence in trade can be increased rather than there being constant questions about whether free trade is fair trade. So economic modelling as a condition is very important. We do need to see the types of things that the shadow minister outlined—for example, establishing a system of accredited trade advisers by drawing from business, unions and the civil sector, who can provide much more real-time feedback on how trade agreements are looking to shape up or what they're likely to have an impact on and be able to deal with those things early on; having an independent national interest assessment conducted with every new trade agreement; and strengthening the role of parliament in trade negotiations themselves. Instead of having our parliamentary committees look at these things after the agreement is done and dusted and we've gotten to a point where we're pretty much told to take it or leave and we don't have scope to influence the agreement, having them involved a lot sooner is important. For too long we've just accepted that that's the way things should be done. Yet parliaments in other parts of the world have been prepared to take a much bigger stand on being told through the course of negotiations what's being done and what's being pressed for in terms of the national interest and then testing how the national interest has been served through trade agreements. This is the stuff that has to change. The opposition has put forward, I would say, one of the most far-reaching reforms to the way we do trade agreements—because, again, it is one thing to say that trade is good; it is another thing to prove the benefits. We do need to see that change; otherwise, we will see more and more, in the public debate and the political debate, the fringe groups get up and, as is often the case, work off fear and anxiety to get people worked up about the way things are going, in order to build up their political capital, to build up their political strength and to gain a voice on the floor of parliament—because they've managed to spook the heck out of people by making claims about trade that don't necessarily stack up to the evidence. The only way to deal with that is to have the proof, to be able to take people along with us and be able to say that it's in the national interest and demonstrate that it actually is in the national interest, instead of seeing people being ripped off or believe that they are being ripped off. I would also make the point that trade has been a very difficult issue for our side of politics—and it has been for many years. When we on our side of politics were going through these reforms in the eighties and nineties, we never took the position that said, 'We can't do this because our base doesn't support it.' We argued the case that it was in the national interest and it was the job of parliamentarians to go out and argue the case and win people over. The contrast with the other side of politics is interesting. Their example of this is on the issue of climate change, where they've argued, on issues relating to that, that they can't possibly see certain things done because their base wouldn't cop it. If you want any further proof of that, look at the member for Warringah's book, Battlelines, in which he goes on a regional tour and hears the comments of Liberal Party members about the issue of climate change. The weather vane on climate change himself changes his position numerous times, but in the end he lands on a position not because it's in the national interest but because it's in the political interest. The contrast couldn't be clearer. We certainly were aware of how sensitive this issue was, especially for working-class families, but we needed to be able to put in place measurers to help people on the way through. We recognise that, as a result of the changes, we've seen over a quarter of a century of economic growth come through, in part because we changed the way we did business with the rest of the world. This stuff is important in the longer term. You can either have the type of consolation that the member for Kennedy will reach out for that will give you the short-term comfort that doesn't do the longer term interests of the country any good, or you can be fair dinkum about saying: 'Yes, this change is going to have an impact on the way through. People do need to be looked after. We can do things better and we can get a better outcome as a result of it.' As I said, the fringe groups that we see in this place that will try and spook the heck out of people don't sustain us in the longer term and should not be the ones we should necessarily lean or gravitate towards. Ultimately, we should be realistic about what people's concerns are, deal with them and make sure the country is better off in the long term as a result. 12:51 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland I rise to speak on what is known as the enabling legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, and the shadow minister's second reading amendment. Previous speakers have spoken about why Labor has agreed to support this bill. I'm not going to go to that; I'm going to go to my deep concerns about elements that are within the free trade agreement and why it's so important that Labor have committed to fix those things when we're in government. This agreement yet again demonstrates that this government is intent on giving away the sovereignty of this nation. It is intent on trading away things that matter to the vast majority of Australian people for gains for certain sectors. I will first go to investor-state dispute settlement clauses. This agreement extends to Canadian companies the right to sue the Australian government if the Australian government makes policy decisions that impact on their profitability, a right that Australian corporations do not have. The extension of ISDS must be opposed. It restricts the sovereignty and the ability of this place and the Senate to legislate for the welfare of all Australians. We only have to see what happened when Philip Morris challenged Labor's plain-packaging tobacco laws through the Hong Kong free trade agreement. ISDS is a cancer. It's a cancer that attacks the sovereignty of democratic governments. It's a cancer that other governments around the world are standing up to. I welcome and applaud the move by Jacinda Ardern's Labour government in New Zealand to work to remove the ISDS clauses in free trade agreements. I welcome the EU's very strong stance on it and the fact that the EU has ruled that any trade agreement that has ISDS has to go through ratification of all EU parliaments because it is such a significant attack on the sovereignty of those parliaments. So I am deeply concerned that this government seems intent on giving away ISDS and empowering foreign corporations to have power over this parliament, because that's what ISDS does. My other grave concern around the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is around labour market testing. The labour mobility clauses really diminish the ability of this parliament to regulate immigration policy. This is another trade agreement where this government is trading away immigration policy in return for gains for particular sectors. Mr Katter interjecting— Mr CONROY 249127 I'm hearing interjections from the honourable member for Kennedy. He would be slightly more credible if he didn't continue to offer confidence to the government that gives away those rights. If the member for Kennedy were really serious about getting more progressive trade policy, he might think about why he continues to back this government. That demonstrates the inconsistency of the member for Kennedy on this matter. Only the impotent are pure. Mr Katter HX4 Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Sorry, member for Shortland. Member for Kennedy? Mr Katter HX4 I have been misrepresented, Mr Deputy Speaker. He has said that I continue to support this government with these policies, but it was his government that introduced all of the free trade policies— The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Order. I thank the honourable member for Kennedy, but the member for Shortland has the call. Mr CONROY 249127 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I talked about the member for Kennedy continuing to offer confidence to a government that has sold out this nation by including labour market testing exemptions in this trade agreement and that's a matter of fact. That's a fact. This is incredibly worrying that we see an exemption from labour market testing being rolled out to six countries—Canada, Peru, Mexico, Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam. This diminishes our ability to regulate temporary skilled migration in our country and that is very worrying. It is driving massive job insecurity. We have over a million people in this country who have work rights on temporary visas. I support permanent migration. Permanent migration has made this nation. I'm a proud child of migrants but they should be permanent migrants with all the rights that native-born Australians have. They should have all the rights—the right to strike, the right to unionise, the right to get the same pay—and those rights aren't afforded to those on temporary skilled visas. Those workers have no rights because they have no bargaining power. At a flick of a thumb, an employer can basically sack them and they get deported overseas. That's why it's so important that, before we allow temporary skilled visas to be issued, the employer does three things: first, they demonstrate the position cannot be filled by an Australian at the market rate of pay—not the minimum rate of pay but the market rate of pay; second, they pay the migrant, the visa holder, the market rate of pay, not minimum pay; and, third, they actually invest in training so an Australian can fill the job in the long term. This agreement undermines that by exempting labour market testing for visa applicants from those six countries. Just as worrying is skills recognition. This agreement means a Peruvian electrician's qualifications must be accepted as the same as an Australian electrician or a Chilean or a Mexican electrician or a Canadian electrician. It is abhorrent that we don't have skills testing because that goes to a safety issue that both the industry group for the electoral industry and the trade union representing the electrical industry, the ETU, have raised a huge concern over. This, yet again, is this government giving away our immigration policy. This is a party that is supposedly so strong on border protection, but it's giving away our immigration policy for gains for certain sectors, particularly its supporters in the agricultural and resources industries, and its giving away our immigration policy to reward its mates in mining and agriculture, and I think that's deeply problematic. And that's why it's so important that Labor has given a commitment to end this. Labor will do two things. If we're privileged enough to win government, if we are lucky enough to win government, the new minister for trade, the member for Blaxland, will immediately start to renegotiate this agreement. He will negotiate side letters with the six nations that have this labour market testing exemption to get that removed so that we can continue to apply labour market testing to temporary skilled migrants coming from those six countries and he will also negotiate with Canada to remove the ISDS clause. This can be done with side letters. I'm very encouraged that the minister for trade in a future Labor government—if we're privileged enough to be elected—will work on that very quickly and directly. That's an important step to fixing up this Trans-Pacific Partnership, something this government won't do, something this government cares nothing about. The second measure which I'm even more enthused about is that a future Labor government will implement the most progressive trade policy this nation has seen in the last 40 years by undertaking a number of measures. They include a legislated prohibition on future trade agreements containing waivers of labour market testing, prohibiting future governments from negotiating trade agreements that waive mandatory skills testing and prohibiting future governments from including ISDS clauses in trade agreements. That is incredibly important. Mr Katter interjecting— Mr CONROY 249127 I'm hearing gibbering from the cheap seats over there. The truth is Independents can't deliver this. The member for Kennedy can't deliver this. The member for Kennedy has been in this place since 1990 or 1993. I honour his long service to the nation, but he hasn't changed a trade debate one iota because he can't form government. He had a three-year window in a minority government when he could have done something, but yet again he didn't do something about it. That's why I'm so proud that a future Labor government will end this. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Just a moment, please. The member for Kennedy on a point of order. Mr Katter HX4 Point of order: I claim to be misrepresented. He said I've made no change— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 There's no capacity. You can make a personal explanation later on, Member for Kennedy. You no longer have the call. I give the call to the member for Shortland. Mr CONROY 249127 Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seem to have hit a sensitive spot with the member for Kennedy. The truth is that a future Labor government will ban the negative parts of this Trans-Pacific Partnership and what we saw in the China free trade agreement. A future Labor government will prohibit any trade agreement from containing waivers of labour market testing, waivers of mandatory skills testing and inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement clauses. That's a very important improvement. I welcome the shadow trade minister's initiative. The shadow trade minister also indicated that a future Labor government will implement other reforms that will improve the trade debate in this country. He will legislate, if he's lucky enough to be elected, to establish a system of accredited trade advisers from industry unions and civil society groups which will provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreement text during negotiations. It's true that we have the most opaque trade negotiations of any advanced nation. Look at the system in the US. There are regular briefings of congress during the negotiations, accredited trade advisers and a panel that is briefed about trade negotiations and provides feedback on trade negotiations as they progress, and that doesn't undermine their negotiating position; it informs their negotiating position and improves the outcome for those nations. A future Labor government will also legislate to require an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement before it's signed to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement. And, if we're privileged enough to be elected, a future Labor government will also strengthen the role of parliament in trade negotiations by increasing the participation of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties by providing JSCOT with a statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback and providing JSCOT with a briefing at the end of each round of negotiations. Again, these are important reforms that will improve trade policy in this nation. In conclusion, I remain very concerned about aspects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—aspects that go to the sovereignty of this nation and aspects that go to whether we can provide secure, well-paying jobs for all Australians. I am relieved that a future Labor government will fix those issues in both this trade agreement and all other agreements. That's really important. I want to finish by contemplating again the impact of attempts by people to move cheap amendments that don't do anything. Those amendments can't apply to a trade agreement that's negotiated between 11 countries. The hard decision here was about whether to support a trade agreement—whether to support it and try to fix it or vote it down. That was a very hard debate held within the Labor Party room and it was witnessed here today in the chamber. But I'm confident that a future Labor government will pursue a progressive trade policy that will improve the results for Australia from these trade agreements, protect fundamental worker rights and maintain the sovereignty of this parliament and future parliaments, and that's incredibly important. You can be pro trade liberalisation without agreeing to every trade agreement. That's why I'm so heartened by the shadow minister's commitments around future legislative reforms in this area. 13:04 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I've been misrepresented. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You claim to be misrepresented. I'd like to remind the member for Kennedy why I didn't accept your interjection before. You cannot interrupt the debate of another member addressing the House. The matter that you're about to be raise cannot be debated, but you have the call to talk to us about how you feel you have been misrepresented. Mr KATTER HX4 Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we respect your judgement. The previous speaker said that an Independent or a small-party person cannot influence the trade arguments and policies of this nation. I was blamed—or congratulated—for putting Kevin Rudd into the seat of power and removing Julia Gillard. One of the major reasons I did that was because— Mr Conroy interjecting— Mr Khalil interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 Please, Madam Deputy Speaker, you shut me up when I was interjecting. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 You have the call. I'm not giving anyone else the call, Member for Kennedy. Mr KATTER HX4 Thank you. Within three weeks of having taken that decision—which cost me greatly, I might add—the live cattle market was reopened into Indonesia, doubling the price of cattle. The major agricultural industry in Australia is the beef industry. So that is one example. Secondly, all of them— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 We can't continue to debate the point. How do you claim to be misrepresented? Mr KATTER HX4 He said I couldn't influence. None of these people had spoken out against the TPP until I had discussions with the unions and said, 'What the hell are you blokes doing sitting on your backsides whilst this mob are out there voting for free trade?' The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Thank you very much, Member for Kennedy. I can see another Independent would like to have the call, so let's give her the option now. 13:06 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo The Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is not a quality agreement. Unless its significant flaws can be addressed, I and my colleagues in the Senate cannot support the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and related bill when they go to the Senate. Australia has long been a trading nation. The greater proportion of our wealth and standard of living have been generated by having access to export markets for products in which we excel and reducing the barriers to import to benefit Australian consumers and businesses that import intermediate inputs. I might just say as an aside that you can have all the free trade agreements in the world, but my growers have a challenge once we access those markets because it is prohibitively expensive for small farmers to access international markets, and then there are non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly around biosecurity, that make it incredibly difficult to access. We have been fighting in my community to be recognised as a pest-free area for a long time, and I've got to say government is absolutely deaf on this. I will say that they have given the Tasmanian government a lump of money to address fruit fly issues in Tasmania, but South Australia has been lost in this. We are the mainland state that has always been considered fruit fly free. Anyway, I digress. Centre Alliance support the principles of free trade, but we do not support the principle of preferential trade. Despite the badging, the TPP is a preferential trade agreement, not a free trade agreement. Layer upon layer of bilateral preferential trade agreements have created this so-called noodle bowl that spans the Indo-Pacific, adding deep complexity and economic-modelling challenges that simply cannot be untangled. In short, it can be hard to quantify the benefits of a bilateral approach to trade, as the so-called Australia-US Free Trade Agreement—actually a preferential free trade agreement—so aptly demonstrates. According to a 2015 investigation by Dr Shiro Armstrong, of the Australian National University, 10 years of data on the effect of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement concluded: The evidence from a large panel dataset using the gravity model of trade deployed by the Productivity Commission suggests that Australian and US trade with the rest of the world fell—that there was trade diversion—due to AUSFTA after controlling for country-specific factors. Estimates also suggest trade between Australia and the United States fell in association with the implementation of AUSFTA—also after controlling for country-specific factors. The existence of trade diversion suggests that trade between Australia and the United States could well have fallen even further without AUSFTA. These results add to the evidence about whether or not preferential trade agreements increase net trade—with the body of evidence currently suggesting that they do not and if anything lead to a contraction. Let's decode that dense conclusion for a moment. The Australia-US FTA led to trade diversion rather than trade creation, meaning that it resulted in trade being diverted from more efficient exporters and towards less efficient ones. Although we may have traded more with the US than we otherwise would have, the overall trade flows between our countries did not increase as a result of the agreement. However, the most damning conclusion is that the current body of evidence suggests that preferential trade agreements do not increase net trade and likely lead to a contraction in net trade. I'm not cherry-picking my academics here; even the initial forecast benefits by Australian academics of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement were low, in the range of an increase to Australian welfare of $44 million to $127 million. That may sound like a lot but not when you realise that the Australian economy is over $1.3 trillion in size. The study commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade while it was negotiating the Australia-US agreement, which forecast billions of dollars of benefit, was famously described by famed economist Ross Garnaut as 'not passing the laugh test'. Our starting point in assessing the TPP is that there is not necessarily a strong track record of success with preferential trade agreements, even with a major trading partner such as the United States. However, we can take some solace that megaregional agreements like the TPP are less likely to impose costs from trade diversion. At the global level we have seen that the 'nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed' formulation of the World Trade Organization's Doha round has failed. In an increasingly multipolar world, with President Trump leading the charge against global economic integration, Australia cannot rely on the larger economies to work towards the mutually beneficial win-win outcomes of the past. Centre Alliance thus supports the principle of megaregionalism in trade. We initially held some hope that the TPP could end up being a quality agreement. Yet it is now apparent that the economic benefits, whilst solid, are not tremendous. The costs to Australia's sovereignty and workforce are simply too great. On the benefits: to my knowledge, the Australian government have not commissioned detailed independent modelling of the economic benefits expected to accrue specifically to Australia. Instead they are relying upon studies that assess the TPP in its entirety, such as the study by renowned professors Peter Petri and Michael Plummer, which was published in January 2016 when the United States was still part of the TPP. The broad conclusions of that study likely still hold, but the detailed country-specific analysis should still have been undertaken before the parliament could be expected to vote on this enabling legislation. Centre Alliance have asked the government for this analysis, but we have yet to receive it. This appears to be because the analysis has not even been done. The Petri-Plummer analysis estimated that the Australian economy stood to benefit by $15 billion by 2030. The report commissioned by Australian industry groups and authored by the same academics concluded that the benefit to the Australian economy would, with the exit of the United States, be reduced to $12 billion by 2030. This is significant and substantial but not overwhelming compared to the size of the Australian economy. Now to the costs. The most notorious concern is the investor-state dispute settlement clause. This grants unprecedented power to corporations to sue national governments, and it will undermine our democratic sovereignty. As I have indicated before in this place, that sovereignty stems from the will of the Australian people, and it should not be diminished or delegated lightly. Australia has been the canary in the coalmine in the Philip Morris case, where the cigarette giant used an obscure clause in the 1993 Hong Kong-Australia trade agreement to sue the Australian government over its plain packaging laws, laws that were overwhelmingly supported in our democracy. Australia ultimately defeated Philip Morris in that case, spending more than $39 million in the process, which was only revealed through the sustained utilisation of freedom of information laws by my former colleague Senator Nick Xenophon and my current colleague Senator Patrick. I think Australians are deeply opposed to the possibility that foreign corporations could overturn the sovereign will of the people and pay huge amounts of money to lawyers to retain that privilege. This is not democracy. We should not be bargaining away our right to self-determination to companies with the deepest pockets. Another great area of concern and unknown costs to the TPP are the provisions that waive market labour testing for contractual services suppliers. Quoting the additional comments from the Labor Party in the joint standing committee report on the TPP, more than 450 professions could currently be covered by the term 'contractual service supplier' which includes electricians, plumbers, carpenters, nurses. No other country has provided Australia with such generous reciprocal visa rights, and it is unclear why such concessions would be given by our government. Yet the Labor Party are waving this legislation through the parliament on the promise that they will fix things after. However, I don't believe that that can be defended as a proper position of process either in government or in opposition. The effects upon labelling, especially Australian made type food labelling, also remain an open question yet to be fully resolved. I listened to the member for Shortland, and I hope that Labor will work with the Senate crossbench to make sure that we can provide those protections to Australia around the ISDS clauses and also with respect to labour market testing. The member for Shortland seemed particularly concerned about labour market testing and the implications for those workers. You can't just talk about a future Labor government, that you will sort it out, kick the can down the road. Why not work with us in this parliament to make this better? In summary, if the government want my support and the support of Centre Alliance, they need to put before us the full and proper evidence and analysis because we are simply not willing to wave through the legislation on the vibe of the thing without clear country-specific analysis that clearly outlines the full costs and benefits to Australia, to every Australian. We will not be able to support this bill in the Senate. 13:17 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I speak in support of the amendment to the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. The TPP-11 is not a great trade agreement, certainly not from Australia's point of view. If you want to understand why it's not a great deal, you only need to look at the process; it was badly done. The trade and economic benefits are minimal and it has some very serious shortcomings that speakers in this debate have identified. It has some regional plurilateral benefits as an agreement that binds together countries in the Pacific, but it could have been so much better. As we debate it and we consider the way forward, we should not be adopting a kind of barracking approach which we sometimes see from the government that tries to suggest that all free trade agreements are in and of themselves wonderful things that we have to patriotically sign up for. Trade agreements can and do consist of all sorts of things all mixed up together. It's the responsibility of the government and the parliament to get that mix right, to make those agreements as strong as they can be. At the moment, our process for forming these agreements is not good enough. I want to acknowledge the work that the shadow minister for trade has done to set a path forward for us, for Australia, for a Shorten Labor government, if elected, to really improve the deficiencies in the process as it stands. We talk about free trade agreements. We should get the language right. This is a plurilateral agreement that puts in place some preferential arrangements between countries to that agreement. It's an uneven set of arrangements. It's not the case that all participating countries sign up to a common set of changes or concessions. It's vitally important, when we talk about trade agreements and trade and investment agreements, that we start from the position of recognising they encompass a lot more than just what you would consider traditional matters of trade. First and foremost, the TPP-11 does deal with tariffs and market quotas—those are the sorts of traditional trade bits and pieces. The agreement does deal with rules of investment separate from trade, which includes the investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms that so many people have talked about. The TPP-11 deals with labour market access. Therefore, it bears upon and has implications for our migration framework. The agreement does deal with labour rights and environmental protection standards—that's a good thing—but, if you want to be realistic, you have to look at the way in which it gives away labour market access protections and skills-testing protections. It gives away those things holus-bolus. It gives away those things unequivocally. The labour standards and the environmental protections are, you would say, aspirational. I'm glad that they're there. I'm glad that there's a framework for participating countries to perhaps strengthen those things in future, but let's not be mistaken in thinking that there is some equivalence between the pernicious aspects of this agreement on the one hand and the things that are potentially beneficial on the other hand. On the trade side of things, there are gains in this agreement for Australia. There's no doubt about it. If you find the right sector, they will sing its praises, because they stand to benefit from it. It's going to eliminate tariffs on cheese exports to Japan. It's going to improve butter and skim milk quotas for exports to Japan. Our exports will be able to enter into some countries at a lower cost and be more competitive. We will get greater access in the form of quota expansion in some cases. Tariffs on all seafood exports to Canada, Vietnam, Mexico and Japan will disappear over time. The 15 per cent tariff on packaged wine exports to Japan will wind up by 2021. So, of course, there are producers in this country that will get some benefit from the TPP-11, but what's the overall aggregate economic benefit? It's hard to know. It appears to be very slight: 0.5 per cent GDP over 10 years. That's not a massive positive impact. Even when we look at those projected benefits, we should start by recognising that the projected benefits for agreements in the past have not generally been delivered. As part of the way we look at this and improve our process over time, if any government is so convinced of the benefits of any trade agreements that it strikes, it should be prepared to go back, as time progresses, and check its projections against the reality. The reality, in almost all cases, is much less beneficial than we were led to expect. There hasn't been any independent analysis of this agreement done at all. The national interest analysis is done within the department and the department negotiates the agreement. Do they think it's worth entering? Surprise, surprise, they do. That's one of the changes that Labor has committed to. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is a committee with a government majority and a government chair. I've been a member of that committee. Every time we look at trade agreements we have recommended to government that they commission independent economic analysis. The government keeps coming back saying, 'We're not going to do that.' It's hard to understand. The Productivity Commission report looked at trade agreements under the previous Labor government, and some equivalent organisation will do so under a Shorten Labor government, if elected. Some independent analysis done for the World Bank suggested that the impact of the original TPP would cost 39,000 full-time jobs in this country. There wasn't separate analysis done on the jobs impact of the TPP-11. We know, in terms of the pernicious aspects of the agreement, it gives away labour market testing for six countries. Why? They are lopsided concessions. They're not being given for something. They're not being traded. They're being given away because they suit the agenda of the government. The government has a labour market deregulation agenda that it can't get through this place, because it knows it doesn't wash with this parliament and it doesn't wash with the Australian public. It has been using trade agreements to advance its labour market deregulation agenda. The United States as a matter of principle does not include labour market arrangements of any kind in any trade agreement. They just do not do it. That is a province for their domestic congressional processes and for their migration and temporary-labour-market-access arrangements. That's how they deal with them. This government has been looking around to give away labour market protections wherever it can by executive prerogative. That's how it has used trade agreements. ISDS is crazy. I'm glad that Labor for some considerable time has committed to getting rid of ISDS arrangements where they exist and ensuring that we never enter into them. Why should foreign companies have rights that Australian companies don't have? Why should foreign companies be able to bring legal action against Australian government policy? The lack of understanding about ISDS is astounding. I think it was the member for North Sydney before who claimed that we'd won the case against Philip Morris that they brought under the obscure Hong Kong investment agreement. He claimed that we'd won that case and it showed that the ISDS mechanisms were fine. We didn't win the case; it was put aside as a matter of standing or some sort of jurisdictional technical issue. The actual substance of the case under that ISDS clause was never tested. We had a lawyer appear before the JSCOT who acts in this place and acted for Philip Morris. I put it to him that, if they had had the opportunity to have the case heard on its merits and the substance of it tested, they may well have won. He seemed to suggest that he thought that was probably true. When I asked him how sensible it was to have foreign multinationals going around the world essentially affecting the democratic processes and the sovereign rights of nation-states, he said: 'You know, the world has evolved. Nation-states themselves aren't that old. Once upon a time there weren't nation-states. We've had nation-states for a while. Now we have global multinationals. Maybe that's the next shift.' He said: 'You're a parliamentarian. You've got an interest in retaining the decision-making power in these matters, but that's because you're a parliamentarian. Who is to say that global multinationals aren't in a position to make policy for all of us on this planet better than parliaments?' What an astounding, frightening view that is. But that's what ISDS mechanisms potentially hold for us. Remember that, while Philip Morris was bringing that case against Australia that cost us millions and millions of dollars to see through, New Zealand did not go ahead with its own plain-packaging arrangements, because it didn't want to be exposed to the costs that would occur if the ISDS tribunal had found in Philip Morris's favour. So for several years an incredibly valuable public health policy measure that New Zealand was looking to introduce following from the pioneering work here in Australia was held up because of that chilling effect that happens when multinationals roam the earth using these ridiculous tribunals to have their way over the legitimate processes and proper decision-making and legal frameworks that democracies put in place. The last thing I'll point out is that there are some ticking time bombs within the TPP-11. The US are not in the agreement, but they could come back. If they did, one of the things they would insist upon is monopoly right protections for biologic medicines. That's the other thing you've got to remember about trade agreements: those of the laissez-faire, free marketeer persuasion should remember that a lot of the things that go into these agreements are not about making economic activity more free and less fettered; they're about protecting vested interests. The United States want greater monopoly rights protections for biologic medicines because their big pharmaceutical companies want to be able to charge more money for as long as they can. If we committed, in effect, to extending those monopoly protections from five to eight years, that would have a cost to the PBS of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That is something that could occur if the US come back into the TPP-11. So let's not ever in this place get into that kind of black-and-white, good-cop bad-cop, 'we're for trade; you're not for trade' kind of rubbish. These agreements are incredibly important. They should be looked at much more closely. We should be able to be much more forensic in how we look at them, but, if that's to occur, the process has to change. We need independent modelling. We need stakeholder engagement. We need the government to listen to the JSCOT when it makes recommendations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 38 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Petition: Drought 38 13:29 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I recently met with a constituent of mine in the electorate of Wills. Dorina, even though she lives in Coburg in the inner-city part of northern Melbourne, like many other Australians—hundreds of thousands of Australians, millions of Australians—is concerned by the drought that's happening in regional New South Wales. She has a friend who is a farmer in Deniliquin, and she wanted to do what she could to help. She gathered 240 signatures from people in our electorate and presented me with a petition on support and assistance for farmers. I've submitted this petition to the Standing Committee on Petitions here in this place. Australian farming communities are being affected by a shocking and protracted drought, and we know that governments have a role to play to assist drought - affected farming families. We are always ready to support meaningful drought assistance put forward by the government. I also spoke to the member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, about the petition, because Deniliquin is in her electorate, and she is also the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories. We talked about the work being done to bring relief to farmers in the area affected by drought. I understand—I think everyone here understands—that there are no quick-fix solutions. We also recognise that climate change plays a role here, working against the farm sector. And we must develop longer term responses: mitigation, adaptation, the building of resilience and ensuring that the best land management practices and sustainable farming methods are put forward. It's great to see people who aren't directly affected by the drought putting in and doing something to help those who are suffering, even though they' re hundreds of kilometres away. Leongatha Daffodil and Dairy Street Festival 39 Hume Bombers Football Club 39 Crowley, Ms Trudy 39 13:34 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker Hogan. It is with great sadness that I report the passing of Trudy Crowley, a much-loved and highly respected advocate for ovarian cancer patients. When Trudy was diagnosed with incurable ovarian cancer in 2016, she saw the opportunity to do something important with the time she had remaining. With a dedicated group of friends in Mackay, she created the Nude Lunch, where ovarian cancer would be exposed, raising more than $100,000 in the first two events. Trudy also visited us here in Parliament House last year to tell her personal story and to meet with the Minister for Health on Teal Ribbon Day. Even in her final few weeks, Trudy was still working to save other women from suffering the same fate. I'd like to share a quote from Trudy about making a difference. She says: The biggest thing I've learnt is, don't think you can't make a difference just because you live in a small town. It's a matter of knocking on those doors, we can still have what the big cities have ... knock on the doors and make sure it helps others. Some people (fighting cancer) aren't fortunate enough to have beautiful families like I do; and it's a lonely journey for some of them so if I can help make it a little easier for them it makes everything worthwhile. We extend our deepest sympathies to her husband, Damian; her sons, Jacob and Levi, and their families. We thank those who worked with Trudy in fighting this terrible illness. Importantly, we thank her family for the time that they sacrificed while Trudy sought to help so many others. Green, Mr Dennis Allan, OAM, BEM 40 13:36 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Last week, Australia lost one of its greatest Olympians and Maroubra lost one of its greatest mates with the passing of Dennis Green. Dennis joined the Maroubra surf club in 1946 at the age of 15. He won nine Australian surf-lifesaving championships and an incredible 64 Australian canoeing titles. Dennis and his mate Wally Brown represented Australia at the Olympics in the K2 1,000 in a homemade boat and managed to pull off a bronze medal—the first non-Europeans to win a medal in canoeing. In total, Dennis represented Australia in five Olympic Games and was the Australian flag-bearer at the Munich Olympics. Dennis continued to compete in masters events and coach, and was a great mentor to so many surf lifesavers and kayak paddlers. He had a unique mix of determination and a will to win mixed with compassion and generosity. I certainly valued his advice, wisdom and friendship as a young paddler at Maroubra. I was very proud to be involved in Dennis's induction into the Australian Surfing Walk of Fame at Maroubra in 2014. He had many accolades: Australian Olympic Committee Order of Merit in 1978; the Order of Australia; the British Empire Medal; the New South Wales Sporting Hall of Champions; and the Australian Sports Hall of Fame. He was also a life member of Maroubra surf club and Surf Life Saving Australia. I offer my condolences to Shirley and his family. Rest in peace, mate. Dunkley Electorate: Nepean School 40 13:37 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Nepean School, located in Seaford in my electorate, is a specialist school for students in my electorate aged between five and 18 years with a physical disability and/or complex health impairment or other disability. Devastatingly, very recently, a group of vandals entered the school and set fire to a tepee located in the playground, causing $12,000 worth of damage. The tepee is used as a central gathering place for students and was completely destroyed by the fire. The kids, the school community are the wider community are absolutely devastated by what occurred. Principal Carolyn Gurrier-Jones said in a news article: Some of the students have said, 'Why would people pick on kids like us?' Those are the sentiments. The community feels sad because it was such a central part of the playground and it also impacts the kids capacity to feel safe going forward. The Nepean School community raised the $12,000 to purchase the tepee back in 2013. This is not the first time the school has been targeted by vandals. In 2016, the tepee was stolen and damaged and then handed back to police. It saddens me that a school like Nepean School, which does so much to support the children with a disability in Dunkley, would be targeted in this way. That why, in partnership with Frankston Community Noticeboard, I've set up a GoFundMe page to raise funds to replace their tepee at Nepean School. People who want to donate can go to our Facebook pages or go directly to gofundme.com/teepee4nepean and donate to this important cause. Shortland Electorate: Caves Beach Public School 50th Anniversary 40 13:39 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland This coming Sunday I'm pleased to be attending an open day to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Caves Beach Public School.    Caves Beach Public is an integral part of the Caves Beach and Swansea communities, and to reach this milestone in public education is a cause for celebration in our community. One of the important parts of the open day will be the interning of a time capsule in the school grounds for future generations. I was very pleased to have provided a letter to go into the time capsule. It's hard to imagine what the world will be like in 50 years time. I just hope that at a national level our political system may be a bit more stable than it has been in recent weeks. As members of parliament, we're truly fortunate to be part of so many diverse and vibrant school communities in the electorates that we represent. I sincerely thank Caves Beach Public School for including me in the anniversary celebrations and wish them the best for the next 50 years. If you're in the Caves Beach or Swansea areas, come down on Sunday for the 50th anniversary celebrations. There will be the Marching Koalas, which started at the school; the cruising Kombis; there will be 1960s themes; there will be amusement rides, market stalls, food trucks, class stalls, music and entertainment; and my stall will be there with the state member, Yasmin Catley. Come and say hello. Enjoy a trip back to the sixties, if you were around then, or get a glimpse of what our seniors lived through. Murray Electorate: Fruit Industry 41 13:40 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray The Goulburn Valley is renowned for many things. Certainly one of its major produce exports is its fruit. We are one of the world's great exporters of pears and apples. We also export apricots and now, with the free trade agreements that have been signed in recent years, we're moving into stone fruit as well. The Goulburn Valley are incredibly efficient when it comes to planting, growing and picking our fruit. Where the Goulburn Valley and Australia lose a large part of its efficiencies, when compared to the rest of the world, is in its packing processes. There's really nowhere in Australia that can pack fruit, can slice and dice the fruit and can actually photograph the fruit and decipher the best colours, the best quality and the right sizes like they can in other countries around the world like Europe and New Zealand. So I'm working with industry leaders right now on a project that might lead to a world-class, fully automated, high-speed, highly financially efficient packing process. It might need some government assistance, but the industry firstly have to do a lot of work in making sure they can bring all the industry players together. The speed at which this work is done in other countries certainly creates an efficiency gap that we're hoping that the Goulburn Valley will be able to overcome if we can join the technology that they have overseas. Immigration Detention 41 13:42 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison The Minister for Home Affairs has repeatedly refused requests from medical professionals to transfer from Nauru to Australia the traumatised children urgently needing medical treatment. Instead, it's been left to the courts to show compassion and common sense. Indeed, just this year, the Federal Court has issued transfer orders for the following cases: a 10-year-old boy who attempted suicide three times and needed surgery; a young girl who attempted suicide three times; a 14-year-old girl who doused herself in petrol and set herself alight; a 17-year-old boy who suffers from psychosis and needed to be reunited with his mother; an adolescent girl suffering major depression and traumatic withdrawal syndrome; a critically unwell baby; a 12-year-old boy refusing fluid and food for nearly two weeks; a 17-year-old girl refusing all food and fluid and diagnosed with resignation syndrome; a 12-year-old girl who has attempted suicide several times, also setting herself on fire; and a 14-year-old boy suffering major depressive disorder and severe muscle wastage after not getting out of bed for four months. This is appalling. It simply beggars belief how the minister grants visas to au pairs on humanitarian grounds while ignoring the dreadful illnesses of these traumatised children on Nauru. The hypocrisy of these actions is shameful. North Sydney Electorate: Yamim Noraim 41 13:43 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney This is an important time of year for the Jewish community around the world, and I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to all of those observing Yamim Noraim. The Jewish New Year celebrations, Rosh Hashana, which have just concluded , are a special time for family, reflection and repentance. Those of Jewish faith are now observing the 10 Days of Awe before the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, next week. It is a period during which individuals reflect on their actions over the year just concluded and seek forgiveness from anyone they have wronged. Maybe we in this House should adopt the tradition, although 10 days may not be long enough. I had the coincidental privilege of being in Israel last week, and I was able to observe the build-up to Rosh Hashana. The frequent sounding of the shofar and the preparations for the New Year festival were well under way. I know that in my own electorate there are many who are observing these holy days. I particularly acknowledge those marking Yamim Noraim at the two synagogues which most directly serve my electorate: North Shore Temple Emanuel in Chatswood and the Cremorne synagogue. Both lie just outside my electorate boundaries, but I know many of their members are constituents in North Sydney. These synagogues, like most, are founded on their communal strength. I've always greatly valued the hand of friendship which has been extended to me by both synagogues. To all their members and more broadly, Shana Tova, and may the year ahead be one of peace, success and happiness. Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2018 41 13:45 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I want to acknowledge and thank the Northern Territory and ACT parliamentary delegations, who have joined us here today at federal Parliament House. From the Northern Territory, we've got a cross-party delegation including the Attorney-General, the Hon. Natasha Fyles MLA; the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Kezia Purick MLA; and the opposition leader, Mr Gary Higgins MLA. Theirs is an unmistakable show of bipartisan commitment. My fellow Territorians have come here to fight for the right of Territorians to make decisions for ourselves. Yesterday, the delegation presented the Speaker of the House with a motion passed in the NT parliament, and right now they are meeting with the President of the Senate. We appeal to the parliament that the Restoring Territory Rights Bill 2018 be debated and brought to a vote in the lower house and then in the Senate. I repeat here today that this bill does not re-enact euthanasia in the NT or the ACT. It allows people who live in Australian territories the same rights as 24 million other Australians who live in the states to legislate on issues that affect them. Demonstrate to Territorians, Prime Minister, that you do not consider them as second-class citizens unable to govern themselves. Invictus Games 42 13:46 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane With a month to go until the opening ceremony of the Invictus Games in 2018 in Sydney, I understand competitors are in the final stages of their preparation. Australia will be proudly represented by 72 current and former ADF personnel competing across 11 sports over eight days. One of those competitors representing our country will be a Brisbane local, Captain Emma Kadziolka, competing in athletics and indoor rowing. This 29-year-old young woman joined the Australian Army in 2013 as a nursing officer and her postings included being deployed to Iraq. Emma was diagnosed with grade II glioma, a brain tumour, in November 2016. To date the glioma has remained dormant, but Emma is acutely aware of the potential health difficulties that may lie ahead. Emma names one of her greatest achievements to date as being named the co-captain of the Australian Invictus Games team last year. Sport has played an important role in Emma's rehabilitation, giving her a focus and enabling her to channel her energy into something positive and beneficial to her mental health. I wish good luck to all of the competitors at next month's Games, including Emma, and I hope that we see many personal bests and great moments as these veterans and serving ADF personnel demonstrate the incredible healing power of sport, exemplified as it is by the Invictus Games. We're proud of you all. Morrison Government 42 13:48 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Tasmanians woke up yesterday to read what the new Prime Minister thinks of us. The foul-mouthed conversation he had with the Tasmanian Treasurer stripped away the spin and laid bare the ugly truth. This Prime Minister is a bully who does not care about Tasmania. We know he's not on our side, and in recent days we've had more proof. Our Bureau of Meteorology is being gutted, with forecasting services punted to the mainland. Plasterers at the Royal Hobart Hospital are owed hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid wages, and now their former employer has done a runner from the state, locking them out of their accommodation. Yesterday, an ad appeared on Facebook for what was described as 'a pretty sweet little gig' at a Hobart kitchenware shop, billed as a 'high-class thing', it requires two wait staff for two hours tomorrow. But there are no wages on offer. Instead, the lucky employees will each be given a $100 gift voucher to spend in store, because the store manager prefers to do it this way. Wow! Who needs to pay the rent when you can pick up a pretty sweet sandwich maker? Too bad you can't buy the bread because that requires actual money. Wage theft, hospital queues, banks and insurers who rip off customers—this is life for too many Australians under this divided and dysfunctional Liberal government. Workplace Relations 42 13:49 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher A lot has been said over the last couple of days about bullying. The Leader of the Opposition has pontificated about the scourge of bullying in the workplace. I'm the first one to say that there is no place for bullying in the workplace. But we've got to call it out when we see the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition when you look at the ALP and the millions of dollars that they receive in donations from the best, the biggest bully in town, the CFMMEU, and how they continue to bully small businesses. I'll give you an example of a small security contractor who hasn't worked in the building industry since 3 March 2015, because he hasn't been able to get a job, because the CFMEU have black-banned him across the country. He hasn't worked for over three years, because of what the CFMEU have done to his business. He can't get any work, he can't put food on the table, he can't pay his bills, because the CFMEU continue to black-ban him. What a disgrace. And the Leader of the Opposition has the gall to come in here and pontificate about workplace bullying. I'll tell you what bullying is all about: bullying is all about stopping— Mr Brian Mitchell 129164 You'd know! Mr WALLACE 265967 Yes, I do know. I've worked in the building industry for 30 years, unlike you. Unlike you lot over there, who have never worked a day in your life, people on this side of the House— (Time expired) Morrison Government 42 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor Well, we've just seen a demonstration of the rabble, the shambles and the mess that's happening on the opposite side of this chamber. But I really want to appeal to those opposite, and say, 'Australia needs a government.' And, believe it or not, that's the job of those opposite at the moment. They're supposed to be a government. Instead, they are riven with dysfunction and division. They are having internal arguments via megaphones on the front pages of our daily newspapers. The new Prime Minister said he had pulled the curtain down on the muppet show, but every day it keeps coming back up again. Today we've got the Deputy Prime Minister trying to answer the big 'why 'question, the question everybody is asking, and he says it's about ambition, it's about Newspolls and it's about opportunity. Today, in this place, those opposite failed again to fill the speaking lists. Again they've failed to talk about their constituents. Again they've failed to show up for adjournments. Again they've failed across this week to show up for legislation they've brought into this chamber. On this side of the chamber, we have people ready, united for five years behind a single leader— (Time expired) Boothby Electorate: Kauri Parade Sporting and Community Complex 43 13:53 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I was delighted to recently officially open the Kauri Parade Sporting and Community Complex in Seacliff in my electorate of Boothby. I joined my state colleague, the member for Morphett, Stephen Patterson, the City of Holdfast Bay acting Mayor, Amanda Wilson, councillors, club representatives and guests to tour the precinct and cut the ribbon on this state-of-the-art facility. The federal Liberal government under my predecessor, Dr Andrew Southcott, contributed $5 million towards this project, which has provided new clubrooms, a hybrid wet-dry hockey pitch, dual-use tennis and netball courts and extensive community recreation space for the Seacliff Hockey Club, led by President Daniel Roach; the Seacliff Tennis Club, led by Paul Starrs; and the Holdfast Bay Music Centre, led by President Pam Woodburn. Special mention to Paul Bond and Jenny Newton from Seacliff Hockey, who worked really hard to get the project up in the first place to provide opportunities for other local clubs as well like the Seacliff Uniting Netball Club, led by President Brian Gepp. I want to acknowledge the work of the City of Holdfast Bay and the immediate past mayor, Stephen Patterson, who is now the member for Morphett, which made a contribution of $10 million towards this project. Demand for sporting facilities in my community is at an all-time high. As we on this side of the House know, when the economy is strong, we can afford to be generous and invest in the future of our sporting clubs around the nation. Morrison Government 43 13:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam Once upon a time, we only got The Muppet Show for half an hour a week, but we have had it 24 hours a day, seven days a week, since this Prime Minister has been in office. Frankly, this is a guy who, two days ago, stood at the dispatch box, puffed himself up and said, 'Believe me: I really am authentic.' But he hasn't told the Australian people the truth about why he got the job and how he got the job. He spent the entire week trying to tell us that he's authentic but he hasn't got a word to say about what he's going to do for ordinary Australians. If the way they've run this parliament for the last week is any indication then Australians have a lot to be afraid of. The Prime Minister has been running a protection racket for the minister for border protection as the former Prime Minister and the former foreign minister are now raising real doubts about whether this guy should be sent straight from this place to the High Court. He has instructed his two newest recruits to the frontbench that their first duty is to give up their convictions on the ending of live sheep export. Fancy that—he's the man who's supposed to be authentic, and his first act is instructing his two new recruits to give up their convictions! That gives you an indication of everything you need to know about this guy: nothing authentic whatsoever. Camplin, Dr Ronald, OAM 43 13:56 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I wish to bring to the attention of the House a pioneer—indeed, a legend—of the airwaves, Ron Camplin, who is celebrating 70 years in radio. Ron began his career back in 1948 as a lunch runner for 2CH in Sydney when he was just 15 years old. In 1951, Ron took on a role at 2XL in Cooma before moving to 2MG Mudgee where, at 22 years of age, he was appointed manager of the station. Ron then went on to form Camplin Broadcasters in 1969, acquiring both 2BS and 2MG before also purchasing 2LF in Young in 1976. Ron's attention turned to the Bathurst area eight years later, when he sold 2LF and 2MG to acquire full control of Bathurst Broadcasters. Since that time, Bathurst Broadcasters has become an institution in the central west under the leadership of Ron and his wife, Stephanie—a wonderful team. Their passion and dedication to broadcast radio is evident with 2BS and B-Rock winning 65 Commercial Radio Australia awards since 1989. Ron's list of personal achievements is truly astonishing and reflects his status as the elder statesman of Australian broadcasting. Locally, he's been named a Bathurst Living Legend and he also holds an honorary doctorate from Charles Sturt University, amongst many other honours and achievements in his life. But his career is not finished yet. He's in the process of converting 2BS from AM to FM as well as the planned commencement of a new digital radio station for Bathurst. This House salutes you, Ron. Congratulations to you on 70 years. (Time expired) Morrison Government 44 13:57 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield This is the ATM government—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. We know they're divided, thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister today telling us it was all about Newspoll and ambition and, apparently, opportunity. Now anybody can be Prime Minister—you don't even have to explain to the Australian people why! We know this week there has been leak after leak after leak—the GST leak, the bullying speeches last night. This morning, we had big trouble from the Big Apple. There is a question over the constitutional eligibility of the member for Dickson and, of course, the whole government. But, you know, it's just another day at the office for the Prime Minister—just another day in government. Mr McCormack 219646 Forty seconds to go! Mr CHAMPION HW9 What did you say during your 40 seconds? Opportunity, Newspoll—something like that, wasn't it? That was a hell of a line—good explanation about why! You did a better job than the Prime Minister because you were honest with the Australian people, so thanks very much for that, Deputy Prime Minister. But the point is, ATM also stands for something else; it stands for 'at the moment'. And let's just face it: this Prime Minister is 'at the moment'. He can't explain why; he can't explain for how long. If you vote Morrison, you'll probably get Abbott. Small Business 44 13:59 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to bring to the attention of the House the continuing concerns of many of the 15,000 small businesses in my electorate. They are calling for further reductions in red tape and industrial tape and more flexible workplaces so that they can reform and grow. They welcome the tax cuts down to 27.5 per cent for businesses with less than $50 million turnover and the instant asset write-off, but the reality is we need to do more. People in small business are the ones who take the risks. They put their houses on the line, they employ people locally and regionally and they deserve more help from us. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Liberal Party Leadership 44 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. At last someone in the government leadership has said why Malcolm Turnbull's no longer Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister said today, 'Ambition and Newspolls and opportunity—people take those opportunities, and we've got a new Prime Minister.' Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation of why Malcolm Turnbull lost his job—that it was ambition, Newspolls and opportunity? 14:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Ambition, Newspolls and opportunity—the Leader of the Opposition knows all about that. That's what he's been doing as the leader of the Labor Party for the last five years. What do we know about the leader of the Labor Party? It's all about opportunism, it's all about politics and it's all about coming in here and the games that are played, which the Australian people are absolutely sick and tired of. My colleagues have elected me to be the leader of the Liberal Party and to lead this government—our government—because they believe in an even stronger Australia. They believe in a stronger Australia where we keep our economy strong and where we continue to see the engine of jobs growth to perform in this country, as we've just seen today with the release of the latest employment figures, which again show over 40,000 jobs being created. Our plans for a stronger economy are working, and that means that we can deliver the essential services that Australians rely on. They are being delivered because, as we know, you cannot deliver the essential services that Australians rely on unless you know how to drive a strong economy, and that is something the Liberal and National Parties have been doing since we were first elected in 2013. We have seen over 1.1 million jobs created on our watch because we know how to back business, we know how to get people's taxes down and we know how to achieve cheaper electricity prices by ensuring we get the right settings in place to bring those prices down and to keep the gas onshore where it needs to be. We can deliver the type of environment where Australians want to invest. Around the world, they want to invest in Australia as well. Keeping the economy strong, keeping Australians safe and keeping Australians together—that's our plan for an even stronger Australia, and it's a plan that's working. Economy 44 14:02 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong My question is to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister advise the House on how the government's plan to keep Australia's economy strong is guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on? 14:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Bennelong for his question and also his work, particularly on urban infrastructure and our cities, where he has been a champion of improving the quality of life, the effectiveness of our cities and the affordability of housing all around the country. Our plan for an even stronger Australia depends on and is critically supported by our plans to keep our economy strong, because that's how you guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on. We have a legislated plan for $140 billion worth of tax relief for all Australians who are working hard—not just some but all those who are working hard and paying taxes. The Labor Party want to take the $144 billion personal tax relief plan and shrink it by $70 billion, and those electors out there in Wentworth will be looking very carefully at the plans of the Labor Party to increase the taxes paid by hardworking Australians. The Labor Party want to put their taxes up because they believe some people in Australia need to be punished for other people to be rewarded. We want to see all Australians succeed. We don't want to demonise any Australians for working hard. That's the policy of the Labor Party. We're backing in small business not just with lower taxes but also with cheaper electricity through the policies that we're already pursuing when it comes to default prices, the big stick on electricity companies and supporting investment in new power generation, which we already know from the ACCC will reduce power bills by between $183 and $416 for households and between $500 and $1,500 a year for businesses, particularly small business. Our plan is about new markets. It's about new industries, particularly the defence industry and the science and technology industries of Australia. It's a plan that's about new infrastructure, including $75 million for the Port of Townsville to ensure that that enormous economic opportunity in North Queensland can be opened up and the jobs will flow, as the jobs are flowing under this coalition government. It's about restoring law and order to the building and construction industry. That is what the Liberal and National parties have been doing. Today 44,000 jobs in August show that our plan is working. A third of those new jobs in the past year are for people over the age of 55. The figure has been revised: in the last financial year, more than 100,000 young people got a job in 2017-18. That's the strongest fiscal year on record and the second-strongest for any 12-month period going back to 2005. Unemployment is down, participation is up and welfare dependency is at lows. (Time expired) Prime Minister 45 14:06 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer to his answer to the first question and to the Deputy Prime Minister's explanation today. Whose ambition and which Newspolls are the reason Malcolm Turnbull is no longer Prime Minister? And is this why the Prime Minister has described his own government as a muppet show? 14:06 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again, it's question 2, no questions on drought, no questions on schools, no questions on hospitals, no questions on mental health. It is an important day today—R U OK? Day—about which I acknowledge those opposite and members here acknowledge today. Our government has some $4.3 billion being spent to guarantee the mental health services in this country. R U OK? Day was begun by a good friend of mine, Gav Larkin, many years ago. We went to school together. The reason I am highlighting this is because these are the issues that, frankly, the Australian people are interested in: that we're supporting mental health, that we're supporting Lifeline, where we put an extra $33 million on mental health. Mr Burke interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L You want to sit me down on mental health, do you? That tells the Australian people— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. I know the Prime Minister doesn't like the question— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr Burke DYW but he does have an obligation to be relevant to it. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Even though you're two metres away, I can't hear you. If members on my right could cease interjecting, the Manager of Opposition Business could begin his point of order again. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. The Prime Minister is giving reasons why he doesn't like the question; that doesn't take away his responsibility to be relevant to it. The SPEAKER 00APG Before I rule on the question: the Prime Minister is entitled to give context in the answer and, whilst in the material he's giving he's done that, with respect to the question, with the breadth of issues in it, really, the capacity to answer that is pretty broad, I've got to say, and the Prime Minister is entitled to compare and contrast for a bit—but not for the entire answer. I think he's just about finished his compare and contrast. Mr MORRISON E3L Mr Speaker, I am being directly relevant to the needs and interests of the Australian people. That's what my government—our government—is focused on. I will tell you what I am ambitious for: I am ambitious for the Australian people. I am ambitious for the jobs of young people, of people over the age of 55. One-third of those jobs went to those workers over the last 12 months. I am ambitious for the health needs of Australians. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L I'm ambitious for the education needs of Australia. I'm ambitious for the opportunity that Australian small business owners want under our government, are getting under our government and which will be crushed by the opportunity-destroying policies of the Labor Party that will put up their electricity prices, that will put up their private health insurance fees for households, that will whack a big tax on retirees simply for the fact that they saved over the course of their life and they want to invest in Australian companies. I'm ambitious for the Australian people. I believe in the opportunity for Australian people. That's what our government is focused on. The Leader of the Labor Party and the Labor Party have ambitions only for themselves and are seeking only their opportunities. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 46 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:09 The SPEAKER 00APG I'd just like to inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from New Zealand led by Minister the Hon. Grant Robertson. On behalf of the House, a very warm welcome to you. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 46 14:10 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government is working to keep our economy strong by creating jobs, lowering taxes and backing small business to help people get ahead, including in my electorate of Robertson? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies? 14:10 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Robertson for her question because she, like millions of Australians, knows that the coalition are proven economic managers and the Labor Party can't be trusted to run the economy. They can't be trusted to manage money. That's why they're coming after the money of the Australian people. The national accounts numbers show that the Australian economy is growing strongly: 3.4 per cent through the year, the fastest rate since the height of the mining boom in 2012. We know that we have legislated tax relief for more than 10 million Australian income earners and more than three million small and medium-sized enterprises, and yesterday the parliament passed the extension of the instant asset write-off, which has benefited hundreds of thousands of businesses. And we're bringing the budget back to balance a year earlier than expected, in 2019-20. The labour force figures for August continue this good economic news: 44,000 new jobs in the month, more than double the median market forecast, and three-quarters of those jobs were full time. These numbers confirm that over 100,000 young Australians have got a job in 2017-18. This is the best financial year result since records were first kept. Participation rates are up. Underemployment rates are down. In trend terms, the Australian economy has been creating more than 10,000 jobs a month for 22 months consecutively. This shows that our economic plan is working, benefiting small businesses across all electorates—like, in Robertson, Bambi Enterprises, in West Gosford, which makes quilts, pillows and bedding; and Eastcoast beverages, in Kulnura, which employs over 30 people making fruit juices for supermarkets. This record of jobs growth is in contrast to what the Labor Party are offering the Australian people: higher taxes. They'll raid your savings. They'll put up energy prices. They'll blow the budget. That is what you'll get from a Labor Party if they get a chance in office. Only the coalition can be trusted to run the Australian economy. Liberal Party Leadership 46 14:13 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to tell Australians why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister of Australia? The people of Australia deserve an explanation. Why can't he answer this simple question? Why isn't Malcolm Turnbull still the Prime Minister of Australia? 14:13 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook There was a spill motion. It was carried. My colleagues elected me to be the Leader of the Liberal Party and hence the Prime Minister of the country. That's what I'm focused on, and I'll tell you what: they're having a good look at me, but they've already had a good look at you, and they don't want you. Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If members could cease interjecting—so we don't get into a tangle here, I'm just going to remind the crossbench that it is the Independents' question. Economy 47 14:14 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy My question is to the Treasurer. Thirty years of deregulation and privatisation has resulted in electricity, at $670 a year for 11 years, exploding to $2,400; housing skyrocketing from $5,600 to $15,000; food markets shrinking to just Woolworths and Coles, resulting in margins between farm gate and Miss Housewife soaring from 80 per cent to 300— Mr Laming interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The member for Bowman will cease interjecting. I'm trying to hear the member for Kennedy. Could the member for Kennedy begin again. Mr KATTER HX4 Obviously, Mr Speaker, you thought it was so good that you wanted it to run again! I appreciate that. The SPEAKER 00APG If you could read my mind! Anyway, let's start, Member for Kennedy. Mr KATTER HX4 Question to Treasurer: 30 years of deregulation and privatisation has resulted in electricity, at $670 a year for 11 years, exploding to $2,400; housing skyrocketing from $5,600 to $15,000; food markets shrinking to just Woolworths and Coles, resulting in margins between farm gate and housewife soaring from 80 per cent to 300 per cent; outpatients being abolished; the impossibility of getting elective surgery; and retirees and families having to now pay $4,000 a year in medical insurance. Treasurer, is policy going to continue to be based on ideology or judged upon real, tangible outcomes? (Time expired) Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Hunter! 14:16 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Kennedy for his sentiment and for his question. I can inform him that, when it comes to energy, this side of the House is taking action that is driving people's power bills down; those opposite will send them up. We are implementing the ACCC's recommendations to create a default offer, which I can tell the member for Kennedy will see a household save up to $400 and will see a business save up to $1,400. The member for Hume is busy implementing the ACCC's recommendations, creating new generation to support those industrial customers. So the actions that we are taking on this side of the House are driving prices down, as we have seen from 1 July this year in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. When the Labor Party was last in office, prices doubled. When it comes to housing, we are taking action to improve the affordability of housing, and we have seen that the prices have come off in the key markets of Sydney and Melbourne, moving to a more sustainable footing. We have seen more supply, more targeted measures around foreign ownership and stronger protections in terms of investor loans. When you talk about manufacturing, the national accounts show that we're actually seeing good growth in the manufacturing sector—3.3 per cent up through the year. A total of 61,000 jobs were created in the manufacturing sector in the last year. That compares to those opposite—when they were last in government, they lost 150,000 jobs from manufacturing. They pretend to look after the blue-collar workers, but they sold them out, and jobs went as a result. When it comes to jobs overall, as the August numbers today show, there are 44,000 new jobs. The numbers confirm that younger people are going into the workforce in greater numbers than ever before. More than 100,000 young people are getting a job. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Moreton! Mr FRYDENBERG FKL For a financial year, that's the best result since records were first kept, and it builds on the one million jobs that we have created as a coalition. So I say to the member for Kennedy: we on this side of the House are in favour of more jobs. We're in favour of more jobs in the manufacturing sector and we're delivering. We're in favour of lower prices in the electricity sector and we're delivering. And we're in favour of a more affordable housing market and we are delivering. Economy 48 14:19 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong provides benefits for regional areas, including in my electorate of Dawson? Is the Minister aware of any risks to this economic growth that would hurt rural and regional Australia? 14:19 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Dawson for his question. He's very engaged today. Getting the books in better shape means that we can share the benefits in regional Australia and build the future that the regions deserve. It means that we can boost productivity. We can get people home sooner and safer, whether it's in and around Mackay or anywhere else in Australia. We are getting on with the job of doing just that. It means that young people in the regions can get a job. Today's job numbers are very, very positive news. It means that small businesses can have a go, can invest, can back themselves. And we back them. Whether they're tourism, whether they're farming—no matter what it is, in Mackay and in the wider Dawson electorate we're there supporting them all the way. It means that older Australians can have the confidence that their hard-earned savings will not be raided to fund Labor's tax attack. It means that we can invest more than $1.4 billion in regional projects and billions more in infrastructure in the regions to make Australia even greater. In the member's electorate that includes our $10 billion commitment to building the Bruce that the people of regional Queensland and regional Australia deserve. In the member's electorate there is the Bowen Road bridge upgrade: $3 million, yet another Queensland road project to get people home sooner and safer. It's investment in the Whitsundays Sportspark precinct redevelopment: $1.9 million and yet another investment in making regional communities stronger, building that regional capacity and building those communities. It's the new Sugar Bowl skate park in Mackay—a $1 million injection to make sure that our youth have somewhere where they can have good recreation. It also means 15 jobs in construction and two ongoing. It's our $176.1 million in the Rookwood Weir. We've been talking about it for years; now we're getting on with the job of actually building it. Well done to the members for Capricornia and Flynn. They have delivered. They're projects which give regional Australia a much-needed boost. These regional programs and regional funding initiatives are the very first thing that Labor will cut. When Labor were last in government, it was regional programs which were raided. I know the member for Watson's electorate—hardly regional—benefited from a regional project. It should have been set aside, dedicated, quarantined to the regions. That's what we did. We made sure the money for regional programs was spent where it needed to go—in rural, remote and regional Australia. They're a party happy to get in bed with the Greens, happy to make sure that regional programs are going to go, happy that coalmining projects are going to go by the wayside just so they can get Greens votes in the inner cities. We want regional Australia to have a ring of confidence and a future. The Labor leader just wants to raid its funding. Minister for Home Affairs 48 14:22 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister: I refer to Malcolm Turnbull's statement overnight that he's told the Prime Minister and other colleagues that given the uncertainty about the Minister for Home Affairs' eligibility, acknowledged by the Solicitor-General, the minister should be referred to the High Court, as the member for New England was, to clarify the matter. Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement from Malcolm Turnbull? 14:23 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I will pass to the Attorney-General in a moment. This matter was voted on by this House just several weeks ago. But I am happy to hand over to the Attorney-General. 14:23 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the Prime Minister, and I thank the member for the question. The question is about uncertainty. How did Labor live with the uncertainty for 126 days? How did they get through it! Virtual dolphin therapy? Were there emotional support animals helping them through? We asked the question earlier this week: why was it, if Labor believed that the advice they had commissioned and received concluded something that was utterly critical to the integrity of this parliament, if they truly believed that, that they sat on it for 126 days? Who knows? They may have been busy. It wasn't the only advice they had to deal with at the time. You may recall the other piece of advice, the rolled gold advice. You might recall the Today show, where the Leader of the Opposition was asked, 'Can you guarantee no Labor members will be caught up in this?' 'Yes.' It was a rolled gold guarantee. Of course it wasn't his fault, remember—it was the lawyers' fault. 'That's what our lawyers were saying to us. We followed the legal advice.' That then raises a secondary question: if Labor was so willing to waive privilege after 126 days on one piece of advice, why can't we see the rolled-gold advice? That is a matter of consumer protection. But it's okay because we had it all cleared up on the David Speers show. Mr Speers asked the shadow Attorney-General, 'Have you been sitting on legal advice for 126 days?' His answer was, 'We've got an advice here from April.' And the question was put again: 'So you decided to sit on that advice?' The answer was, 'No; well, we put it to one side.' Perfectly clear. That is the legal advice version of smoking but not inhaling—'It's okay. We didn't sit on the advice; we just moved it to the side.' They are very good at taking the reservation; they're not good at preserving the car. When you look at this, can you imagine the shadow Attorney-General preparing with his staff for Mr Speers' withering cross-examination: 'What do I say when he asks the obvious question, why did we sit on it for 126 days?' 'Just say you didn't sit on it; say you put it to one side.' 'I like it; I can confirm that we put it to one side. I categorically deny that any bottoms were involved anywhere near this advice.' For you to come in here after 126 days and pretend that the concern is too much and the doubt is too worrying is an absolute joke. Economy 49 14:26 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar My question is for the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Can the minister update the House on how the government is working hard to keep the Australian economy strong by driving job creation? Is she aware of any threats posed by alternative approaches? 14:26 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for Mackellar for his question. Like the rest of this side of the chamber, he is absolutely committed to making sure that more Australians in his electorate of Mackellar can get a job and can keep a good job. He wants to see our economy grow and, of course, he wants to make sure that we can lower taxes across the board for those hardworking Australians. We have seen some very good news today. The latest ABS labour force figures reveal that there are more Australians in work than ever before and more Australians in full-time work than ever before and that the full-time employment of women is at record highs. Since September 2013, employment has increased by 10 per cent—or, to put it another way, there have been 1,144,000 jobs created since the election of a coalition government. We know that having a job leads to greater financial security and choice for those people who get a job. We want those people who want a job to get a job. We are creating the right economic environment for that to happen, because we know that, if they can do that, it means growth and productivity gains for all of the small businesses and businesses that employ them. The member asks: are there any threats? Yes, I'm afraid to say that there are, and they are those sitting right opposite. They not only want to hike taxes on small, medium and family-sized enterprises, hurting job prospects in the process; they also want to send industrial relations in this country back to the Dark Ages. They will allow militant mega-unions to squeeze the lifeblood out of small business. They will introduce pattern bargaining across the board and they will scrap the construction regulator, which means that there will be no more oversight and no more court-ordered penalties for lawless behaviour. So those people opposite, who say that they do not like outsourcing, will gladly outsource industrial relations to the militant mega union, the CFMEU. We know that they are going to do this, because the Leader of the Opposition has admitted this himself. He says: As Labor leader, I still think like an organiser. And, of course, we all know what that means. It means looking the other way. It means secret backroom deals that dud workers and boost union coffers. It means job-destroying and destructive strike actions. It means allowing mega militant unions like the CFMEU to walk into any small business and disrupt them and wreak havoc right across the country. We will not stand for that. (Time expired) Minister for Home Affairs 49 14:30 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. In the previous answer, the Prime Minister said it was only a couple of weeks ago that the parliament considered whether to refer the Minister for Home Affairs to the High Court. Can the Prime Minister confirm that that vote was before the Solicitor-General had provided advice, and that that referral was defeated by just one vote, the vote of the Minister for Home Affairs? Why should the Minister for Home Affairs be allowed to hold the casting vote on his own referral to the High Court when even Malcolm Turnbull says he should be referred? 14:30 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. It is the case that there are now four pieces of legal advice in the public domain. One was commissioned by the national secretariat of the Labor Party, which sat to one side for 126 days. One is from the Solicitor-General. Two were commissioned by the member for Dickson. All of them are from senior counsels. Three of them conclude that the best view is that there is clear eligibility. One of them, commissioned by the Labor Party, interestingly, gives a view which is not the same as the other three, but a view about ineligibility. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Moreton will leave under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. Mr PORTER 208884 Actually, when you take the time to read the advice that Labor commissioned and which sat in someone's drawer for 126 days, in the last paragraph the lawyers say, 'In our opinion it is clearly arguable that this at least represents an indirect pecuniary interest'. Then, 36 words after the word 'arguable', comes the rolled gold conclusion, 'As such, it follows that, in our opinion, Mr Dutton was incapable'. I must say that is one of the more curiously confident pieces of legal deductive reasoning that I have ever seen. A 1970 GT Falcon can go from zero to 100 in 6.9 seconds. Rarely have I seen legal advice go from 'reasonably arguable' to a rolled gold conclusion that someone is incapable of sitting in 36 words. It is absolutely remarkable. The more reasonable appraisal is the one that is contained in the Solicitor-General's advice, which has been published and is fully available for anyone who wishes to read it. Whilst the Solicitor-General concludes that this is not an uncomplicated matter, he concludes in paragraph 4, 'the better view is that Mr Dutton is not incapable of sitting as a member'. So what have we got? We've got one advice from Labor which provides yet another rolled gold guarantee—we've had a few of those from Labor before—of ineligibility. We've got the Solicitor-General's advice and advice from two other senior counsels that says whilst there is never uncertainty, the better view is that there is no incapacity to sit. Labor say something that they sat on for 126 days is now so critically urgent and raises such terrible doubt to the integrity of the parliament that it must be acted on 126 days later. The answer here really is if the new standard that's being set by Labor is that anything short of or any absence of absolute certainty is now the standard for referral, then what next? Who else is to be referred? There are a number of people sitting here—indeed, there are a couple I can think of on that side—where that standard that they're now suggesting should exist, an absence of absolute certainty in a matter of this type, should warrant a referral. Perhaps they'll ask another question so we can talk about those people. The reality here is that there is publicly seen advice, times four, and that advice concludes— (Time expired) Defence Industry 50 14:33 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies I ask the Minister for Defence to update the House on how action taken— An opposition member: To give him his job back! The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Menzies will begin his question again, and members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr ANDREWS HK5 I ask the Minister for Defence to update the House on how action taken by the government to keep the economy strong enables necessary investment in the defence industry, which creates jobs and provides the capability of a world-class character that our service men and women rely upon. 14:34 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for Menzies for his question. He knows, as a former Minister for Defence in a previous government, that keeping Australians safe and secure is a fundamental requirement of government. But you can't actually do that successfully unless you can afford to do so. That's why a growing economy and a well-managed budget are critically important to actually securing the nation and keeping Australians safe. Mr Champion interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Wakefield will leave under 94(a). The member for Wakefield then left the chamber. Mr PYNE 9V5 Countries that have a sluggish economy, that have a budget stretched to the limit are not able to invest in the platforms and the equipment that gives the ADF the technological edge to be one of the regionally superior forces in our Indo-Pacific region, and that's what we experienced under the previous Labor government for six years. We experienced reductions in defence spending to the lowest level since 1938—the last year of appeasement. But, because this government has been investing in good budgetary management and growing the economy—we've seen amazingly good jobs figures today—we are able to get to two per cent of GDP being spent on defence by 2020, a year earlier than we promised five years ago. That's a $200 billion build-up of our military capability over the next 10 years investing in the capability that's necessary to give our ADF the technological edge that means that they win in combat, that they are the superior force in operations. It also, through the Defence Industrial Capability Plan we released earlier this year, means we can invest in the sovereign capabilities that we want in this country to be able to do without the support of any other nation if we are placed in that position at any time in the future. It allows us to do the aircraft maintenance and sustainment for the Joint Strike Fighter in New South Wales; in Victoria, the Hawkei protected vehicle in Bendigo; ammunition and explosives at Mulwala and Benalla in Queensland; the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle project, 'the Boxer'; the engine maintenance for Super Hornets, for Growlers and soon for the Joint Strike Fighters in Queensland; trailers and modules are being made in Brisbane for our Army, all being done in Queensland; in Adelaide, submarines, air warfare destroyers, offshore patrol vessels and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance at Edinburgh; and, in Western Australia, submarine and ship maintenance of the Anzacs and the offshore patrol vessels and Pacific patrol boats. All of these projects are building our capability under the management of the Minister for Defence Industry and are giving our ADF the capability that they need to be able to be the superior force in combat and operations. Minister for Home Affairs 51 14:37 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a chance meeting today between the member for Curtin and the entire press gallery, where she said it was up to the Minister for Home Affairs to decide to refer himself to the High Court saying, 'We all have personal responsibility to ensure that we are eligible to sit in the parliament,' and 'We have seen in recent times steps taken by members of parliament to clarify their status.' Isn't a referral to the High Court the only step that this government can take to clarify whether the Minister for Home Affairs is qualified to be a member of parliament and to be a minister in his government? 14:38 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Yes, I am aware of those comments. No, I don't agree with the assertion put as to what the next action is. Medical Research 51 14:38 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is delivering record investment in world-leading medical research, including for rare cancers and diseases? 14:38 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Moore in particular for his support for R U OK? Day along with all members on this side of the House and including the members for Eden-Monaro and Franklin and the member for Berowra. Many people have been involved in very good work over a very long period of time. As the member for Moore knows, in order to support any branch of medical activity, we need a strong economy, whether it's medicines, whether it is our clinical services or whether it's our medical research. One of the things that we've seen today is the record levels of employment, which go to the strong economy, which go to the ability to support new medicines, clinical treatment and, in particular, medical research. So I am delighted that this week we've been able to very significantly add to support for medical research by having such a strong economy in which the Prime Minister has played such a role, in which so many people on this side have played such a role. At the heart of this is the fact we've been able to allocate $6 billion to medical research, including $3½ billion for the National Health and Medical Research Council, $500 million for the Biomedical Translation Fund and $2 billion for the Medical Research Future Fund. As part of that Medical Research Future Fund, one of the most important things that we have done is support new clinical trials with a nearly quarter-of-a-billion-dollar program. The rare cancers and rare diseases clinical trial program is about giving people hope and opportunity and treatment where they have previously not had such a chance. In particular, this week, we were able to announce six new trials for rare diseases—in particular, trials for rare cancers and rare conditions that would otherwise not have been done—with a $10 million injection. What we've seen is support for pancreatic cancer, traumatic brain injury, rare skin tumours, myeloma, myelofibrosis and conditions such as glioblastoma, a brain cancer which can be so catastrophic. What these trials will do is not only give the individuals who are on them access to potentially lifesaving or life-changing treatments but also bring forward treatments that can be applied to all Australians with those conditions going forward. I had the privilege of meeting the family of a little girl called Ellie a year ago. That girl was subject to a trial program which sequenced her DNA and found the cause of her tumour, and she was then able to be treated. She was not expected to make her first birthday. Only two weeks ago, she celebrated her second birthday. That's what clinical trials are about, that's what a good economy is about and that's what we're about. Qualifications of Members 52 14:41 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why there is one rule for the member for New England and another for the Minister for Home Affairs when it comes to qualifications to be a member of parliament and a minister in the government? Doesn't this sort of double standard just confirm the Prime Minister's own description of his own government as the muppet show? 14:42 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I don't agree with the premise of the member's question and therefore there's no response to make. National Disability Insurance Scheme 52 14:42 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is guaranteeing the rollout of the NDIS nationally and delivering vital services for Australians, including in my home state of Victoria? Is the minister aware of any alternative ideas? 14:43 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield I do thank the member for his question because he's had a strong passion for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I'm pleased to report that the National Disability Insurance Scheme has now commenced rollout across 70 per cent of Victoria, with the scheme starting in southern Melbourne from last week. The date 1 September was a significant milestone. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has now commenced rollout in 11 of the 16 areas of Victoria that are scheduled to enter the scheme by 2020. More than 42,000 Victorians are currently accessing the scheme, including more than 8,000 people who are receiving support for the first time. The NDIS is an initiative of the utmost importance. Once fully implemented, it's expected to support some 105,000 with disability in Victoria, and across Australia more than 180,000 Australians are now being supported by the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Delivering this groundbreaking reform to improve outcomes for Australians with a significant and permanent disability will inevitably involve challenges with a rollout of this scale. The important thing is to identify and respond to issues quickly and efficiently as they arise to ensure the sustainable management of the scheme into the future. Thanks to the Morrison government's management of the economy, thanks to the fact that we have a strong economy, we are able to fund and support this vital social reform. We are determined to make sure that Australian families, pensioners and those in need get the support they need when they need it. We need to ensure that our social welfare system is sustainable. The vital service that the National Disability Insurance Scheme will provide to hundreds of thousands of Australians will also provide economic benefits to communities around the country. For example, in southern Melbourne, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is estimated to create more than 2,250 jobs locally and up to 42,000 jobs in disability services in Victoria. The consequence of that is that, over the coming years, an additional $350 million will be injected into the local economy in the southern Melbourne region and $2.5 billion into the Victorian economy. The reality is that a service delivery project of this size has never before been undertaken anywhere in the world. It is a large, complex and ambitious rollout. It has bipartisan support. I'm pleased to be continuing the good work of my predecessor ministers on both sides of the House to continue the rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Minister for Home Affairs 52 14:46 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Yesterday the minister said he declared interests in childcare centres in government discussions out of 'an abundance of care'. Why won't the minister apply the same standard to doubts about his qualifications to be a member of parliament under section 44 of the Constitution and to be a minister in the government under section 64 of the Constitution? 14:46 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. As I've stated before, I have complied with the requirements under the Statement of Ministerial Standards and the Cabinet Handbook, and I've taken advice in relation to my position which puts the question beyond doubt. Education 52 14:47 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan for a strong economy is guaranteeing choice in education to rural and regional families? Is the minister aware of any other proposals? 14:47 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for Forrest for her question. I know that she knows that the best start in life is a good education, especially when it comes to early childhood or to going through school or to tertiary. The coalition believes in choice in education and choice for parents to provide the best start in life for their children. As a coalition, we know that communities across Australia have different needs, particularly in rural and regional Australia. But rural and regional Australians need choice for their children, whether that be from the government, Catholic or independent sector. Over the next 10 years this government is committed to growing funding for students in regional and remote Australia from $3.9 billion to $6.8 billion. I think that's worth repeating: from $3.9 billion to $6.8 billion. This is an increase of 74.6 per cent. The Australian government recognises that it generally costs more to educate students going to schools in regional and remote areas. This is why extra funding, called location loading, is provided for students going to schools in regional or remote areas. Under the new funding arrangements, the location loading will continue to apply and, in 2018, is expected to benefit approximately 750,000 students. We know we can, and we will, do more for these students. It's why the coalition commissioned an independent review into regional, rural and remote education. The government's response to the review includes steps to make a lasting and real difference for regional, rural and remote communities. The government is delivering policies for rural and regional education that promote choice and competition and will deliver results for students. Tomorrow I will attend the Education Council of COAG to discuss with my state and territory colleagues the work ahead to implement reforms. We know that choice is integral to education, wherever you go to school in Australia. The coalition knows the importance of choice. But we also know that, in their heart of hearts, those opposite don't. That is the real difference between us and those opposite. We understand the importance of choice, and we know that you don't. Leader of the Opposition, we know you don't. We will wait and see. The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition? Ms Plibersek 83M I wonder if the minister could table the document he's quoting from so extensively? Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen is warned. Is the minister quoting from a confidential document? 14:50 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon Yes. Members of Parliament: Conduct 53 14:51 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answers about bullying inside his government. Is the Prime Minister aware that the member for Curtin has said that in some instances illegal behaviour may have taken place? Does the Prime Minister have any reason to doubt the member for Curtin's statement that illegal behaviour may have taken place? 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question. As the father of two daughters, I have no truck with bullying, whether it is of women or anyone else. I don't think anyone in this place would have any truck with it either. I have said on a number of occasions in this House the process we have on our side of politics for ensuring the proper care and welfare of our members. It is exactly the same as the process that is followed, courtesy of the admissions by the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party, through the whips process. That is what we have done. Mr Dreyfus interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Isaacs has been warned. Mr MORRISON E3L Over the last couple of weeks I have had opportunity to speak directly to members of my own team about these matters. I do not believe that there are the sorts of behaviours that were described in the question in those terms. Space Industry 53 14:52 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the government's actions to create a strong economy create new jobs and attract investment in our space industry? Is the minister aware of any different attitudes to supporting new and innovative industries? 14:52 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for Bonner for his question. I'm delighted that my first question in this place comes from a fellow Queenslander and one who I know works so hard for his local community. Mr Speaker, as you've heard today, this government has a very strong record in creating jobs. But there's much more work that needs to be done. Our space industry already includes more than 380 companies, employs more than 10,000 people and contributes $3.9 billion per annum to the Australian economy. The Australian Space Agency will grow our space sector. Projections are that it will triple the size of the sector and add $12 billion to the economy by 2030. It will help create 20,000 new jobs. It will provide opportunities that help our farmers and our engineers. It will provide a whole ecosystem to assist and provide jobs now and into the future. Importantly, a new space agency provokes dreams of going to the moon and exploring our universe. We, as a government, want our young people to shoot for the stars. We want our young people to understand that STEM opens up some fantastic opportunities for new careers into the future. Whilst we don't know exactly what the jobs of the future are going to be, we do know that about three-quarters of them are going to require STEM skills. Australia's space agency is going to go a long way to promoting opportunities for our young people and giving them the opportunity to aspire to something that they may not even have thought about to date. The global space economy is now worth about $345 billion, and the Australian Space Agency will help our businesses, large and small, to win a greater share of that market. Finally, I can advise that in recent days a resolution has been introduced to the United States Congress commending the Australian government's creation of the Space Agency. The resolution supports deeper cooperation with Australia in working to boost mutual prosperity and security. This recognition from our US allies is a clear demonstration of the importance of our space program, which will help to launch new business and job opportunities for Australia. We're now entering the most exciting time for Australia's space industry. This is a truly exciting time for the space industry in Australia—especially because of the support it will provide STEM jobs and investment in the Australian economy. Women in Parliament 54 14:55 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's answer on gender quotas yesterday. Was the member for Brisbane describing government policy when he rejected gender quotas on the basis that female politicians are 'all a cardboard cut-out'? Does the Prime Minister agree? Why are quotas for the National Party okay but quotas for women not? 14:56 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I've learned in this place, as a minister and now the Prime Minister, that you can never believe anything the Labor Party put in their questions. They're quite used to verballing people in the union movement, and they seek to verbal people here in this place. When it comes to the selection of candidates to represent the Liberal Party in this place, that is done by our rank and file membership, which is made up of men and women from all walks of life throughout the country, and they'll be doing that in Wentworth tonight as they select their candidate. But I know about the Labor Party. I know who picks their candidates. I know exactly who picks their candidates: the unions, the militant unions. There are the deals between the CFMEU, the deals between militant unions. They're the ones who decide who sits on the Labor Party benches in the parliament, whether it's here or it's in the other place, or whether it's in the New South Wales parliament or the Victorian parliament. I asked them the other day to put up their hands if they were a former trade union official. I'll ask them again. I'll give you another go. Nothing? Still nothing? You must be so proud. I'll ask those on this side of the House: who's ever run a small business here? Here we go! Who's ever worked in the private sector here? Here we go! Who's been a police officer here? Here we go! We've got a police officer up the back. Who is a farmer on this side of the House? We've got some farmers over here. We've got medical practitioners. Who has ever served in the Australian defence forces on this side of the House? The Liberal-National Party is the party of ordinary, everyday Australians going out there every day, having a go and getting a go. That's what we stand for. The Labor Party stands for Labor controlled by the unions—union bred, union fed, union led. Defence Industry 54 14:58 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep the economy strong consists of building a defence industry, driving investment and jobs and keeping Australians safe? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:58 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff We have another question from a coalition member focused on the things that are important to the Australian people, another question from the coalition side focused on jobs, economic growth and the policies that we're putting in place to make sure Australians have a better standard of living. What a contrast to the 10 questions we've had from Labor—obsessed with the politicking we continue to see from the Labor Party. But, like the member for Forde, I'm deeply passionate about what we're doing in the defence industry space. I am absolutely delighted to follow on the huge momentum that's been created by the previous Minister for Defence Industry, the now Minister for Defence. The Minister for Defence Industry, now Minister for Defence, did an outstanding job building on the coalition's vision. Our vision in this space is to invest an extra $200 billion to not only ensure that we build an industry around defence but also ensure the frontline men and women who proudly wear the Australian uniform in battlefields all around this globe have the maximum level of protection possible. We absolutely must ensure that those men and women are safe, because they are risking their lives to keep all of us safe. We on this side of the chamber know that. Frankly, when it comes to the defence industry, the contrast between the coalition's policy approach and the Australian Labor Party's approach could not be more stark. We are investing $200 billion and, when Labor were last in power, they ripped $18 billion out of defence spending. They brought Australia's defence spending down to the lowest level it had been since 1938. So, when Australians go to the next election, they will know that there is a very clear contrast between Labor and the coalition. The coalition is going to build a defence industry, build sovereign capability and invest in making sure that the small and medium-sized businesses across this country can participate in the build-up of national capability when it comes to our defence industry. In seats like Capricornia, Gilmore, Reid, Chisholm, Corangamite and even in seats that Labor hold—seats like Herbert, Hindmarsh and Braddon—we are seeing investment of $200 billion to grow an industry, to grow a sector and to grow thousands of jobs across this country. You need look no further than the great work that we are doing with the Land Forces conference and, in particular, the contract that we issued in relation to the combat reconnaissance vehicle in Queensland. We are going to see hundreds of jobs created in the member for Forde's seat and other seats to make sure that we deliver on not only our compact with the Australian SME sector in the defence industry but also, most importantly, our compact with the men and women who wear our uniform—to keep them safe so they can keep us safe. Liberal Party Leadership 55 15:02 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga My question is to the Prime Minister. Why are you the Prime Minister and not Malcolm Turnbull? 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for her question and the rousing spirit in which she delivered it. In this place I was very proud to serve with Prime Minister Turnbull as his Treasurer and I was very proud to serve with the member for Warringah when we worked together on immigration and border protection, achieving in that space and stopping the boats, and in social services as well. As a result of the reforms we put in place during my time there and those that followed from the now Attorney-General and others, we've been able to reduce welfare dependence of the working-age population to its lowest level in 25 years. Standing as Treasurer with the former Prime Minister I had the privilege of being able to work to ensure that the economy that we see today, which has 100,000 and more extra young people in work, as of the last 12 months, and a similar number and more of people aged over 55, particularly men, who didn't think they would get jobs again, have been able to get back into work. This is our government, and I'm proud to lead it now. I know Prime Minister Turnbull was proud to lead it and I know former Prime Minister Abbott was proud to lead it. Over the last five years we've delivered more than a million jobs—three strong leaders who have achieved strong results for the Australian people. An opposition member interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I'm happy to say it. Our party has been well-led. The Labor Party have just been fed by the union movement—and that's all they will ever serve up to the Australian people. Energy 55 15:04 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Energy. Can the minister update the House on actions the government is taking to address systemic problems with the Australian Energy Market? Is the minister aware of the impact of any alternative approaches? Dr Chalmers interjecting — The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Rankin needs to realise that, whilst interjections are disorderly, when there's a lull, it's an indication that we've moved on. The Minister for Energy has the call. 15:04 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for his question. He knows this government's priority when it comes to energy policy is getting electricity prices down, down, down while we keep the lights on. During the last Labor government, the energy market was badly damaged by bad policy. In the shadow minister's own book, called Climate Wars— Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Member for Burt! Mr TAYLOR 231027 which I can't recommend; it was described by one of the reviewers as longwinded and boring, but I'll quote the best bits from it—he said: That's not to say that Labor hasn't made missteps in the area of policy over the past decade. At times, we've made mistakes in both the design of our policies and their presentation … In hindsight, it's also clear to most that the carbon price introduced … was too high … Isn't that an understatement! It was about 100 per cent too high because it resulted in a doubling of electricity prices when you were last in office. Our unambiguous, unrelenting focus in electricity markets is to get the prices down while we keep the lights on. We're doing that in three ways. We're stopping the price gouging by the big energy companies in the distribution and transmission networks and in the wholesale market. We're providing customers with a price safety net, a default market price that's a fair, reasonable price even if you haven't got time to spend hours on the phone negotiating with the energy companies. And we're backing investment in fair dinkum, reliable power. If that means we've got to guarantee that investment, we'll do it. If that means we have to force divestment to ensure there's competition in the market, we will do it. The policies of this government are working. We saw price reductions in the price changes on 1 July in South-East Queensland. We saw a reduction of up to 14 per cent in small-business bills—$1,400 a year. Every small-business person here knows what $1,400 a year in reductions is worth to a hardworking small-business person in Australia. We've seen 1.8 million households better off. The member asked if there are alternatives. There are: a 50 per cent renewable energy target and a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. We've seen in South Australia what that does. South Australia led what the then Labor Premier called 'an experiment' where he delivered to South Australia an electricity price that was amongst the highest in the world—48 cents a kilowatt hour compared to Estonia at 23, Romania at 21 and Hungary at 19. We are the party of lower electricity prices. You are the opposition of higher electricity prices. Equal Representation 56 15:08 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister please explain why quotas for the National Party are okay but quotas for women are not? 15:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again the Leader of the Opposition doesn't know what he's talking about. Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. Mr MORRISON E3L He doesn't know what he's talking about, and we know that from the questions he's been asking today. It's been all week. What the Labor Party have been focused on is politics, lawyer picnics and all of this sort of nonsense. And what have we been talking about all week? All this week what we've been talking about—what we've been doing, more importantly—is putting in place our plans and policies for an even stronger Australia, to keep our economy strong, to guarantee the essential services that Australians rely on, to keep Australians safe at home and abroad and to keep Australians together. Today in this place, my colleagues have come to the despatch box in response to the questions that have been put about the issues that Australians are focused on, whether it's mental health, the increased funding we're putting into hospitals or the increased funding we're putting into schools around the country, preserving the choice that's available for parents. He doesn't want to know about this. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order? Mr Shorten 00ATG The point of order is on direct relevance. I asked a very specific question: what does the government have against promoting women? Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will cease interjecting. Before I call the Prime Minister, I do have to say I almost ruled the question out of order when it was first asked on the basis that leaders aren't responsible for party matters, but the Prime Minister was clearly prepared to answer it. The Prime Minister, in doing that, is within his rights to compare and contrast for a period of time, which I think he's done. He's not, obviously, compelled to use all the time that's there. I'll call the Prime Minister. I'm listening carefully to his answer. Mr MORRISON E3L Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll add one more point of compare and contrast: in this week we have not had one serious question from those opposite about drought. They're not interested in the drought; they're only interested in exploiting it. They're only intending to exploit it and not listen to farmers or others around the country. What I'm looking forward to is tonight, when the Liberal Party will gather in Wentworth and select our candidate. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat. Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Hunter can leave under 94(a)—that will make what I'm doing easier. The member for Hunter then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I've made the point to the Prime Minister, and indeed all ministers, that you had a period of compare and contrast, but it was a very specific question. If the Prime Minister wants to address the issues he's addressing any further, he will really need to be asked a question about it. The question really was confined to one policy area. I have some latitude, but I do have to say that I've made that clear repeatedly. The member for Grayndler? Mr Albanese R36 I rise on a different point of order, although I'm very pleased that you supported the previous one without me giving it! Given the Prime Minister's statement about how we haven't asked questions on drought— The SPEAKER 00APG No, you need to state the point of order. Mr Albanese R36 My point of order is that we're not allowed to ask the envoy on drought questions; therefore, how can we? The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Grayndler, in particular, knows the standing orders with respect to who can be asked questions very well, so I have no choice but to regard that as a deliberate frivolous point of order, and he will leave under 94(a). The member for Grayndler then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I call the Prime Minister. Mr MORRISON E3L I've been asked about quotas. I'll tell you the quota we're very proud to have achieved in this party and in this government over the last five years: there are more women in jobs today than at any other time and the gender pay gap has been reduced more so than occurred under the Labor Party. The Liberal and National parties are about getting real results for families, for men, for women and for all Australians, because we're 100 per cent focused on the issues that matter to them. The Labor Party is only ever interested in the grubby politics that they're associated with. Employment 57 15:13 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is to the Minister for Human Services and Digital Transformation. Can the minister update the House on the government's efforts to encourage people to transition from welfare and into jobs? Is the minister aware of any other approaches to guaranteeing essential services? 15:14 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Groom for that question. He knows, like we all do on this side of the House, that we are committed to creating a stronger economy, and that is the best way that we can guarantee the essential services that we provide for the Australian people while still being able to bring the budget back into balance. Those on this side of the House understand that Australians should keep more of what they earn and that the best possible form of welfare is a job. That's why we've had a laser-like focus on job creation, creating over one million jobs since we came to office in 2013. That is over 1,000 jobs per day under this government. Of course the result of the fact that we've created over one million jobs is that we've taken 140,000 people off welfare. That saves the Australian taxpayer, over the lifetime of those welfare costs, upwards of $20 billion. This allows us to get on with the job of guaranteeing essential services for all Australians while we are doing everything we can to live within our means and bring that budget back to balance. Unlike those opposite, we believe in the Australian people. We have a plan for growth. I contrast that record that I've been talking about, those million jobs that have been created, those 1,000 jobs a day that have been created, with the record of the Labor Party when they were in office between 2007 and 2013. Under Labor, the number of jobseekers, the number of people on the unemployment queue, rose from 420,000 to 700,000. At the same time, another 100,000 people went onto the disability support pension. We are committed to making sure that the Australian people have access to job opportunities, that they come off the welfare system and that the welfare system runs with integrity and people only get what they are entitled to. Without this integrity our welfare system is unsustainable. Those costs will balloon, and that will leave future generations of Australians to pick up the bill. This government remains committed to living within its means and managing its spending. Since 1 July 2016, we've achieved savings of $1.7 billion through running the welfare system with integrity by cracking down on fraud and compliance. This $1.7 billion is money we can now invest in hospitals, schools, job creation, aged care and making improvements in the way Australians interact with their government. When Labor were in office, the number of compliance checks was reduced and the value of debt raised dropped by almost half. We on this side of the House believe in running the economy to make sure that Australians have access to work, and we will continue to implement policies that give every Australian the opportunity to access a job. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER 58 QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER Question Time 58 15:17 Mr BURKE DYW Watson Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. It goes to the principles in practice when questions are put on the Notice Paper and making inquiries when answers are not given. This concerns the case where yesterday in question time itself the Prime Minister took on notice that he would undertake inquiries of his department's secretary as to whether or not the Minister for Home Affairs excused himself from all discussions on child care. Given that that answer still hasn't come back to the House, I'm asking whether there is a procedure for you to take similar action. 15:17 The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his question. I understand why the question was asked. As Speaker, I don't govern any time limits for ministers or prime ministers with respect to answers to questions on notice or undertakings as to when ministers or prime ministers come back to the House. That's well established. It's a matter for the minister concerned or the Prime Minister in terms of timing. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 58 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:18 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I wish to make a personal explanation. The SPEAKER 00APG Does the Prime Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MORRISON E3L I do, just now. The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister may proceed. Mr MORRISON E3L The representation that was just made by the member then was that I would come back with what was effectively an answer to a question that I had taken on notice. I had taken no question on notice. I simply said that I would make inquiries of the department's secretary and come back to the House. I have made some inquiries, and, when I'm in a position to do so, I will. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 58 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 58 15:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government voting against the banking Royal Commission 26 times. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:19 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon With all the melodrama and the self-focused soap opera we have had from the other side of the House over the last few weeks, it's perhaps easy to forget with all that melodrama just how many big calls this government has got wrong. It's not the daily ups and downs nor is it the ambitions and opportunities and Newspolls which are the reasons why this government is a failure; it's because it's been faced with some big decisions and, on almost every occasion, got those big decisions wrong, perhaps none more so than its decision to block a royal commission into Australia's banking and financial services sector. More than two years ago the Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Isaacs, the member for Rankin—the then shadow minister for financial services—and I announced that a Labor government would call a royal commission into the banks and financial services sector. We said at that time we would do it in office but we hoped the Liberal government would do it earlier. We told the Liberal-National government they would have our full support if they called a royal commission into the banks and financial services. What we had was two years of obstruction, two years of denial, two years of delay, two years of inaction and two years of excuses, and in all that time the financial services scandals continued. In all that time the bad behaviour continued as this government continued to run a protection racket. I acknowledge that the Prime Minister yesterday admitted that was wrong. I acknowledge that he admitted his mistake. But the key point is: it's not important what you admit when it is obvious you were wrong, when it is undeniable that you were wrong. What is important is your judgement when it's a hard call. When the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Isaacs and I announced a royal commission, it was controversial. We were pilloried as being populist. We were pilloried as being damaging to Australia's international reputation. We were told that we had it wrong. But we knew that the case for a royal commission was strong and that we could defend it and justify it against the political attacks and the attacks of those vested interests who denied it was necessary. Having the judgement and the courage to get it right when it's a hard call is what governments are all about. Not admitting when it is so self-evident that it should have been done two years ago is not something to be proud of. Something the government could have been proud of was if they got it right when it was controversial. The Prime Minister says, 'Look, I made a mistake.' He's hinting, implying that, you know, he had not given it that much thought and that maybe should have given it that much more attention. It's not just that he didn't call the royal commission when he was Treasurer; he voted against it 26 times. The government did everything they could to avoid a royal commission into the banks and financial services sector. It wasn't just that they voted against it. The Prime Minister called it, in his normal blustering way, 'a populist whinge'. He called it 'a political exercise for a political hack', referring to the Leader of the Opposition. He said that a royal commission was pursuing 'crass populism', undermining an institution that is critical to our country and our economy. He said it was a 'stunt'. He said that they only proposed a royal commission to help one person: the Leader of the Opposition. He said it's intended to bolster and prop up the stocks of the Leader of the Opposition. He said the Leader of the Opposition was doing it to pursue political gain. It shows just how out of touch this Prime Minister is that he said all these things over such a long period of time. But I have to say it wasn't just the Prime Minister. The person responsible for the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations will be the Treasurer. What did the Treasurer say? He said the banks are already heavily regulated. He said when he was asked if there was no need for a royal commission, 'That's my view, yes.' He said it's 'just a distraction' from Bill Shorten. He said, 'I think it's a bit of populist politics from Bill Shorten.' That's what the now Treasurer said, joining a unity ticket with the now Prime Minister to ignore the need for a royal commission into the banking and financial services sector. There has been a real cost to be paid for this misjudgement by the now Prime Minister and now Treasurer. What we have seen and what the Australian people have seen out of the royal commission is nothing short of scandalous; nothing short, in many instances, of stomach-turning; nothing short of immoral; and nothing short of outrageous. It has continued on for two years longer. If the Prime Minister had had his way, we never would have known about this. It was only because of the royal commission that we know about fees for no service. It's only because of the royal commission that we know about what happened at AMP. It's only because of the royal commission that we know that people who were dead were charged fees. It's only because of the royal commission that we know—we saw it this week—about perhaps the worst of all the revelations, about the push-selling to some of Australia's most vulnerable people of insurance they did not need and did not want. We know about the messages to staff to sell, sell, sell, and think about the holiday to Bali. Why do we know about all these things? Because of the royal commission. We said the royal commission was necessary to get sunlight onto the problems in our banking and financial services sector, to get the issues out, to get the issues exposed, so that the parliament could deal with it and so that the people could know about it. We didn't know every detail about what would be found—of course we did not—but we knew there was a problem, and we knew it had to be fixed. We knew, as tough as it was, that a royal commission was justified and necessary. Even when the government called it—even when they were dragged, kicking and screaming—for political purposes, they said: 'It's very regrettable. We wish we didn't have to. We really regret having to do this, but we're doing it for political purposes.' It says a lot about the government. We did it because we knew it was necessary; they did it because they thought they had to. That says it all. If the Prime Minister had had his way, we still wouldn't know about these scandals, and we would be no closer to getting a banking and financial services sector which works for all and not just for a few. But, if the Leader of the Opposition had had his way, this royal commission would have started more than two years ago and would now be finished. The government would now be implementing its recommendations. Not only would the bad behaviour have been highlighted and public but it would have been dealt with. We would have implemented the necessary regulations and changes. The 300,000 breaches of law by ClearView would have been known and dealt with. The problems at IOOF would have been known and dealt with. The problems of push-selling of insurance to vulnerable Australians would have been known and dealt with. All would have been done by now. We would have been getting on with it. We would have passed legislation; banks would have dealt with it; insurance companies would have dealt with it; mortgage brokers would have dealt with it; and the country would be better off. Here we are, two years later, still talking about it and still seeing the almost daily revelations out of the royal commission. What does the government say? 'Sorry about that; we got it wrong.' You betcha you got it wrong. You betcha the government got it wrong. It goes to their judgement. We've seen plenty of misjudgements from this Prime Minister in his various portfolios. This Prime Minister thought it was a good idea to increase the GST. This Prime Minister thought it was a good idea to cut all Commonwealth funding to public schools. This Prime Minister, with his predecessor, thought it was a good idea to have state income taxes. There were all those misjudgements and more, but this, in many senses, is the worst. The Prime Minister wants to reassure us all and reassure the Australian people that he's in touch. He's on their side, he tells us. He's on their side, and he wears a badge to remind him whose side he's on, he tells us. You don't need a badge to remind you whose side you're on if you know that the problems facing the Australian people need to be dealt with by this parliament and by tough action. Tough action is sometimes telling people what they don't want to hear. I rang the four chief executives of the banks and said, 'I'm giving you a warning that in a few hours Bill Shorten and I will be announcing a royal commission into the banks.' They weren't pleasant conversations, I have to tell you, Mr Speaker. It wasn't a welcome call for the four chief executives of the big banks. But, I tell you, I'm glad I made those calls. I'm glad I'm a member of a political party with the toughness and the courage to make those calls. I'm glad I'm a member of a political party with a leader tough enough to make those calls. We know that not everybody will welcome our decisions, but we will put the Australian people first. We don't need to wear a football hat to tell people we'll put Australian people first. We don't need a selfie on a train to tell people we're in touch with their concerns. Our actions speak louder than our words, and our action two years ago, by calling for this royal commission, spoke louder than anything the government and their weasel words could do today, because we did it when it wasn't easy. We did it when it wasn't conventional. We did it when it was controversial. We did it when it was necessary. These people opposite not only didn't call a royal commission; they opposed our Future of Financial Advice reforms when we were in government and then tried to repeal them when they were in office. They are completely out of touch— (Time expired) 15:29 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden Can I say from the outset that the commissioner in the royal commission is doing an excellent job. He is due to present his final report in February, with an interim report at the end of September, and the government looks forward to receiving it. It's important that Australians know that there have been 8,600 public submissions, and they are all being read. Australians are being heard. Can I also make the point that if the commissioner asks the government for more time, we will provide it to him. At this stage the commissioner has not sought more time. The coalition government, though, has not waited until the royal commission to begin reforming the financial sector, and that remains a germane point. I, like many of Labor's frontbench, came into this place 11 years ago in the 2007 election. From there, a number of scandals broke out due to the GFC, amongst other things. We saw the collapse of Trio Capital, involving 5,000 victims and $176 million; Storm Financial, with 4,000 claims and losses of something like $3 billion; Opes Prime, with 1,200 investors and tens of millions of dollars; MIS failures, and the rest. I was a part of the committee that did the inquiry into the financial services sector and did the bipartisan Ripoll report, which I think, from memory, had 11 recommendations. There was no dissenting report; it was a unity ticket on looking at what was required to fix the financial sector. Years later, in an op-ed in The Australian on 9 February 2012, the Leader of the Opposition wrote: Australia has some of the best banks in the world. It is partly because of our excellent regulatory system and prudent management. He was the financial services minister. On 2 August 2013, just 36 days before the 7 September election and change of government, on 3AW, the then financial services minister and current Leader of the Opposition said: … our financial system has held us in very good stead in recent years and in part it's a testament to the regulatory or the sound regulatory system we have in place. The government would change 36 days later. The appalling behaviour we have seen from our banking, super and insurance areas did not start when the government changed 36 days after the Leader of the Opposition made that statement. It had started well before that. We saw extraordinarily poor behaviour when we did the post-GFC banking inquiry. With Storm Financial, many of their advisers had masked degrees in financial planning. Don't think for a second that the Commonwealth Bank and its Townsville branch were not intimately involved in some of the appalling behaviour we saw from Storm Financial; they were. It was brought to account, as were the major banks that we had in committee at that time. These behaviours have been appalling, and I join with the shadow Treasurer in acknowledging some of the dreadful things we've seen. But this behaviour didn't start when this government came to power. There has been a history of this perversity at times, much of which we bore out during the post-GFC banking inquiry and much of which is coming out now. One of the first things this government did upon taking power was to instigate the financial systems inquiry, the Murray inquiry, which released its report in December 2014. The inquiry was done for a range of reasons, one of which was to understand the full extent of the challenges in the financial services industry. The government has been systematically implementing the recommendations of that inquiry. We started with purpose, with intent and with clarity to understand the issues, and we have been working methodically through implementing those recommendations. We set up the ASIC capability review in July 2015. We've been putting consumers first in systematically implementing these reforms for the financial services sector, and the reforms are extensive. The legislation passed to date includes the Banking Executive Accountability Regime, or BEAR, ensuring that senior executives are accountable for the decisions they make. It is one of the most significant reforms in Australia's financial services history. We established the banking executive regulatory regime to impose higher standards of behaviours on banks and their senior executives and directors. We have strengthened the leadership of the financial systems regulators through enabling ASIC and APRA to have a second deputy chair. John Lonsdale will be appointed to APRA—he's a 30-year Treasury veteran—and Daniel Crennan QC has already started in his role as special prosecutor focusing on enforcement. We've created a one-stop shop for external dispute resolution with the establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which steps up on 1 November, to enable more consumers to access fast and free dispute resolution. We've increased the powers of regulators substantially, especially APRA, in relation to crisis management and non-bank lending to ensure the resilience and ongoing stability of the Australian financial system. We've capped commissions paid on life insurance products to prevent unnecessary churning and raise the professional, educational and ethical standards of financial advisers. We've introduced a ban on excessive credit card surcharges. We've protected consumers from being granted excessive credit limits and building unsustainable debt across credit cards and simplified how interest is calculated. We've establish a regime requiring administrators of significant financial benchmarks to be licensed. There's better protection now for retail client moneys held by financial institutions in connection with over-the-counter derivatives. We've implemented the Asia Region Funds Passport. And, of course, we've done a bunch of work in crowdsourced equity funding to establish new businesses' access to that. There's a bunch of legislation currently before the parliament to strengthen protections for whistleblowers; to enhance ASIC's capability to attract and retain staff; to relax the legislative 15 per cent ownership cap; to extend the crowdsourced equity-funding regime further; improve superannuation capability; and to protect individuals' superannuation savings from disproportionately high fees, insurance premiums and exit fees. Further reforms have also been announced for increasing the civil and criminal penalties for financial misconduct. They're the most significant increases to the maximum civil penalties, in some cases, in more than 20 years. For individuals, we're talking about criminal penalties of up to 10 years in jail. For corporations, we're talking about criminal penalties that are the larger of $9.45 million or three times the benefit or 10 per cent annual turnover. These are substantial penalties. We are talking about substantial cops on the beat with substantial powers and a substantial stick. We've extended the unfair contract terms protections to insurance contracts. We're looking at combating illegal phoenix activity. We're imposing design and distribution obligations to ensure products sold by financial institutions are designed for and marketed to an identified target market to minimise the likelihood of consumers purchasing unsuitable products and we're imposing a product intervention power for ASIC to enable the regulator to intervene where products could pose significant harm. We've increased ASIC's funding by over $70 million to equip it with the resources. That's a lot of work that has been done—that is continually being done. This government was not found flat-footed coming into government; we commenced this work from day one in 2013. The Prime Minister has stated publicly in this House that we didn't appreciate how much people had suffered as a result of the misconduct in banking, but the answer to addressing some of the issues in the financial sector is not just about strong regulation, although that is extremely important. It's also important to create more competition so people have the choice to go to another bank or another financial service provider if they're not happy with the service. People have choice to go somewhere else, if they're not happy with the price or reputational challenges. Strong regulation is key. Strong regulators are key. As we are working through banking codes of conduct, strong self-regulation is key. They can't exist in isolation. They must exist as triumvirate together. That's why the coalition government has implemented a number of reforms to increase competition in the sector. We've introduced open banking, and the broader consumer data right, to drive competition across the banking system. We've removed barriers for cooperatives and mutuals to access capitals to enable them to compete more effectively with larger, well-financed banks. We've provided a framework for an enhanced financial services regulatory sandbox to allow fintechs to test new products and services which enable them to compete. There is now mandatory comprehensive credit reporting to force large financial institutions to share their credit information securely. This includes competition considerations within ASIC's mandate, again, to drive more competition. We've permitted all authorised deposit-taking institutions to use the term 'bank' to improve their ability to compete. This government has been systematically acting, in response to the financial systems inquiry, to get things done. We look forward to the commissioner's recommendations, and I'm very confident the Australian people trust that we, in government, will fix the problems that we encounter as we encounter them. 15:39 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It's been a very disturbing and a very distressing week in the royal commission. People who are observing the work of the commission will know that at the moment we are dealing with the insurance round. Commissioner Hayne has set aside two weeks to look into just this industry. What we're seeing is an industry that has many and significant issues. The stories we've heard told are genuinely gut-wrenching. I want to begin with the case of Grant Stewart, whose son has Down syndrome. His son was pressured into buying insurance that he didn't want and he didn't need. Words just cannot describe how angry I was and how angry I know my colleagues were listening to the audio tape of this young man and his disability being exploited by someone so that an insurance company could meet a sales target. For me, this incident actually encapsulates so many issues that this royal commission is uncovering. Anyone who is in the chamber now or who is listening at home, if you've ever had a doubt about why this royal commission is necessary, why it is crucial, then I urge you to go and find the audio of Grant Stewart's son being sold this policy. One of the things that is most shocking about this incident with Grant Stewart's son is the fact that this happened two months after the Prime Minister, who was the then Treasurer, on the other side of the chamber, voted against a royal commission into the financial services industry. We know, because we have sat here for almost two years watching this person, the Prime Minister, the member for Cook, lead the charge on the other side of the chamber against this royal commission. Those opposite tried every trick in the book to stop this from happening. And when Australians are watching on television the things that are coming out of the royal commission, I want them to remember this: these are the stories the Prime Minister didn't want them to hear. And if he had had his way, if he had not buckled to the pressure and the leadership of the opposition leader then we would never have known about these problems and we would never have this once-in-a-generation opportunity to look at the matters facing this sector. I've talked about the one incident of Grant Stewart's son, but it is one of so many. On the first day of the insurance round, on Monday, one of the first things we learnt was an insurer, ClearView, has probably broken the law 300,000 times. We heard about CommInsure, which has been the subject of a number of media inquiries about its monitoring of insurance. One of the instances we heard was about a customer who suffered from breast cancer. She had multiple surgeries but when she went to claim on her insurance, it was refused on the basis that because her operation wasn't a full mastectomy, it was not radical enough to be paid out under an insurance claim. That is just what we have heard about this week, but it is the tip of the iceberg of the despicable conduct we have seen come through in the royal commission. One of the stories that sticks in my mind, and I am sure some of you on the benches behind me will remember this, was of a man who was a gambling addict. He knew he was a gambling addict and he went to his bank, the Commonwealth Bank, and said, 'Please, stop increasing my credit limit.' He was an addict. Instead of doing that, the bank continued to pursue him, continued to write to him and continued to increase the limit on his credit card. One of the images that sticks in my mind is of this man weeping in the dock of the royal commission as he explained his story—another story that never would have been told if the Prime Minister had got his way in avoiding the royal commission. The Prime Minister did not just vote against a royal commission 26 times, he led the charge of his government against this. He called this 'a populist whinge'. He called it 'just a distraction', 'a QC complaints desk'. He told us he already knew what all these issues were, so then we asked the obvious question: if he knew this was happening, why didn't he do anything about it? I feel incensed by something that I keep hearing from the other side of politics at the moment, that the reason they didn't support a royal commission was because they didn't understand the hurt the Australian people were feeling about this. This is not about hurt feelings. This is about law-breaking on a very large scale within a service industry that supports almost every Australian, almost every Australian business. You can only trust one party in this country to clean up this mess, and that is Labor. 15:45 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee It is very easy to be very wise in hindsight, and I hark back to 2017 and 2013. There was no royal commission under Labor. I must say, under Prime Minister Rudd, the banks came to you and you guaranteed them but didn't ask for anything in return. Everyone is on a journey. You might start off as a Green and then you might become a Labor person and then you might eventually evolve into being a Liberal—but, when you see the light, you might join the National Party. It has taken some time to bring us to this point, and I thought it would be wise for people to have a listen to a bit of history to give you an idea of why regulation of finance is not something that is new and is something that needs to be looked at. On 4 March 1933, FD Roosevelt said: Nature still offers her bounty and human efforts have multiplied it. Plenty is at our doorstep, but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods— as in the banks— have failed, through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit. I point out that regulation of the banks is nothing new. The need for a strong spotlight on the regulation of the banks must take place in every society fairly often and fairly thoroughly. That was in 1933. You cannot, unfortunately, get to a point where you can just trust the ethics of moneylenders. Their ethics must be held to account by a certain amount of transparency and a certain amount of regulation. I would add that banks actually are a partner for Australians to achieve the standard of living that they must and hope to achieve. At the end of this royal commission I do not want to get to the point where a young person who wants to be able to purchase a house has a bank that is so regulated against it that they won't be able to achieve and access finance. We must be very careful on this point. One of the things that helps young Australians get ahead is that they can access finance. So, when we think about bank regulation, we must have transparency but we must also make sure that that transparency does not lead to a level of restriction where our young Australians cannot access finance. If you increase the wealth of the citizens of a country, you increase the wealth of the nation. It is still a concern to me that our banks have not got to a point where they give recognition to a person who may have three years of rental experience. They've proven that they've got the capacity to run a budget and proven that they have the ability to service and make provision. That should be, I think, seen as capacity for them to be able to get a loan. So we do need to have regulation of our banks. We do need to have a strong royal commission that brings this to fruition. Those opposite missed an opportunity in 2007 to 2013. It took our side of parliament a while to come to this point, and I must it was the National Party who was instrumental in bringing it to this point. As a result of this royal commission, we must finish with a situation where banks can be trusted, institutions can be strong and young Australians who want to purchase a house are able to purchase a house. The two things outside of government that must be committed to is that if you want to have a job, you can get a job, and, if you want to be able to purchase a home, a modest home, you should be able to purchase one. If you get those two parts of your society right, you'll have a very, very strong society. This royal commission has a purpose. You should have done it when you were in power. We're now eventually doing it. It's the right thing to do. May we come up with a strong society as a result of it. 15:50 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert 'A populist whinge'—that's how our now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has referred to calls for the royal commission into banking. That was something that the LNP government simply did not want. For more than 600 days, this arrogant, out-of-touch LNP government ignored Labor's and the Australian people's call for a royal commission. The then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, did everything possible to protect his banking mates. But, after 600 days, the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, announced one of the shortest royal commissions in Australian history, referring to it as a 'regrettable decision'. The stories so far in the royal commission are nothing but devastating. Let's go through some of the facts revealed in the royal commission that the Prime Minister did not want anyone to hear. ASIC has estimated, based on explosive evidence in the royal commission, that AMP and NAB gouged an estimated $1 billion from customers without providing them any service at all. The Commonwealth Bank has been caught charging fees to people who they knew had died. Some of these people had passed away more than a decade ago. NAB's Introducer Program led to rampant fraud, with one introducer paid over $488,000 in fees. Some of these introducers paid cash bribes in paper envelopes to brokers so they would push through loan applications and ignore missing details. That's fraud. The Commonwealth Bank knew the royal commission witness David Harris had a gambling problem, but they kept on offering him credit limit increases anyway. AMP admitted that it lost count of how many times it lied to ASIC. ANZ pushed a fourth generation farming family into selling their home within six weeks. ANZ pushed superannuation products through its bank branches despite knowing the tellers did not have the qualifications to advise the customers properly. ANZ earned $3.6 billion from this scheme, and it paid a paltry fine of $1.25 million. On Tuesday, we heard evidence that Grant Stewart's son, who has Down syndrome, was bullied into signing up for insurance that he didn't want, need or even understand. Earlier this week we also heard that one insurance company, ClearView, broke the law over 300,000 times. And then there is a document tabled regarding the Commonwealth Bank's audit of its customers on Palm Island in my electorate. On Palm Island alone, Hannover Life Re charged customers 383 transactions for a total of $16,401 during a 14-month period, and St Andrew's Life Insurance had charged Palm Island residents 313 transactions for a total of $12,857 over the same period. According to the census data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Palm Island is one of the 10 most disadvantaged communities in Australia. This is absolutely unconscionable and disgraceful behaviour. Last week the Prime Minister was having dinner and cosying up to the NAB CEO, Andrew Thorburn. This is the same bank that last year announced plans to sack one-fifth of their workers over the next three years whilst announcing on the same day a $6.6 billion annual profit. How out of touch can he truly be? At the same time that the Prime Minister is cosying up to the banks, I'm talking to veterans about this out-of-touch government—a government that is continuing to ignore the royal banking commission and the fact that the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation needs to be included in the royal commission. Labor has written not one, not two but three letters to the LNP government demanding that the CSC be included, but this arrogant LNP government refuses to hear Labor's calls and refuses to act in the best interests of our veterans by including the CSC in the royal commission. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten; shadow minister Clare O'Neil; and I held a banking roundtable in Townsville. We heard stories that were chilling. We heard stories from veterans and people who had lost everything through bad practice from poor banking activities. After hearing their stories, the very next day the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister asking for him to provide an opportunity for more victims across the country to give evidence about banking misconduct. But once again Prime Minister Scott Morrison is refusing. This is a man who puts profits before people. This is a man who cannot guarantee that he works in the best interests of Australian people because we know he works in the best interests of the banks. Let's not wait another 600 days. I call on Prime Minister Scott Morrison to extend the royal commission and to also include the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. (Time expired) 15:55 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie What a shocking speech from the member for Herbert, reflecting on the Prime Minister. She clearly doesn't know what she's talking about. In fact, we, the Liberal-National Party, were the ones who called this royal commission into the banks. Ms O'Neil interjecting— Ms O'Toole interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 Is that right? You might want to look over the aisle. We're actually in government. The boisterous members opposite might want to remember that we're in government and we called the royal commission. The member for Hotham wants to come into this place and put herself on a pedestal. That's what she wants to do, as though she's been here for years and she knows everything. The Labor Party is holier than holier, according to the member for Hotham. She sits there, 'We're holier than holier.' These people in the gallery think they have no fault. They have no fault, they're perfect, according to the member for Hotham. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Petrie will address the chair. Mr HOWARTH 247742 Mr Deputy Speaker, that's what we get from the member for Hotham. In fact, she wants to reflect on the Prime Minister, as does the member for Herbert. What do we get? The Labor Party had six years to call a royal commission when they were in government. In fact, the member for McMahon, who spoke first today, did nothing in those six years. The member for Hotham conveniently pulled out a couple of examples that were shocking, which the Prime Minister actually addressed in parliament this week, but said nothing about the six years when they were in government. She didn't mention any examples there at all. The member for Hotham and the member for Herbert want to talk about the ANZ CEO. In the last two years, all they've done is bag the banks. You can bag the banks all you want. You can bag them. Why do we see that happening? For political opportunity. They might want to remember that the banking sector and the finance sector employ 168,000 people in Australia, and they have been bagging them for the last two years—absolutely bagging them, member for Hotham, holier than holier, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The fact is that today we heard Minister Andrews talk about the STEM industry, and that there are 10,000 people currently employed in the space industry and 20,000 new job opportunities in that industry. Yet we have 168,000 in the banking and finance industry, the 11th-largest employer. I'm finding that, in my electorate now, young people who want to get home loans are finding it very difficult. Why? It's not their fault. They are not at fault. Those opposite have bagged the industry for the last two years instead of wanting to work with us. The fact is that this royal commission is happening now, yet they come into this place and what do they want to do? They want to score points, because the Labor Party is holier than holier. Is that right? They bring up an MPI, but the fact is that the commissioner on this banking royal commission is due to hand down a summary in September and then finalise it next year. They haven't asked for a time extension. They haven't asked for a time extension at all. But no, those opposite want to drag it on. This is all about the Labor Party and how they're perfect and how none of it is their fault. It's not about the superannuation industry, whether it's the private sector or industry funds or self-managed funds. So many people have investments in the banking sector and the finance sector, but they don't mind running it down. They don't mind taking funds away from retirees in the policy that they will take to the 2019 election. Anyone in the gallery that's got shares and relies on dividend imputation knows they're going to tax them more. They want to tax them more. Anyone in the gallery who earns up to $200,000 knows they want to tax them more. They're going to take away the legislated income tax cuts that we've already got through. They fought the whole way against company tax reductions, including wanting to wind back tax reductions for small and medium businesses up to $50 million. No—the Labor Party are holier than holier; that's what they are. That's what the member for Hotham would have you believe. But the fact is that the coalition government, your Australian government, our Australian government, are the ones who called this royal commission. I've got four or five pages here that I haven't even got to about what we've been doing in the financial sector. I just say to those opposite: they ought to be ashamed of themselves. (Time expired) 16:00 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan Twenty-six—just to put that in perspective: that's about eight more than the number of women in the Liberal caucus. Also, it's the number of times that this Prime Minister voted against a royal commission over a period of two years. This isn't anything unusual. This is in the LNP government's DNA. Their DNA goes to protecting the banks over the victims. Their DNA goes to engaging big business and engaging the banks over and above supporting the victims and looking after everyday Australians. Their DNA goes to dismissing successive calls for a royal commission, terming it a populist whinge, a political exercise, crass populism and a distraction. Their DNA goes to accusing Australians of being whingers, of being beggars and of lacking aspiration when they dare to ask this government to do their job. It's in their DNA. How does the Prime Minister respond to some of the abhorrent revelations that are coming out of the banking royal commission? There was the evidence that we saw about Grant Stewart's son, with Down syndrome—bullied into signing up for insurance that he didn't want, didn't need and didn't understand. How does the Prime Minister respond to that? He said: ... the problem I didn't see and I should have seen, the problem that also needed to be addressed, was the hurt that people were feeling as a result of the banking and financial sector. 'The problem I didn't see.' So, because he didn't see it, it didn't exist, but on this side we saw it. On this side we knew, and that's why we kept calling for a banking royal commission. We spoke to the people, we heard their concerns, we listened to Australians and, time and time again, called on the government to instigate a royal commission that they had to be dragged to, kicking and screaming. I don't care how many pins you wear on your lapel. It doesn't matter how many you wear or where you wear them. This government will always be on the side of the banks. They'll always be on the side of big business over Australians. As I said, it's in their DNA; it's who they are. The advice that this Prime Minister has for Australians who are whingers or beggars is: 'Get over it.' 'Get over it,' he says. Ms Claydon 248181 That's what he said. Dr ALY 13050 That's what he said yesterday in question time: 'Get over it.' That's the advice he has. Suddenly, this Prime Minister has awoken. Suddenly he's reading the room. All of a sudden he woke up to the fact that, for years, the banks and the financial sector has been treating Australians abhorrently. We've had evidence and evidence and evidence—and I don't need to go through it all here, because I know that my colleagues, and particularly the member for Hotham, has given a very, very strong account of some of the claims we heard over the period of this banking royal commission. We on this side didn't need to be told that we needed a royal commission because we didn't see it. We knew it was there. We knew that a royal commission needed to be had. I think it's particularly disgraceful that those on the other side now stand up and claim some kind of victory over having called a royal commission only after they voted against it consecutively 26 times. If this royal commission had been done two years ago, when we first called for it, we would've had it over and done, and we would've had practical and substantive solutions in place now. But, again, all those opposite care about is protecting the banks. It's in their DNA. It's who they forever were and who they always will be. 16:05 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore I have been worried, before being elected in 2013 and ever since, about the impacts of banking misbehaviour. That means it existed prior to me being in this House. Why didn't Labor do anything about it in the period from 2008? I need to remind those opposite that talking about my missed opportunities to get a royal commission is simply wrong. To get full justice, to get full examination, background and evidence to justify such a commission must first be constructively put in place, and that is exactly what I did. Never mind the rubbish presented by Labor. Most of the significant banking misbehaviour happened on their watch, starting in 2008. Labor were in government and they did nothing for five years. I don't recall a single instance of a call for a commission. We had media on a 24/7 news cycle and a great deal of ignorance both in the community and in the media political analysis. It was purely a political stunt in 2013. Truly, the commission should've been established in 2010, but it wasn't. In 2016 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, of which I was a member, tabled its report on the impairment of customer loans. The committee report determined there had been a persistent pattern of abuse of the almost complete asymmetry of power in the relationship between lender and borrower. It considered that there were a number of factors which created an environment in which small-business borrowers were very vulnerable and that banks were able to exploit that vulnerability. Additional background information related to the wide variation of conduct that was deemed acceptable by lenders due to the significant level of discretion and commercial judgement relating to initial lending and the management of loans and financial difficulty. Complex non-negotiable loan contracts, coupled with gaps in existing legislation and regulation, gave banks the power to behave in ways that, in relation to loans, were unethical, unreasonable and lacked transparency. There were many cases of borrowers in financial difficulty who were unable to pursue their rights through the courts because either the process was unaffordable or they had lost control of their finances. The significant gaps in the coverage of mediation and external dispute resolution schemes left borrowers without the means to have their disputes with banks tested. I must say that we have already addressed a large number of these. At the end of one of the inquiries in 2016 into banking behaviour, the committee was not able to further investigate the matter as a significant proportion of the answers coming from the financial sector and the banking representatives were contradictory and strange. They seemed to just want to confuse the MPs asking the questions. In September 2016, the Minister for Small Business tasked the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman to undertake an inquiry into the adequacy of the law and practices governing financial lending to small businesses. She reviewed 23 cases of the thousands that had been reported and found that about a third of the cases were simply poor business decisions where the bank appeared to have acted reasonably; a third were a mixture of poor business decisions and poor banking practice; and a third involved real issues where bank conduct was unacceptable and possibly unconscionable. This indicated the need for investigation into the other cases, and it had to have a regulatory environment with the practices of industry participants. There was an inability for small businesses to obtain justice. These were just some of the areas of inappropriate treatment of small and medium enterprise businesses by banks: they didn't comply with their communications policies; their communication was poor or misleading; they priced with a focus on debt reduction without due consideration to the long-term viability of customers; they failed to give them proper documentation; they failed to give them proper valuation of their properties when they were making decisions about turning over loans; they failed to adopt some of the fair treatment procedures for customers; they failed to identify and handle customer complaints; and they failed to handle conflict-of-interest events. Inappropriate treatment of customers can be considered systematic because of a failure of the bank to recognise and manage the conflicts of interest and put in place the appropriate governance and oversight procedures to ensure that a reasonable balance was struck between the interests of the bank and those of the small and medium enterprises. These findings were the necessary background to validate the very expensive process of a royal commission into the banking and other aspects of the financial sector. We were all appalled at the outcomes, some of which we had no idea were going to turn up. I'm proud that we have now painstakingly got the royal commission happening and are getting results. (Time expired) 16:10 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth The Prime Minister told this House he had regret for not supporting the royal commission—he told us that yesterday. We've had three Prime Ministers vote against the need for a royal commission into the banks 26 times—that is, 26 times voting against a royal commission into the banks. It was 26 times, each represented by a different briefcase on Deal or No Deal—every single one saying 'no deal', no royal commission. There are 26 letters in the alphabet and for every single one of those letters, they voted no. They voted no A, no B, no—I will spare you the rest, but I think you get the picture. There is something else that has a similarity on this number 26. I want to make this point: 26 times is a large number of times to vote against something. Something I learned today in researching for my contribution was there were 26 episodes of season 1 of The Muppet Show. I agree with the member for Cowan; I also do not think it a coincidence that there were 26 times this government voted against the banking royal commission, and 26 episodes of season 1 of The Muppet Show. I will share, for the more mathematically inclined, one other fact about the number 26. Twenty-six is the smallest non-palindromic number to have a palindromic square of 676. I support those who work in banks in my community. I support those who work in the financial sector. It's a very important employer. But they would be embarrassed about some of the conduct that has been exposed by this royal commission. I'd like to think that voting against the banking royal commission 26 times was a mistake, and we all make mistakes from time to time. I made a mistake in this House on Monday. I failed to say in my first speech the name of Matt Rogers, one of the people who assisted me on my campaign. That was a genuine mistake, but I didn't make it 26 times. People say that patience is a virtue. This government must be very, very virtuous to be so patient on the desperate need for a royal commission, when the evidence was coming to them week after week, month after month and they refused to act. We've seen the scandals. We have seen what the royal commission has shown us about what is happening here in our own country, in our own financial services sector, in our own banks. There has not been a hearing held for the royal commission in Western Australia, but it hasn't stopped Western Australians from sharing their stories about what has happened to them as a result of, in this case, possible breaches of the code of conduct from the banking industry. I talk about the case for the Harley family. The ANZ Bank may have—I say 'may have'—breached the industry code of conduct. Whether or not ANZ breached the industry code of conduct is one thing, but they acted appallingly in how they treated this family. Stephen Harley had a heart attack. He was awaiting surgery. This was the time that the ANZ Bank decided for the Harleys, who had been farming on their land for 107 years, that it was time to call in debts of $2.5 million. He was waiting for surgery. And then, after they'd been kicked off the farm, the bank said, 'Oh, actually, we've cleared the debts. We're sorry.' Sorry doesn't cut it. If it weren't for the banking royal commission, these stories wouldn't have been told. So, again, I commend the leadership shown by the shadow Treasurer, by the Leader of the Opposition, by the member for Hotham and by others to make sure that we had this royal commission. But it's a pattern of behaviour from this Liberal government—or from this Liberal-National government, if the Nationals want credit as well for this disgraceful activity—where they vote against important decisions, important national needs. They voted against protecting penalty rates. It's a pattern of behaviour. More recently, they voted against referring the member for Dickson to the High Court. Maybe that's a reflection on the sorts of judgement made in this place by those opposite. But it's not all negative. They do vote for some things. We know that they voted to give the banks a $17 billion tax handout and voted to raise the pension age to 70. 16:15 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Those opposite want the people of Australia to believe that those on this side of the chamber have spent our time in this place since being elected running some sort of protection racket for the banks. Let me tell you something about my history; it might mean something about what I think of banks. I'm no fan of banks. I grew up around the kitchen table, often when my parents would be close to tears, and I'd ask them, 'Mum, what's the problem?' and she'd say, 'Son, we're paying interest on our bank debt of over 20 per cent.' I wasn't young enough to calculate what 20 per cent meant, but I knew it was significant. I knew it was causing harm to my family, so, don't for one minute think that I'm a great fan of the banks. Ladies and gentlemen, our job is to look at what we can do to fix problems. What have we done? Those opposite don't want to talk about what they've done. What they've actually voted against are some of the strongest regulatory improvements and strongest regulatory outcomes in terms of banks and their regulators in modern Australian history. We've established the Financial Complaints Authority, a one-stop shop to resolve complaints. We've created a framework to hold banking executives to account. We've boosted banking and financial services competition to benefit customers. We've provided over $70 million to enhance the capabilities and activities of the regulator, ASIC. We've created a new deputy chairman of ASIC—we focussed on enforcement and appointed the highly regarded Daniel Crennan QC to the position. We had a choice. We could have either provided stronger rules, regulations and resources to the regulators or had a royal commission. We thought, at the time, it was better to get on with fixing the problem. But I won't be lectured by those opposite about these things, because, do you know what? When we moved to establish the royal commission—indeed, before we did—one thing was missing: the Leader of the Opposition's terms of reference. There were no terms of reference. He wasn't prepared to tell us what he expected to see in a royal commission. I took the opportunity to check his letter, and this is a really scary prospect: his letter to the then Prime Minister indicated that the Prime Minister could direct the commissioner on how to run the royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition clearly doesn't understand the separation of powers. He was suggesting that he could get the Prime Minister to direct the royal commissioner. To think that we could have a potential Prime Minister who doesn't understand that there is an important need for independence within a royal commission! We've heard also some of the compelling stories out of the royal commission—they're compelling and they're sad. Those opposite assume that the regulators don't have that information to hand. I don't think, with respect, that's a safe assumption to make. It's safe to say these have been ventilated in the royal commission. I, like the Prime Minister, share the view that I'm grateful that this process is allowing some closure for individuals, to allow the hurt to be ameliorated. But to therefore assume that the regulators didn't have this information and weren't working to resolve the issues is, I think, particularly unfair. But the biggest issue here, and it is one which I'm not going to let those opposite get away with, is that many of the stories which have given us cause for concern out of the royal commission have come from the broader financial services sector. Sure, some have related to banks themselves, but many of the ones, even the ones we've heard today, come from the broader financial industry sector—superannuation, insurance. I remember distinctly that those opposite were pretty keen for the superannuation industry not to be included and for the broader financial services sectors not to be included. Let's be clear. This place can do some great work, and it does its best work when we extend our hand over the divide, as the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did on Monday this week. Let's stop playing politics with this and let's get on with fixing the problem. That was our intention. It has been our intention from day one, and it's our intention now. If you want to play politics, have fun; the people of Australia are switching off. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The discussion has concluded. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Membership 68 16:20 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I have received messages from the Senate informing the House that Senator Molan has been appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and that Senator Faruqi has been appointed a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories. BILLS 69 BILLS Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018, Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 69

Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018

Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 69 Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 69

Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018

Second Reading 69 16:21 The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 16:21 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, with great pleasure I rise to speak to this particular piece of legislation, the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018. Not only is it important for my electorate and for Australia; it's also important for me at a personal level. It's important because it's a matter of good governance. Good governance, as I've said a number of times this week, is based on transparency and evidence based policy. There are a number of aspects of this particular bit of legislation that are not transparent and do not seem to be based on good evidence. My call to the government is to give us some transparency and give us an independent assessment and an economic analysis of this particular trade arrangement. Let me give you some background about why I propose that. Before I was a member of parliament, I was involved and active in an organisation called Australian Women in Agriculture. As part of that organisation, we had a brief to pay attention and increase our understanding of trade and how it impacted on our ability as farmers, in particular, to make money and to sell our produce. As part of that involvement, at that time the then Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, invited me to join the Australian delegation to go to Doha in 2001 and be part of the World Trade Organization ministerial discussions. It was an eye-opening experience of not only how the WTO worked but how bilateral and multilateral trade agreements worked. It set me on a train to pay a lot more attention to our trading agreements and how they worked. Through my career following that particular experience and my involvement with the Australian Women in Agriculture, I became an active member of the Victorian Farmers Federation. In fact I was elected as the regional councillor for the VFF. Through that period I also became actively involved in the National Farmers' Federation and paid a lot of attention to some of the trade deals we were negotiating. It became clear through that representative role that trade deals were not straightforward, particularly in agriculture. They involved trade-offs, and there were winners and losers. It was one industry against another, and the industries that normally won were the ones that were well organised, had good lobbyists and good access to ministers and were able to make their case. Frequently the ones that lost were exactly the opposite. It struck me that we could do this better in agriculture and that we could balance the winners and losers with a lot more skill if we put our intelligence to it. So I certainly applied my intelligence to it in agriculture, in research and with economic background. I have come to understand a little bit about how some of these trade negotiations happen. In the first instance, the agriculture industry would put up a bid that, if we can open market X, Y and Z, we would increase our income by QRT. Then another industry says, 'Yes, we could do similar,' and then we have the argy-bargy going on. In my experience, we start with a base-level negotiation but, by the time we get to the final trade-off, all the equations have changed from our base-level negotiation. What I ask with this TPP is that we become transparent with the outcome that we get, so that we don't have farmers saying, 'Well, we know where we were at the beginning, but we don't know where we got to once the trade-offs were made—who won, who lost, how much and what the calculations were.' The TPP is so important. For me, it opens up trade in the Pacific rim, where, as my career developed, I did a lot of work—and I would still hope to have good contacts with these countries—and I know how important trade is for the economic growth of Australia and our neighbours. I want to make sure that we not only balance who wins and who loses but also manage the unintended consequences and improve the knowledge base of our farming community and our elected agricultural representatives, in particular, as they go into these negotiations. As a member of parliament representing a regional community, I want to be able to go back to my community and say, 'This was the process; here's the analysis; here's what we expect to happen; and in X years time we are going to review it against those assumptions and, where we need to make changes, we've put processes in place to make those changes.' I don't see any of that in this legislation. To me, it's totally possible, it's not costly and we could do it. What I would like is for the government to open up the discussion around this piece of legislation and for my colleagues in the Labor Party to pay some attention to how we can actually grow our collective knowledge as a nation about how the trading process works. I'm conscious that my colleague from Bendigo wants to have a few words before we finish. So, in bringing my comments to a close: there are enormous benefits from the TPP for Australia and for my electorate. However, it is not transparent and we do not understand the assumptions made. So my request to the government is that we pay some attention to the requests that have been circulating around the House for an independent assessment and some process of understanding the impact on employment conditions and also the transparency. I look forward to hearing the minister summing up the debate and his response to the request from not only me but also many of the crossbenchers. 16:27 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo In the few moments that we have left in this sitting week, in rising to speak on the Customs Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018 and related bill, I want to echo some of the concerns raised by this side of the House and also to support the amendment that was moved by the member for Blaxland. I continue to be very concerned about the fact that we have another free trade agreement put before us that does not adequately deal with labour market testing. As a bit of a reminder and a bit of background, I spoke in this place about the impact of the China free trade agreement. Those in the government pointed to me and others on their side and said, 'Xenophobic'—xenophobic for raising an issue that says that Australia should have a policy where we put locals in local jobs first, that we would not look for temporary overseas workers unless it is established that there is a genuine skills shortage. It just makes common sense that, if there were, for example, constructions jobs, nursing jobs or any other jobs in this country in any industry, we would advertise locally first and, if it is established that there is a genuine skills shortage, we would then look overseas for those skills on a temporary basis and invest in skills. A temporary skilled migration scheme in an industry in this country should last for as long as it takes to train an Australian to do that job—so in nursing, four to five years; in construction, depending upon the course. Unions have repeatedly raised the impact of not having proper labour market testing in these agreements. It is disappointing for those on this side of the House to know that, in the China and Japan agreements, we didn't have those safeguards in place that we are now seeing in this agreement. I want to take the opportunity to put on the record that, as we speak, there has been an agreement in Hobart regarding the Chinese migrant workers who were here on a variety of different visa arrangements. John Holland has finally agreed to pay them. They haven't been paid for nine weeks. This is what happens when we don't have proper safeguards. ADJOURNMENT 71 ADJOURNMENT Western Australia 71 16:30 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth If elected, a Labor government will pass on a fairer deal to the next generation of Australians, because fairness is the driving force behind Labor's vision for Australia and for Western Australia. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and Labor have a vision to end years of injustice on the distribution of the GST. The Leader of the Opposition and Labor have a vision to ensure Western Australia receives its fair share of funding for schools, hospitals and infrastructure. The Leader of the Opposition and Labor have a vision to give Australians a pay rise and restore penalty rates for hundreds of thousands of hardworking Australians. The difference between Labor's positive vision and the current activity within the Liberal government is stark. Labor has led the way on GST reform. The Liberal government's plan for the GST was announced an entire year after Labor put forward its vision. It took a whole year to get something out of the then Treasurer, the now Prime Minister. Labor has said very clearly that it will fix a 70 cent GST floor, moving to 75 cents in law, in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government. We'll make the GST floor the law. This week the member for Burt and I tabled a motion asking for the detail of the plan that the then Treasurer, the now Prime Minister, developed. No-one has seen this detail. I commend the member for Burt for asking what every Western Australian wants to know: where is the detail and where is Western Australia's fair share? We're sick of waiting. We're sick of debating this. It needs to be resolved. I don't know why that detail hasn't been released. I am a little concerned about what I read in The Mercury the other day about how the now Prime Minister allegedly speaks to colleagues in Tasmania. If we know what is being said to those in Tasmania, I would hate to know what is said about Western Australians behind closed doors when all they ask for is a fair share of the GST. I think it is universally acknowledged that it needs to be resolved. Every day that goes by, we see another claim that it's going to be fixed. Something that makes me, the member for Burt and all hardworking WA Labor members very angry is when we get told that it is fixed. Well, the cheque has not arrived on the Premier's desk. There has not been a single extra dollar provided to Western Australia as a result of this 'fix'. A fair share of the GST is about justice for Western Australia. It doesn't cover up any of the other cuts to services in my community of Perth or my colleague the member for Burt's community, out in Armadale. Labor will reverse the Liberal government's cuts to hospitals and protect Medicare for the future. Labor has committed more than $2.8 billion to public hospital funding for more nurses and doctors, and to clear elective surgery waiting lists. That's more money for hospitals in Perth, including the Royal Perth Hospital. We need investment in these services because they are an important safety net. What people in my community are telling me is that they feel like everything is going up except wages. They feel like the economy is not working for them. They are worried about passing on a worse deal to their kids. That's not really a surprise. We've seen inaction on penalty rates from the current government. We've seen cuts to essential services but, until a few weeks ago, a never-ending determination to pass out billions of dollars to the big banks. What we see while on-the-ground services are being cut and while there are serious concerns about people's incomes and reductions in penalty rates is a divided government fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on the needs of Western Australians. Australian families were concerned when the Prime Minister referred to his own party as a muppet show. That is the Prime Minister's own description of his own government. I have many policy disagreements with the Liberal Party and the National Party—I outlined a few of them just moments ago—but I was disappointed that the Prime Minister describe the leadership of my country as a muppet show. It's wrong; it's not how we should talk. We should never find ourselves in the position where we have to say that about our own country. We should celebrate what makes this country great. We should celebrate the work that is done in this place and, whatever the specific policy disagreements, we should show respect to the government and not describe it as a muppet show. That's why I'm so pleased to be standing as part of a stable, united Labor team with 100 per cent focus. (Time expired) R U OK? Day 72 16:35 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley I would like to begin today by recognising, as the Prime Minister and others did in question time, that today is R U OK? Day. It's a national day of action dedicated to reminding people to ask family, friends and colleagues the question, 'Are you okay?' On this day, I say that I am proud of the Liberal-National government's action on working to address mental health in Australia and to provide services to support the many Australians who live with mental illness. Mental health is one of the key pillars in the Australian government's long-term national health plan. The $338 million mental health package announced in this year's budget reinforces our commitment to assist those in our community who are living with mental illness. Locally, in my electorate, I'm also pleased to formally announce today that I have recently secured $500,000 from the coalition government to help establish a program to support people with mental illness in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula areas. The funding will go towards the Kindred Clubhouse program, which provides a drop-in centre. It's very important for people who may be reluctant to access the more traditional, clinical, appointment-based services. The funding will be used to employ support staff who will run regular activities for clubhouse members and to provide advice and support. It will also cover the administrative costs associated with running the program. Programs such as these are important to our local community, because, without them, many people who face the daily challenges of mental illness don't have access to the support they need, and the results can be devastating for the individual, their families and the broader community. Kindred Clubhouse is a not-for-profit organisation based in Frankston, in my electorate, focussed on mental health support. They are using this community-based program to provide practical support and advice to help people with mental illness in their day-to-day lives. Most importantly, it is a place to belong, where people can feel comfortable and are always welcome. Providing a safe, welcoming place for those with mental illness to develop the skills and confidence needed to lead satisfying and purposeful lives in the community is something we can support. The clubhouse also offers members help in the following areas: social skills and friendships; family connections; managing daily-living needs; financial management and budgeting; finding and maintaining a home; vocational skills; educational training goals; maintaining physical wellbeing; managing drug and alcohol addictions; building broader life skills, including confidence and resilience and much more. Clubhouse members are also given the opportunity to get a job in the local community through the Transitional Employment Program. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work of the entire committee and team at the Kindred Clubhouse. I'll particularly mention Kim Kerr and Michael Sillekens, who I was pleased to meet with in April this year, along with the Minister for Health, to discuss the important work the whole team at Kindred Clubhouse undertake in the Frankston area and across the Mornington Peninsula. At the same time, I'd like to kick off my advocacy for this important funding of $500,000 that has now been secured under the Morrison government. I'd also like to thank the Minister for Health, who has been working diligently with me to address mental illness in his role as the health minister. Minister Hunt took the time to visit Frankston and hear directly from some of the local service providers who work tirelessly in Dunkley to assist others who live with mental illness. I also note others associated with the Kindred Clubhouse in Frankston, one being Ambassador Beth Wilson, and the clubhouse's partners, being the Rotary Frankston Peninsula 2.0, Peninsula Carer Council, Peninsula Rotaract Club, Frankston City Council, Peninsula Health, Mentis Assist and the many others that partner and work with the Kindred Clubhouse. On this R U OK? Day, it is important that we remember that staying connected and having meaningful conversations are things we can all do. You don't need to be an expert, just a good friend and a great listener. If you notice someone who might be struggling, start a conversation. Let's continue to invest in this important area of mental health. I also note the wonderful work of headspace across the country and in my electorate as well. I note that we secured an additional $240,000 over a couple of years for headspace in Frankston after my advocacy through the coalition government, which has been very important to tackling mental health in my electorate. Let's continue to work in this area. I encourage those in my electorate of Dunkley, in Victoria, in Australia and beyond to ask, 'Are you okay?' National Disability Insurance Scheme 72 16:40 Ms BURNEY 8GH Barton The National Disability Insurance Scheme is a truly historic and transformational reform. At its heart, the NDIS is about inclusion, fairness and equity—fairness and equity when it comes to access and fairness and equity when it comes to adequacy of support. It is not perfect, of course, and it has enormous challenges as it is continued to be rolled out to its full capacity, but none of these challenges are insurmountable. The NDIS can be all we want and need it to be with a government that is genuinely committed to its reform and success. The NDIS will never reach its full potential if it remains a low priority for government. I have assumed the responsibility of the NDIS from my colleague the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin. Since taking on the responsibility, I've met with many participants, their families, carers, advocates and service providers, and I still have many to meet. They have been extremely generous with their time and their views. This includes discussions last week with the VALID peer support group in Frankston, which I attended with the Labor candidate for the seat of Dunkley, Peta Murphy. One point made crystal clear to me was the overwhelming red tape of the bureaucracy, particularly for people transitioning to the NDIS. This includes a planning process which should be more focused on the individual needs and goals of the person. It also means people having the opportunity to see a draft of their plan and work collaboratively and face to face to resolve issues, not a tick-the-box exercise over the phone. People want genuine flexibility in their plans to be able to get the support they need to take part in community life in ways that are most important to them. This point was made very clear—the connection to community and participation in the community—as I said, by people transitioning into the NDIS. Delays in the approval of assistance technology—things like hoists and wheelchairs—was another big issue. The convoluted process for obtaining support from therapists, quotes and evidence is causing distress for many people. There is also the issue of having to submit a plan every 12 months. There are many conditions, in my view, that don't require this 12-month turnaround. There is also the issue of underutilisation and staff. We know from the most recent quarter, over 70 per cent of people are using less than 50 per cent of their plans. The NDIS needs well-trained staff with the capacity to assist in managing the complex needs of participants and their carers. Lifting the arbitrary staffing cap will go a long way to achieving this, and Labor made this announcement three or four weeks ago. Labor also recognises the importance of advocacy and advocates. It is Labor's view across the board in the social services sector, including in the NDIS, that advocacy is incredibly important. It should not be seen as a difficulty for government. Labor will be supporting advocacy because advocacy keeps you accountable as a government and makes your work more pointed and more appropriate to the people that you're serving. I believe that all the issues in the NDIS that have been raised with me can be fixed. With commitment and energy, we can make the NDIS work. There is absolute commitment from either side of the House and from everyone involved, from people working for the NDIA to participants in the NDIS. They want this to work. This isn't about a Labor government or a Liberal government. This is fundamentally about a genuinely committed government—a government that is genuinely committed to seeing the success of this scheme and improving the lives of people with disability and the lives of their families and carers. It is a truly historic reform, and I put on record our appreciation and recognition of the Prime Minister at the time the NDIS was introduced, who was of course Julia Gillard. It has its challenges, but none of these challenges are insurmountable and the NDIS can reach its full potential as long as it has a government willing to back it. The overwhelming thing that I have come to understand is that the bureaucracy and the processes involved are far too complex and they are layered and layered upon each other. We need to cut through some of that red tape, cut through some of that bureaucracy and remember that this is about people with a disability; it is not about government. Building and Construction Industry 73 16:45 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I take this opportunity of five minutes to talk to the House about the building industry, with respect to subcontractors. In many instances, they are the most vulnerable of the various contractors within the building industry. I have been a builder myself and I understand how reliant subcontractors are on receiving the ongoing payments through main contractors and how they are totally vulnerable to those payments coming through in a timely fashion—in some respects, coming through at all. There is a real inequity in the bargaining power that is inherent in the structure of the contractual chain. We find that it's not uncommon to encounter subcontractors who have not been paid simply because the main contractor may have had cost overruns due to weather, due to industrial action or due to the fact that they may have gone in too skinny in the first place to win the main contract to build whatever it is we're talking about. You continually bump into tradesmen from small, family-owned businesses that are so reliant on being paid in a timely fashion so they can, in turn, pay their own employees. This is something that is currently becoming a real problem in the building industry. We need to actually do something about this and create a method of payment and a structure around a method of payment that is going to give subcontractors genuine comfort and confidence that, if they win a tender and do a competent job, they are going to be paid. That confidence isn't there at the moment. It can be a matter of a major contractor saying that you have to take 'a haircut' on this job. A contractor may say: 'We've got a dispute now over a variation in the building. The contract was varied halfway through construction and now there's a dispute as to what that's going to cost.' It may simply be that a major building contractor has phoenixed and has, all of a sudden, gone out of business, saying to the various subcontractors: 'It's too late. We're out of business. You're on your own.' Unfortunately, we see too many of these building companies starting again in another state or in another part of the same state, maybe with a different initial to their registered company name, and they start applying for jobs again—not just private sector jobs; these examples have happened where they've won council work, state government projects and, potentially, federal government projects. Governments can do an awful lot to crack down on any of the major contractors who are not playing by the rules of fair play and who are not paying their subcontractors in a timely fashion. It is fair to say that it was the modus operandi of many of these contractors to expect their subcontractors to take a reduced payment just because that's the way they do business. They create this need. Subcontractors need to stay on the books of the major contractors if they're going to keep getting the work. So, when those major contractors say, 'You're going to take a 20 per cent reduction on this job,' even though the job was completed perfectly, you're faced with maybe a $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 reduction in the money that you are owed. Private subbies, which are normally mum-and-dad and family-owned businesses, are faced with a couple of options: take the big construction companies to court and try to win in a legal sense—and we all know that they're not going to win that; the companies will just run the system out and they'll end up paying more than the $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 in legal fees—or spit the dummy and say, 'I'm never working for them again,' and then it will be very difficult for them to get the work that they need in an ongoing fashion. I think this is predominantly a state government issue. Predominantly, we need the state governments' small business ministers to get their heads together and stop doing something in one state that they don't do in other states. We need these provisions harmonised around Australia, and we need to create a payment system that gives security and comfort to all of the subcontractors who are working within the building industry, so they know that if they win a contract and complete the job to a high level of competency they will be paid. Multiculturalism 74 16:50 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan We're often told that Australia is a successful multicultural nation. Over the past few years, I've been thinking about what that actually means. What does it actually mean to say that Australia is a successful multicultural nation? I say this not just as somebody who has a personal interest in this because of its significance to me and my personal history, but also because of its significance to my electorate and to many electorates around Australia. I am also somebody who worked in multicultural policy and who, many years ago, had a strong involvement in writing Western Australia's Charter of Multiculturalism. That developed a framework of participatory citizenship in order to progress policy on multiculturalism. I would also like to refer to a recent report by the Human Rights Commission, which looked at the percentage of Australians from non-European and non-Anglo backgrounds. It estimated that to be about 21 per cent of the population, based on census figures. It then looked at that cultural diversity and representation in some of the upper echelons of decision-making in our country. The report says: … the cohort of chief executives and equivalents broadly tracks that of the total group of 2490 senior leaders in this study. The level of non-European background representation, however, is substantially lower (2.7 per cent compared to 4.7 per cent). There is a combined total of 11 chief executives who have a non-European or Indigenous background—or 3.0 per cent of the total 372 chief executives. They say that this: … challenges Australia's egalitarian self-image. It also challenges Australia as a nation whose prosperity relies upon international trade, capital inflows and mobility of people. This study also found that within this parliament people from a non-European, non-Anglo background represent just four per cent of the people in parliament. I am one of those four per cent. Yesterday in question time, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs spoke about multiculturalism and spoke about this notion of Australia as a successful multicultural society. In fact, the question noted that Australia was the most successful multicultural society around the world. I think that the findings of the Human Rights Commission report give us pause for thought on what we actually mean about being a successful multicultural nation, particularly if the level of cultural diversity that we see in our Australian population isn't reflected in decision-making and particularly if it isn't reflected here in this parliament. Putting aside the fact that multicultural affairs and citizenship is currently in the Department of Home Affairs and some of the issues I have with that, I would like to say that yesterday the minister rightly pointed out the contribution of successive waves of immigrants to Australia. But I would like to add that valuing cultural diversity is not about the economic contributions of individuals. Rather, it's about recognising the overall benefits and strengths of Australia's multiculturalism and the cultural diversity that that brings. There have been numerous studies on the economic and productivity benefits for companies that have cultural diversity, particularly on their boards and particularly at the senior levels, and also on the economic benefits that multiculturalism and diversity bring to Australia as a nation. Another point that I want to make is: who are we talking about when we are talking about multiculturalism? We're not talking about those menacing brown people who are coming here; we're actually talking about everybody, because multiculturalism in a modern Australia is about everybody. It's as much about somebody coming off a plane from Vietnam, from Syria or from China as it is about a third-generation Australian whose parents arrived after the Second World War. It's about all of us, and I'd like to see us move towards a recognition of that. On a final point: yesterday the minister made a point of saying that we have immigration success in every football club and every church and also in every temple, every mosque and every synagogue. R U OK? Day 75 16:55 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I stand today to speak on an issue that can be hard to speak about: mental health. Today is R U OK? Day, a day aimed at starting conversations with those around you. It is estimated that more than four million Australian adults experience mental health issues each year. Tragically, in 2017 2,866 Australians took their own lives. That's more than eight people every single day and one person every three hours. Seventy-five per cent of these were male, making suicide the 10th leading cause of death for men. For young people, it is even worse. Suicide is the leading cause of death for youth, accounting for more deaths than car accidents. The effects of this loss are felt by all of us—friends, family and our community. But these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. For every death by suicide, it is estimated that as many as 30 people attempt to end their lives. That's around 65,300 suicide attempts each and every year. For their family and loved ones, each attempt marks the start of a struggle to find the support and care they need to recover. With these statistics in mind, it is clear that mental health has affected all of us in one way or another. There is no shame in that. This is a day to remind us that it is okay to not be okay. Today it is vital that we ask our colleagues, loved ones, teammates and neighbours: are you okay? It may feel uncomfortable at times, but those three words have the potential to change and in some cases save a life. R U OK? encourages us to partake in four easy steps: first, ask, 'Are you okay?'; second, listen; third, encourage action; and fourth, check in. The coalition government have made mental health a priority, and it is a key pillar of our national long-term health plan. This year the coalition is investing a record $4.3 billion in mental health. Over four years, the coalition government will provide $800 million, with every state and territory government dollar matching this commitment. It will be allocated to each jurisdiction on a population basis. This commitment was and still is about saving lives and protecting lives. It is of the utmost importance that we focus not only today but every day on mental health and making sure that those around us are, in fact, okay. I am a proud #letstalk ambassador. Man Anchor is a local organisation in my electorate that is dedicated to the enlightenment of the modern man on a range of issues and subjects, advocating for men's mental health. Tragically, this issue hit close to home recently when the Mackellar community lost a beloved 18-year-old to suicide—a life cut far too short. In the weeks following his death, family and friends have led the charge for community action. Friends organised a fundraising event for R U OK?. One of the young girls who helped organise the event said: 'People have no hope at the moment, but I want this event to be where that all changes. The madness needs to stop.' It is encouraging seeing so many young people who have felt the ramifications of suicide stand up and help to make a difference on this issue. Recently, I was delighted to present a Commonwealth grant to the Avalon Youth Hub. This is a centre that provides critical mental health services to the young people in my electorate, offering youth counselling, parental support and school talks—all things aimed at improving mental health support for young people. Services such as the Avalon Youth Hub, Man Anchor and R U OK? are all helping to ensure that the future for mental health is a much brighter one. This is an issue that we simply cannot be silent on. To lose even one life to suicide is too many. Ask someone today, 'Are you okay?' and remember that one conversation can change a life. Debate interrupted. House adjourned at 17 :00 NOTICES 75 NOTICES

Thursday, 13 September 2018

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

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 77 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Sydney Gateway Project 77 10:00 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Yesterday the New South Wales government announced their so-called Sydney Gateway project. This was the project that was supposed to fulfil the original objective of the WestConnex project of taking freight to and from the port of Botany. That was what was identified by Infrastructure New South Wales as the No. 1 priority when they did their first ever report after an audit of the needs of New South Wales infrastructure under the chair, Nick Greiner. What we find now though is that, on top of the fact that WestConnex doesn't go to a port, to an airport or to the city of Sydney, their gateway project still doesn't go to the port: it stops six kilometres short. What we have now is a major project costing $17 billion after they said it would be $10 billion. And, on top of an additional $2.6 billion, it is a motorway to more roads. Because of the congestion around the Rozelle and St Peters interchanges, the government is now saying they'll require an F6 down to the Sutherland Shire. They require this Sydney Gateway project. They require another tunnel under the harbour, the Northern Beaches tunnel from the Rozelle interchange. This is a road to more roads and shows the lack of planning when it comes to this WestConnex project, which was paid with an advance payment from the Commonwealth of $1.5 billion. 2018 International Triathlon Union World Triathlon Grand Final, Robson, Mr Callum 77 10:02 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page This week the Gold Coast is hosting the 2018 International Triathlon Union World Triathlon Grand Final. Two triathletes from the Northern Beaches who train with the Coffs Harbour Triathlon Club and 13 triathletes from the Clarence Valley have qualified to compete in the grand final after qualifying in their respective age groups. In order to qualify, each of them had to gain points by competing in various events around Australia over the last 12 months. Each result gained them points, with the top 20 from each age division qualifying for the Australian team. Darren Adams, who has qualified, also trains nine of the triathletes at Swift Multisport in Yamba. Darren puts his success down to fun and enjoying hard work. Most of the competitors he trains would put in between 10 and15 hours a week spread over six days. The grand final event is currently underway on the Gold Coast, with approximately 5,000 triathletes competing from 45 nations. I would like to wish Isaiah Koopmans from Woolgoolga and Michael Ylinen from Moonee Beach all the best. Also, good luck to the 13 Clarence Valley triathletes: Darren Adams, Alison Brown, Demi Gavin, Veronica Barker, Khali Seymour, Jason Culton, David Lovell, David Fleming, Brendan Wall, Kim Elvery, Brian Elvery, Ray Hunt and Tara Lennon. I wish them all the very best in their triathlons. Callum Robson is a 17-year-old surfer in my electorate who is about to make huge waves on the international scene. He will be representing Australia in the International Surfing Association World Surfing Games in Japan this week. One of only six Australian surfers chosen for the team, Callum was selected after great performances in the pro junior division in the World Surf League. He is currently second in the rankings, having already qualified for the world junior championships later this year. Callum is putting his carpentry apprenticeship on hold in a bid to make the professional surfing tour. The Japanese event will hopefully be a stepping stone for Callum, with Surfing Australia hoping to build a team to go to the Olympic Games in Tokyo in 2020. Callum trains at the Surfing Australia High Performance Centre at Casuarina, south of Tweed Heads. His surfing career developed in Evans Head with local group Halftide Boardriders. He proudly has the backing of mum, Judy, dad, Mike, and his two sisters, Sara and Jacquelin. We wish him all the best in Japan. Murray-Darling Basin Plan 77 10:05 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin The drought across Australia should be of critical concern to all Australians. It once again highlights the importance of a sustainable Murray-Darling Basin Plan. The drought puts a spotlight on that plan. Since the agreement was signed in 2012, under this coalition government, that plan has been slowly undermined, with allegations of rubbery figures with respect to both the extractions and the water returns, back-pedalling on water buybacks, and the pushback against the additional 450 gigalitres negotiated by South Australia at the time the plan was agreed to. We now have talk of the sale of environmental water back to irrigators. There have also been allegations of water theft from the Murray—allegations which have proven to be correct—and now we have charges being laid against those who have been caught out stealing water from the system. Then we had the failure of the coalition government to back a judicial inquiry under the COAG process to inquire into those thefts. We've recently had the member for New England appointed by this government as a special envoy on drought policy. I don't know specifically what his role is. I don't know what the terms of reference of his appointment are, nor do I know what authority he carries. But I do know that his appointment is of serious concern to those people who, to date, have been fighting hard to have a sustainable plan, because this was the very minister who ignored all of the matters that I referred to just a moment ago with respect to water buybacks and theft and so on. In addition to that, and because of that concern about the minister, the South Australian government established its own royal commission into the system—a royal commission which the federal government has not been very cooperative with. We now have a new state government in South Australia, the Marshall Liberal government, which has also shown little enthusiasm for the work of the royal commission, which in turn, adds to my concern. The Murray-Darling Basin is home to over two million Australians. It's a major economic asset for this country. We fought tooth and nail a few years ago to finally, after almost 100 years, have a plan in place because of the security that is required for those people that live within it and for the nation. We're now seeing that plan undermined. The drought highlights that very issue, and my concern is that the appointment of the special envoy will do nothing to restore confidence in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Boothby Electorate: Sporting and Community Clubs 78 10:08 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby It is the season of celebration for many of the sporting and community clubs in my electorate of Boothby. It's a celebration of their wins and milestones of the season past and the hardworking volunteers and club members who contribute so much to our community. I'd like to take this opportunity to highlight just a few of the great sporting successes. I congratulate the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club, which was recently awarded Club of the Year at the South Australian Surf Life Saving awards. Some of the club's members were also recognised on the night with individual awards, and I congratulate all of these amazing volunteers. In addition, the wonderful partnership between the club and Suneden Specialist School, which is also in my electorate, was awarded the Community Education Program of the Year, and is a great credit to all involved. I congratulate everyone at the club—in particular, retiring club president Andrew Chandler. It has been a very successful 2018 season for the Brighton Tigers rugby club. The premier grade won the grand final on the weekend, and I was also delighted to see their women's side and many of the junior teams playing finals. I congratulate the players, coaching staff and club president Wayne Londema on a very successful season. I'm sure everyone at the club is looking forward to the 2019 season, both on and off the field, as construction is due to start on their new clubrooms as part of the Brighton Oval redevelopment. I want to congratulate the Marion Rams football club on their premiership win this past weekend. This is a remarkable one. Their grand final win is a huge achievement because the club had been completely winless over the past two seasons. I congratulate all of the players and supporters. I congratulate captain Stephen Saunders and caretaker coach Michael O'Dea. I also extend my congratulations and very best wishes to coach Ben Porter, who suffered a stroke during a team training session just two weeks ago but joined the team to celebrate the win in the final minutes before the siren. As grand final season comes to an end, I would like to wish all those teams who still have games to play the very best of luck. Good luck to the Blackwood Football Club under-14s and also to their A-grade team, who I hope we will soon be calling back-to-back premiers. The Brighton Lacrosse Club have 10 junior and senior teams in this weekend's grand finals, including their fantastic state women's league team. Congratulations and thank you to all of these players, coaches, club members and supporters. All the best this weekend, and thank you to my incredible community volunteers and club members at all of our clubs across the electorate, who do so much work for our community, keeping people active and making sure that we are all fit, healthy and friendly, are playing sport and are staying as active as possible. Centrelink 78 10:11 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm sorry to be here again speaking about the week-in, week-out frustrations and despair that people in my electorate of Fremantle experience when dealing with the mess that is Centrelink. Sadly, that's a by-product of a government that doesn't value our social safety net and doesn't value the people who work to ensure that the safety net supports those in trouble, those who need assistance and people who face disadvantage. It's a by-product of a government that doesn't believe in the intrinsic and necessary value of a properly resourced Public Service but instead wants to outsource anything that moves and privatise essential services, even when it's clear the inevitable result of doing so will be worse conditions for workers and worse outcomes for Australians in need. These issues are not new. The horror stories are well documented, and the causes have been identified. So why exactly does the coalition continue to throw more pressure and hardship and constraint into a system that is already at the limit? Last month my office assisted an 18-year-old university student who'd been waiting six months for a decision in relation to her youth allowance application. During that time, she'd visited Centrelink twice in person and attempted to call the student hotline more times than she can remember. On one occasion a Centrelink staff member, who was understandably close to the end of their tether, conceded that staff were pulling overtime to try to get through the unprecedented backlog of claims. What makes all this more absurd is that the young woman's twin sister—needless to say, in identical circumstances—had received her youth allowance within a couple of months. You really couldn't write some of this stuff. Most 18-year-olds won't think to seek the assistance of their local member in getting this kind of garden-variety issue resolved, and they shouldn't have to, but that's the world as we know it under this government. Let us be completely clear: staff in Centrelink around Australia work very hard, but they have been treated badly. They have been let down and undermined. They are part of a system that has been run down by this government, a system whose poor management means it is set up for failure. Centrelink staff and members of the mighty Community and Public Sector Union have been put in a position where they must make the best of a very bad lot. They do their critical work using faulty systems, putting up with cuts to resources and facing the significant personal pressure that comes with going more than four years without a pay rise. To make it worse, in just the last 12 months, two separate ministers have moved to outsource thousands of Centrelink jobs, further undercutting working conditions and eroding service quality for people who need help. The people in my community and, I think, people around this country who are supported through Centrelink have been worn thin by the neglect of this government, which has gone out of its way to damage our social safety net. Mallee Electorate: Drought 79 10:14 Mr BROAD 30379 Mallee I wish to update the House on the seasonal conditions being experienced across the electorate of Mallee. I do so with the experience of being a farmer myself. We are unloading sheep on our own property and making provision for the dry that's coming. Droughts do have a way of starting from the north and moving their way south. They expand. And one of the things that have been very good about our farming systems is, with no-till farming, we've been able to get crops established on very little moisture. But our crops don't have much subsoil moisture at this time, and I still remember 3 and 4 October quite a number of years ago when crops that had potential just burnt off to nothing. Yesterday, it was 31 degrees and very hot and windy across the northern part of the Mallee. Those crops that had potential are fast losing their potential. Some of our farmers are putting livestock onto those crops just to try and salvage some sort of return. It is a mixed bag. The southern part of the electorate of Mallee is having a reasonably good season, as the coastal rains have come up. I just want to say to those who are watching crops diminish and die, as a member of parliament who has had that experience myself, it is disheartening having to look out the window and see all your hard effort and all your financial rewards being blown away. We do have farm household support available, which will be a stand-by. We do have rural financial counsellors to assist in filling out that paperwork, because it can be quite complex. We do have mental health support. I hope that we can still get a late rain that will salvage some of those crops, but I do want to say to my farming community that there are people in this place who have got lived experience who know what it's like to actually be looking out the window and saying, 'I don't really want to go outside today, because I know the impacts of our weather.' One of the great things that I think has built resilience has been the women in our farming system. I want to pay tribute to them. They stand by, often, their partners who have worked very hard and are seeing the fruits of their labour sometimes not being realised. The Australian agricultural industry has a long future. Those farmers we've got in Australia are very, very outstanding people. The way they manage their mental health, their financial risk and their seasonal risk is something for which we should be commending them. It will rain again. The northern Mallee has had wonderful years in the past and will have wonderful years in the future, but I wanted to update the House because there's a perception that the drought is only taking place in New South Wales. It is expanding, as we are now experiencing in the northern Mallee, and it is imperative for me, as a federal member of parliament, that I update this House so that other members of parliament know that we can stand by these people if the season turns against them. Young Endeavour Youth Scheme 79 10:17 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I recently completed a voyage on the sail training ship the Young Endeavour as part of the ADF parliamentary exchange program. The Young Endeavour Youth Scheme is a not-for-profit organisation run in partnership with the Royal Australian Navy which provides young Australians aged 16 to 23 with a unique, challenging and inspirational experience at sea aboard the Young Endeavour. On occasion, with the greatest respect for my colleagues, I'm able to feel young in this building, but, on that ship, with the 20-odd members of the youth crew and the dozen or so RAN sailors who made up the staff crew, I felt every day of my age. I took part in the full experience, from climbing the topgallant yard of the mainsail 10 storeys above the rolling sea, to scrubbing the heads during the morning happy hour clean. So I can attest, with firsthand experience, that the scheme and the staff crew have the program finely tuned. They know how to take young Australians out of their comfort zones, physically and emotionally, forcing them to deal with sleep deprivation from rolling four-hour watches, the physical discomfort of seasickness, the fear of climbing the yardarms and the isolation of living without a mobile phone for 10 days and then giving them a task to perform as a group to show them what they can achieve through focus, self-control and teamwork. I must say that, on day one, I was doubtful whether a group of 16- to 23-year-olds from across Australia who'd never met each other before would be able to sail the ship and take control of the vessel on their own at the end of the voyage, but they did exactly that during their 24-hour command day. And it's difficult to convey the feeling of pride that I felt from seeing a member of the youth group on a yardarm at 2 am untying the gaskets from a sail 10 storeys above the ocean, being overcome with seasickness but retaining the presence of mind to vomit into a sick bag they had in their back pocket rather than all over the sails and the deck below. It was inspiring to see the capabilities of young Australians in action. The crew reflected every aspect of the youth of Australia, from the big smoke and the bush, men and women, Indigenous Australians, Chinese Australians, Australians who were born here and Australians who migrated here. Joining me on the 10-day Young Endeavour voyage were two inspiring young individuals from my electorate, Winta and Mo, from the African-Australian community. Both Winta and Mo were chosen as part of the 2018 African Australian Leadership Challenge, a program that I've been developing to provide leadership development opportunities for emerging leaders from the African-Australian community in Melbourne's west. I want to thank all the youthies who sailed with me on my voyage for letting me share their experience, and I want to give a special shout-out to the white watch, which I was a member of. I also want to thank the members of the RAN staff group: the captain, Andrew 'Kenny' Callander; Blake; Darren; Brett; Paige; Karly; Kyle; Harry; Zac; Ivanka; and, of course, Salty. It is always a privilege to see Australian servicemen and servicewomen doing what they were trained to do. It's one of the real privileges of our job as member of parliament, and I recommend the program to all other MPs. Mactier, Private Robert, VC, Murray Electorate: Military Commemoration 80 10:20 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray On Saturday, 1 September I had the privilege of attending the official commemoration service for Private Robert Mactier VC at the Robert Mactier VC Memorial Garden in Tatura. It was a service for the unveiling of a statue to recognise the 100th anniversary of Robert Mactier's being awarded the VC posthumously for outstanding bravery on the battlefield during World War I. Robert Mactier was born in Tatura in May 1890. He was the seventh of 10 children, went to school locally and later worked on his father's property. He enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force at Seymour on 1 March 1917. During the battle of Mont St Quentin on 1 September 1918, Mactier was a battalion runner with the 23rd Battalion. He was sent forward by an officer to determine the cause of a delay in his battalion's moving forward. The cause was a well-placed enemy machine gun. On his own initiative, Mactier jumped out of the trench and charged the gun, killing its crew of six. He then charged two other machine guns, killing their crews and causing at least 40 enemy to surrender. He was later killed by fire from a fourth machine gun, but not before enabling his battalion to form up and saving many of their lives. He was truly a courageous man. I'd like to thank the president of the RSL from Tatura's subbranch, Mr Mark Sommers, and also the secretary, Glenda McLeod, and Tatura RSL members for inviting me to that commemoration of the Robert Mactier statue. It will be a very proud addition to Tatura's gardens. The electorate of Murray boasts seven Victoria Cross recipients. We have three from Euroa: Leslie Maygar, Frederick Tubb and Alex Burton. The only Australian airman to receive the VC in World War I, Frank McNamara, was from Rushworth. There were two VCs from Wedderburn: Albert Jacka and Albert Chalmers Borella. Both have a memorial in their name. Shepparton honours Sir Murray Bourchier. He was a local war hero who played a leading role in the light horse charge at the Battle of Beersheba. His battalion is very well known as Bourchier's Force. There is a committee within the Shepparton community, run by the Hon. Jeanette Powell and Peter McPhee, who are working to try and create a bust of Sir Murray Bourchier and his horse that is similar to the one Tatura is now able to boast for Robert Mactier. Hopefully, the state government and federal government can get behind this project and deliver a fitting memorial for Sir Murray Bourchier. Werriwa Electorate: Broadband 81 10:23 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa Once again I rise to speak about the shortfalls of the National Broadband Network within my electorate of Werriwa. Today, I would like to raise just two examples of the continuing issues with the delivery of the NBN and reliable, fast internet to the people of Werriwa. These two examples highlight the continuing struggle to get decent, affordable and reliable NBN connections, regardless of whether you are in the suburbs or a semirural area. Last month, at the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, under questioning from the member for Lyons, it was stated that one of the realities of the internet was that fixed wireless connections would be charged $20 more per month than other NBN connections. When Labor learned of these unfair plans we swiftly called on them to be dropped, and, after two hours, the government performed one of their now trademark backflips. One of the areas that receives fixed wireless connection is the semirural suburb of Badgerys Creek in my electorate. This is the same Badgerys Creek where Western Sydney Airport is currently being constructed. There has been lots of talk among politicians, policy experts and academics about the new airport becoming an aerotropolis. The leading academic in all things aerotropolis, John Kasarda, has stated that the critical factor in any success is connectivity. In the 21st century this means connectivity through roads, connectivity through mass public transport and connectivity through fast, reliable internet. The second example affects one of my constituents, Mr Doman, who lives in the residential suburb of Hinchinbrook. This is the same suburb where my electorate office is located. In the middle of 2017, Mr Doman was notified that the NBN would be available in his area. He contacted an internet provider but was told there was an issue and he would not be able to access the network. On nine separate occasions, NBN technicians came to his home but were unable to resolve the problem. My office made inquiries to NBN Co after we were contacted by Mr Doman and we were told that the issue was a network shortfall. That shortfall? The copper cabling is 200 metres short. NBN Co have asked their construction team to work on this issue; however, they anticipate it will not be resolved until March 2019, in another six months. Mr Doman is now the only person left on his street not to have access to the NBN. The fact that he has to wait almost two years to be connected is simply unacceptable. Unfortunately, it's not just the residents of Badgerys Creek or Mr Doman. Too many residents in the electorate of Werriwa and too many Australians have had a poor experience on the NBN. This is an equity issue. Internet is a necessity for students studying, for people who work at home, for connections to the outside world, for enjoyment and for so many other things. A Shorten Labor government will establish an NBN service guaranteed to fix this. Cairns Port 81 10:26 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt Yesterday I spoke in this chamber about the Cairns port and the roadblocks that have been placed on it by the Queensland Labor government. These roadblocks have been put in place purely for political reasons. The Queensland government continue to act in a morally corrupt way by doing the bidding of their federal mates to the detriment of Cairns and Far North Queensland. I said in my speech yesterday that I wanted to call out this morally corrupt behaviour by the Queensland Labor government. Earlier this week, Cairns state MP Michael Healy hit the media with the latest lie about the Cairns port. Mr Healy said, 'We are waiting for the federal government to tick off and we cannot do anything until the federal government have ticked off on their environmental plan.' Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Healy needs to start telling the truth to the people of Cairns. What Mr Healy failed to mention was the fact that Ports North, who are owned wholly and solely by the Queensland government, wrote to the federal government on 25 May 2018 asking for it to defer its EIS decision. The excuse Ports North gave was that they wanted to review one small aspect concerning sediment, despite having had at least three years prior to cross the t's and dot the i's. It was the Queensland Labor government, through the port authority, that made that formal request to actually stop the process. Make no mistake about it—the federal government was days away from releasing the final environmental impact statement, but the federal environment minister was required to adhere to Ports North's request. Oddly enough, this request from Ports North came less than two weeks before the Queensland Labor government handed down its state budget. Despite all of the promises during the 2017 state election campaign by state Labor MPs, less than six months later there was not a single cent in the budget for the dredging project. However, I note the Queensland government did funnel $75 million into the Townsville port. Maybe it's the real reason Mr Healy decided to mislead the Cairns public this week. I suspect he wasn't man enough to own up to breaking a major promise that got him elected. He was, at one point, a respected businessman in Cairns, and people expected better of him. I personally hadn't actually spoken to him about this issue. It's about time Mr Healy and the Queensland Labor government were held to account. My electorate is surrounded by wall-to-wall Labor state MPs who have been dead silent on this issue. They all sit silently by— Opposition members interjecting— Mr ENTSCH 7K6 and watch money flow to Townsville, instead of Cairns, without even raising a whisper. Opposition members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! Mr ENTSCH 7K6 It's about time these state MPs started doing their job. Mr Dick interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Order! The member for Oxley! Mr ENTSCH 7K6 It's high time they started putting the people they claim to represent first. I'll be holding each and every one of them accountable for their actions. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Leichhardt. Mr ENTSCH 7K6 And I appreciate the megaphone responses on the other side! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I understand it is the wish of honourable members that constituency statements continue for a total of 90 minutes. There being no objection, constituency statements may continue. Oxley Electorate: 4074 Family Fun Day and Local Sporting Champions 82 10:29 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I rise to place on record my congratulations in relation to the 4074 Family Fun Day held over the weekend just gone, which was again superbly led by Lisa Baillie and her team— Mr Entsch interjecting— Mr DICK 53517 Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm disappointed that I'm trying to pay tribute to volunteers but members of this government are being disrespectful to them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Leichhardt will allow the member— Mr Entsch interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Leichhardt! The member for Oxley will be heard without interjection. Mr Entsch interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT The member for Leichhardt! Mr DICK 53517 Madam Chair, it's disrespectful not only to this chamber but also to the hardworking volunteers. As the LNP like to deride them, I will congratulate them. This event has grown to be one of the most popular family events anywhere in the south-west of Brisbane, and it continues to go from strength to strength, which means record crowds year after year. Not content with just providing a fantastic local event, the 4074 Family Fun Day reaches out to charities that are perhaps a little lesser known but are a huge support to many in our community. This year the Family Fun Day was proud to support the Logan House Fire Support Network and DanDaLion Friends. Just as in previous years, the 4074 Family Fun Day featured rides, market stalls, food, face painting, an animal farm, kids' games, competitions, raffles, music and, of course, the famous annual Just Poppy's Burger Eating Championship. I'm proud to say that I gave it my best shot in the qualifying rounds last week, with a bit of practice, but I was no match for other locals who powered through and competed in the main event on Sunday. They included men's winner, Nick Robson, who polished off his burger in two minutes and two seconds. The event also, importantly, raised $2,000 for the Charleville drought relief fund. My congratulations again to Lisa Baillie and the 4074 Family Fun Day team. I also want to congratulate the latest round of Local Sporting Champions grant recipients. After receiving applications from far and wide across our community, I was pleased to approve grants of between $500 and $700 for 31 aspiring athletes to chase their dreams at state, national and even world championship events. They included grants for Tom Gillett, to compete in the 10- to 12-year-old national AFL championships; Mercedes Siganto, to compete at the 2018 School Sport Australia swimming championships; and Zac Dos Santos, to compete at the under-13 state hockey championships. Their dedication and commitment to sport cannot be underestimated. While juggling a full-time study load at school, many of these students finish their daily school routine only to complete hours of rigorous training. I commend each and every one of them for their endeavours and I particularly congratulate their parents, families and friends who support them to make sure they get the best from themselves on the sporting fields. Robertson Electorate: Options Theatre Company 83 10:33 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I rise to pay tribute to an incredible organisation on the Central Coast, Options Theatre Company. I first heard about Options a couple of years ago when I was invited to a screening of its short film called Killing Hope at the Avoca Beach Picture Theatre. I'll never forget how incredibly moved I was by this funny film which carried a very simple but powerful message: no matter how hard you try, you cannot kill hope. Since then I've had the chance to see a number of performances from Options. I try to get to every single one of them, in fact. There are so many talented actors there. They've made me laugh and dance—on the inside, of course—at their performance of Grease, laugh at their hilarious short films and smile at their talented dancing routines. After every performance, I leave with a heart full to the brim with joy, inspired by their talent and their passion and glad to be able to meet and to get to know many of the performers. They really are my heroes. Options Theatre Company describes itself as a 'living, breathing, operational theatre with a company of creatives, actors, technicians, musicians, directors, dancers and artists, who happen to be people with disability'. I think that sums up beautifully what Options is, what it strives to do and why it holds such a special place in my heart. I will always be a great supporter of Options and the work that they do on the Central Coast. I was honoured to be able to attend the grand opening of their new studio and theatre in Tuggerah after they relocated from West Gosford. It was a great event, complete with a special opening night show. The Options artists performed for a packed audience a song, 'From Now On', from the very popular film The Greatest Showman. There wasn't a dry eye left in the house by the time they'd finished. It is an already powerful song, but, seeing it performed with their talent, their passion and their heart, I have to admit I had tears streaming down my face, although my heart was warm on the inside. We had the treat of catering from the Options Edible Garden crew followed by a superb cake from Mr Alexander's Sweet Eats. Mr Alexander's is a very successful business run by Alex Copland and supported by Options. His is a great story, because Alex was able to chase his dream of becoming a baker through the support of his NDIS package. I'd like to pay tribute to all the artists and the entire team at Options and congratulate everyone on the official opening of your new space. A special thanks go to the musical director, Andrew Sampford; Stuart and Michelle; and CEO Denise Stingmore. May I finish by completing a speech I outlined earlier in the House about an afternoon tea we hosted to present portraits of the Queen and thank those who came along: Wayne and Phyllis Sparks from Bensville; Sally and Ray Dwyer from Wamberal; John George from Terrigal; Sharon Palmer from Somersby; Gosford High School students Liam and Marc; Joseph Timmins and Denis Critchley from Umina Beach; James and Alicia Holmes and their beautiful baby, Adelaide; Kerryn Roberts from Woy Woy; Max Davis from North Avoca; and Peter Lawley on behalf of Brisbane Water Legacy. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia, Greece: Fires 83 10:36 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to talk about an enormous fundraising event by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia that has taken place across Australia over the last few weeks to raise funds for the fire victims in Athens. We know that at the end of July there were horrendous fires that led to the loss of over 90 lives and the devastation of households, properties and forests. Many people are still in hospital with burns, wounds et cetera. The fundraising was an enormous effort that raised $650,000 in a two-week period just by putting the tray around in two Sunday services in every parish across Australia. This money will go towards the victims of the Greek fires. All this took place in a period of two weeks in all the parishes across Australia, as I said, in suburbs such as Kingsford in Sydney, at St Spyridon; in your own state, Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou, at St Eustathios in South Melbourne and, in your electorate, or close by, St Paraskevi— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Indeed. Mr GEORGANAS DZY St Nicholas in Darwin; Sts Constantine and Helen in Northbridge, WA; St George in Brisbane, in the electorate of the member for Moreton— Mr Perrett HVP Hear, hear! Mr GEORGANAS DZY St Nicholas in Kingston, right here in the ACT; and also, in my own home state, St George parish in my electorate, where there was an enormous effort to raise funds. I take this opportunity also to congratulate them for contributing towards the skin-grafting machines that are going over to Athens, or have already gone to Athens, for the hospital to treat some of the victims. They're helping to raise funds for Dr John Greenwood, who was South Australia's Australian of the Year and has been doing voluntary work over there to assist the burn victims. I congratulate in my own parish the ladies auxiliary of the parish of St George for the fantastic work that they do under the secretaryship of Zoi Papafilopoulou, who has been magnificent in ensuring that they continue the fundraising efforts under the auspices of Father Diogenis Patsouris. This has been an absolutely enormous effort by the Archdiocese of Australia to assist people and to raise funds, and this isn't the first time. They continually raise funds for all sorts of victims here in Australia and overseas, and they are continually doing all that they can to assist people in need, people who are perhaps less fortunate than us, people who for whatever reason have gone off the tracks. It's so pleasing to know that we have in our nation groups like this that go the extra step to ensure that we do whatever we can. This is a very important issue for hundreds of people who lost property and who lost family members and who have relatives and friends here in Australia and Greece. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT I thank the member for Hindmarsh. I associate myself with the member's contribution and congratulate the Greek orthodox church under the stewardship of His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos for the work that they do. Marmion Avenue and Edinburgh Avenue Pedestrian Crossing 84 10:39 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The construction of a signalised pedestrian crossing across Marmion Avenue between Burns Beach and Kinross in my electorate of Moore is urgently needed in the interests of road safety, particularly for school students crossing the busy road each day. On behalf of the local community, in particular the families of the 657 students attending Kinross College and the 653 students attending Kinross Primary School, I call upon the McGowan state Labor government to work with the City of Joondalup in approving the pedestrian crossing without further delay. This important road safety initiative has been on the agenda for several years dating back to 2015, and delays are potentially putting young lives at risk. How much longer will our community have to wait? Marmion Avenue is a major 40-kilometre-long four-lane arterial road connecting Perth's northern coastal suburbs, with an 80-kilometre-per-hour speed limit, making it difficult for pedestrians to cross during peak-hour commuter traffic. In 2015 the City of Joondalup received a petition with 1,820 signatures, requesting an underpass or overpass across Marmion Avenue near the roundabout. The City of Joondalup is still awaiting state government approval from Main Roads to install a signalised crossing across Marmion Avenue approximately 100 metres north of the roundabout at Grand Ocean Entrance and Edinburgh Avenue. The proposed design for the crossing will feature red-and-white coloured posts instead of the standard yellow posts to highlight the crossing, pavement markers with visual countdown timers for pedestrian movements and ramps for disability access. The City of Joondalup has also set aside $150,000 in the budget for other safety improvements to the site. This crossing is supported by both the Kinross Residents Association and the Burns Beach Residents Association and will encourage children and their parents to walk to school, as many have to drive the short distance across the two suburbs due to difficulties pedestrians crossing Marmion Avenue face. It will also improve access for residents of Kinross to the coastal suburb of Burns Beach, including access to parks and recreational areas. In the interests of road safety this pedestrian crossing ought to be prioritised for construction, especially given that the capital works funding is already in place. I look forward to working with Mayor Albert Jacob, Councillor Tom McClean and Councillor Kerry Hollywood of the City of Joondalup, and the state member for Burns Beach, Mark Folkard MLA, in ensuring that this project is delivered for the benefit of our community. Papua New Guinea-Australia Policing Partnership 84 10:42 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt I rise to commend the Australian Federal Police officers, led by Commissioner Andrew Colvin, who are working with Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary to provide extra security support in the lead-up to the 2018 APEC meeting in Port Moresby on 17 and 18 November. Many of our fellow Australians may not be aware that our neighbour to the north, PNG, has a population of approximately 7.7 million people, that they are going to host the most significant international event that country has ever hosted and that APEC will bring in excess of 9,000 delegates, staff and media to Port Moresby. Earlier this year I received a briefing from members of the AFP and two members of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary on how security preparations were proceeding for APEC 2018. I'm very pleased and proud of the AFP and the RPNGC for the work they are doing and how closely they are working together to keep everyone safe during this event. AFP personnel are providing extensive support to the RPNGC, most visibly through specialised training to enhance the capabilities of the Papua New Guinea police force in major event planning and close personal protection of world leaders. Over the past 18 months the AFP-led PNG-Australia Policing Partnership has been providing the bulk of training for APEC 2018 for people on the ground in PNG in roles such as bomb appraisal, close personal protection officers, traffic and motorcade members, canine and water police and event security specialists. The AFP involvement with the police services in Papua New Guinea has been extensive. AFP personnel in PNG will also continue to work on issues such as improving the capabilities of PNG police, custody management practices, responses to family and sexual violence, and juvenile justice matters. APEC is an incredibly important international forum of 21 Asia-Pacific countries that are home to more than 2.9 billion people and make up over 60 per cent of global GDP. On behalf of this chamber, I wish the people of PNG all the very best in hosting APEC 2018. I also congratulate the AFP personnel, one of whom I know, for the work that they're doing in supporting law enforcement in PNG and the personal relationships that they are building in providing that support. That is very important in the shared future that Australia and PNG will have together. The relationship between Australia and PNG is incredibly important to our country and enduring, and the work that the AFP is doing in providing that enhanced security support advice will strengthen that relationship. Diabetes 85 10:45 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia My electorate of Capricornia takes in a huge chunk of Central Queensland from Rockhampton to Mackay and out to the Belyando country in the west. Not only does Capricornia have a vast array of different landscapes, scenery and industries; it has a great variety of people. It is these people I am proud to represent and these great people that keep me driving forward in my role in this place. One shining example is Chelsea Line. Chelsea is a young woman and a ray of sunshine, whose love for life and passion for a cause are truly infectious. She is a cheerleader, a gymnast, a student and sometimes, I'm led to believe, a little bit of a ratbag. None of this is strange for an 11-year-old girl, but what makes Chelsea's efforts all the more impressive is what she faces every day with type 1 diabetes. The 24/7 grind of living with this chronic disease can of course be a struggle, and I know just how serious Chelsea and her mum are about raising awareness to help find a cure. Earlier this year, Chelsea and Rebecca visited Parliament House with a tour of JDRF families, and it was an absolute pleasure to be able to catch up with them both and discuss the continued need for support for diabetes sufferers. Chelsea got a real thrill by getting to see a few things most visitors to parliament don't get to see—one of the benefits of being Nationals whip. Chelsea told me type 1 diabetes is associated with a significantly increased risk of serious health complications, including blindness, heart disease, stroke and nerve damage. Rebecca told me she and Chelsea want us politicians to understand that a cure would mean everything to them. The very idea of a life free of emergency hospital trips, 3 am wake-ups and blood sugar finger pricks is something like heaven. I stand with Chelsea and Rebecca in supporting efforts to find a cure for diabetes and to make each sufferer's life a simpler, safer, healthier one. Chelsea and Rebecca are very active members of JDRF, the leading global organisation funding type 1 diabetes research. JDRF Australia is built on a grassroots model of people connecting in their communities, collaborating regionally for efficiency and a broader fundraising impact, and using an international stage to pool resources, passion and energy. This grassroots approach means that people who are actually dealing with the ravages of type 1 diabetes are the ones who are telling the stories and driving the message. Each year Chelsea and Rebecca play a pivotal role in organising the JDRF Colour Run in Moranbah—a great event that really puts the 'fun' in fundraiser. This year's colour run is coming up on 14 October, and I encourage everyone, wherever you are, to go to Moranbah and take part in this terrific event that not only supports tough kids like Chelsea but also provides help for a cure in the future. Hawkesbury and District Basketball Association, R U OK? Day 85 10:48 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The best of Hawkesbury basketballers were letting their hair down at the Hawkesbury and District Basketball Association presentation night in Windsor recently. The Jets is a growing club with great pride in what it has achieved. They're named in honour of the aircraft that fly in and out of our Richmond RAAF base. I'm always struck by the fabulous sense of community, and it's thanks to the hard work of parents and volunteers that they do so well. They fielded six junior teams this season, four of which made it into the finals. Three teams made it to the grand final—a huge effort for a small club. The under-14s won their grand final. I had the privilege of presenting the association awards which recognise talented performers, committed leaders and volunteers, and those who are positive role models within the association. Alex Sowinski and Dan Stephenson won the junior association awards. Zabian Mamo received the senior association award, and referee of the year was Anthea Jarrett. Congratulations to all the winners and the teams; to the board, under the leadership of Maurice Mantovani; and to the referees, parents and other volunteers. It's clear the players give of themselves and give everything every single week in their training and their games. In this place we work on many complicated pieces of policy to try to fix problems and make lives better. So, on R U OK? Day, it's refreshing to be able to talk about four simple steps that could change a life: ask, listen, encourage action and check in. Every one of us who talks about this in parliament does so because we hope someone in our communities hears our speech and asks someone else if they're okay. Two of the most common themes from the first speeches of the MPs who joined parliament with me two years ago were suicide and mental illness, which have touched the lives of so many people in this place. In Australia, we lose close to 3,000 people each year by suicide. That's about eight people every day. For every death by suicide, it's estimated 30 people will attempt to take their lives. In fact, 89 per cent of people report knowing someone who's attempted suicide. These are damning statistics. Sadly, government policy alone is not going to tackle this tragic waste of life. So I'd really encourage people to take a few minutes out of your day to ask a friend, a colleague, a loved one, a teammate or a neighbour—anyone you suspect might be struggling—if they're okay. The research shows us that loneliness is a big factor in people's lives. There's no single reason for people feeling that they don't want to live anymore, but, if we can reach out to people in any way we can, I think R U OK? Day is a great reminder to do that, and not just today. Have meaningful conversations every day of the year. Berowra Electorate: Jewish Community 86 10:51 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra As one of the six Jewish parliamentarians in this parliament, I'm delighted to wish members of the Jewish community shanah tovah for 5779. The Jewish new year, Rosh Hashana, commenced on Sunday night, and it commences a period of 10 days of reflection—the Days of Awe, Yamim Noraim—that culminates on Yom Kippur next week. Over this period, we are supposed to ask people for forgiveness for wrongs that we've done to them over the last year, and on Yom Kippur we ask God for his forgiveness for the wrongs that we've done. I spent the first two days of Rosh Hashana in two very different places. I spent the first day at Emanuel Synagogue, a synagogue that my grandparents founded. They were the third couple to be married in the synagogue. My late father served on its board. It is the shul I was bar mitzvahed in. It has a wonderful tradition. It combines the Reform tradition, the Masorti tradition and the Renewal tradition in one community. It is served by terrific rabbanim: Rabbi Jeffrey Kamins, Rabbi Jacqui Ninio and Rabbi Rafi Kaiserblueth, the newest rabbi, who officiated at the brit milah of my son earlier this year. It was lovely to be in a synagogue that's meant so much to my family over succeeding generations. On the second day I went to a very different synagogue that I want to talk a little about today. It's a synagogue on whose board I served prior to becoming a member of parliament: the Parramatta and District Synagogue. The Parramatta and District Synagogue in some respects is the little Jewish community that could. It has a very interesting history that reflects many of the migration patterns of the Jewish community in Australia. It was effectively founded as the synagogue of the Anthony Squires company. Lou Klein and Sidney Sinclair, who founded that company, brought tailors from Britain and Eastern Europe to Australia after the war, many of whom settled in the Parramatta area and looked to create a synagogue for that particular community. Next year, it will be 70 years since that community was founded by Lou Klein; Sidney Sinclair; Morry, Alf and Mark Borman; and my great-uncle, Philip Goldman, who was the third president there. Today the synagogue thrives under the leadership of Rabbi Roni Cohavi, a wonderfully welcoming and warm man who has brought a real sense of ruach to the community. He and his wonderful wife, Michal, operate a very welcoming environment, and their many children—Emanuel, Hodaya, Joseph, Mendi, Shmulli, Hannah, Shalom and Sarah—create a welcoming and orthodox Jewish environment for both members of the community and visitors. The synagogue would not survive without the wonderful efforts of my constituents Michael and Sue Morris, who have been the backbone of that community for years and years. Michael has served several terms, unsung, as the president, and it's wonderful to be able to get up in the parliament today and to pay tribute to him and to Sue, as well as the other board members: Jacob Lipson, Yossi Cohen, Dennis Freede, Stephen Kopp, Itzik Mueller, Eve Spicer and Len Shelton, who for many years served as president of the shul. I want to take this opportunity to wish all the Jewish community members right across the country well over the fast for Yom Kippur. Whitlam Electorate: Youth Leaders Roundtable 86 10:54 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam In the week after the Liberal Party decided to change the Prime Minister, I held my eighth annual Youth Leaders Roundtable. The timing could not have been better. We had students from 11 schools join me in Dapto. The schools in attendance included the Albion Park High School, the Corpus Christi school, Calderwood Christian School, Dapto High, Illawarra Sports High, Kanahooka High, Lake Illawarra High, Oak Flats High, St Joseph's Catholic school, St Paul's International school and Warilla High. During the course of the day, I heard from students about their hopes and aspirations. I asked them to raise with me the issues they'd like to see their federal representatives talking about and acting upon. If there was a take-out message from the day, it was that leaders like us should stop talking about young people and start listening to them. They talked passionately and impressively about issues concerning climate change and the environment, sustainable energy generation, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and they had a very mature debate about the impact of social media technology on these essential freedoms. They were deeply concerned about education funding and cuts to education funding by state and federal governments. They were concerned about employment opportunities, penalty rates and job security. They raised a lot of issues about LGBTIQ students and issues concerning bullying and understanding. They had a very mature debate around section 44 of the Constitution and parliamentarians and made some recommendations on that issue, which I hope to get to, and about the impact of inequality. They want government to stop thinking short term when it comes to the environment and climate change, as it will be the next generation—their generation—that has to deal with our inaction if, indeed, that's what it is. The students gave some examples about the impact of government cuts to school funding. One salient example is that curriculums have been changed, and they're required to learn the new curriculum, but the schools can't afford the textbooks to teach the new curriculum. They suggested that an answer to section 44 of the Constitution would be that there be in-depth background checks before any individual is elected. They believe that parliamentarians need to have more regular and formal consultations with their constituencies. They want the government to act and stop the casualisation of the workforce. There were many, many other examples of great initiatives that we could take to meet their needs. I'll continue to hold these roundtables. I now seek leave to table a list of the participants. Leave granted. Health Care 87 10:57 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn Last week, Senator Bridget McKenzie and I visited a couple of health centres in my electorate of Flynn. Minister McKenzie is the minister for regional services, including health in regional areas. It was disturbing that the two hospitals we visited, Gladstone and Theodore, had issues regarding their maternity and childbirth centres. Although the Queensland government has been offered $7.5 billion extra over the next five years, they have not signed off on this agreement. And, yet, they see fit to close down over 40 childbirthing centres in Queensland and push patients on to the bigger hospitals on the coast—for instance, Rockhampton, Mackay and Bundaberg. This puts the women in the regional centres of my electorate, and other regional centres of Queensland, in a precarious situation, because they do not know exactly when they're going to give birth to their new child. One lady from Theodore told me that it took her three weeks of supplying her own accommodation in Rockhampton—that's some 250 kilometres from Theodore—and she had to pay those expenses herself. She also had to have childminding services back home in Theodore, and her husband had to give up some work to be with the children when the babysitter was not there. So, in all, the whole three weeks was a financial cost to the family. It certainly caused hardship—a slight on liveability for that particular person. She wasn't the only one in the room—about six other ladies had the same issues. And, of course, transport: they had to supply their own transport to travel 250 kilometres away but also for the regular backwards-and-forwards trips to the doctor's. I thought that was hitting a bit below the belt. If Queensland Health want to save on cost by having the types of doctors that they require—obstetricians, gynaecologists et cetera—in those areas, they should come up with some formula that will help them financially to relocate those women who are expecting a child to defray some of the costs when they go into the bigger cities. And it could be for two, three, four weeks—who knows, when they leave their town, how long they're going to be away? This is the uncertainty that this new system of shutting down 40 particular childbirthing centres— (Time expired) Morrison Government 87 11:00 Mr HART 263070 Bass This rotten government is a leaky, rusty boat crewed by what the PM called a bunch of muppets on a cruise to nowhere, with Malcolm leaving the muppet show with his version of 'The Muppets take Manhattan'. Yesterday, Tasmanians read that they were a bunch of beggars, but worse than that: 'adjective deleted mendicants'. Prime Minister Morrison owes an apology to all Tasmanians for his disgraceful insult. Regional Tasmania has already suffered as a result of this government overseeing growing inequality between cities and regions, and a lack of investment in health and education services. The last thing our electorates need is a Prime Minister who treats Tasmania with contempt and who clearly didn't care if political expediency meant cutting Tasmania's GST receipts. Any cut in GST receipts, or the real value of GST receipts, would have a devastating effect on service delivery in the regions, regions that are already struggling due to cuts made by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—cuts to health and education funding. Of the many highlights of the battle within this dysfunctional muppet show, their leaked national infrastructure plan, supposedly for their re-election campaign, showed $7.6 billion worth of projects—not one new dollar for Tasmania. We weren't surprised that Tasmania didn't get a mention in the leaked re-election announcement, but to find out that the Prime Minister thinks that we're a bunch of beggars is beyond belief. This shows the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Liberal government's approach to Tasmania. Unless it's a by-election they hope to win, infrastructure in Tasmania has been ignored. Since being elected, I've been in consultation with local government in Bass and there have been a number of infrastructure projects that I will be seeking support for in a Shorten Labor government, if elected. The Morrison government is hopelessly divided. It seems a good lot of them couldn't count to 43 and then had to resort to bullying to change leaders. Not satisfied with fighting amongst themselves, they now want to pick a fight with all Tasmanians wherever they live. Bill Shorten and Labor are united. They are ready to deliver for Tasmania, if a Shorten Labor government is elected. Unlike Scott Morrison's Liberals, our focus is on the community and not on ourselves. Tasmanians are rightly sick of being left off the map by this divided, unstable and illegitimate government. It's time for the Prime Minister to call an election and to bring down the curtain on his bunch of muppets. Clearly, a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will invest in jobs, invest in health and invest in education, which are all vitally important for my patch of northern Tasmania. Northern Tasmania will be more prosperous under a Shorten Labor government. Prime Minister 88 11:04 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner According to a survey by Travel Leaders, Australia is the world's No. 1 travel destination. So you'd think that promoting Australia to the world would be the easiest job going. But there's one chap who was sacked in 2006 by the Howard government as the head of Tourism Australia, in a unanimous decision of the board. Don't feel too sorry for him, since this chap was reportedly fired from his $350,000 job because tourism minister Fran Bailey couldn't stand his ego. He reportedly got a $300,000 payout—doing better than the 16,768 public servants who've lost their jobs since the coalition came to office. Flushed with success, the same chap ran for preselection for Cook and was eliminated in the first round, garnering just eight out of 152 votes. But the Liberal Party state executive intervened to dump the Lebanese Australian who'd won the ballot and put our chap in the spot instead. In parliament, he spoke about 'the values of loving kindness', but the same chap objected in 2010 when the Australian government sought to fly Madian El Ibrahimy to attend the funeral of his wife, four-year-old son and eight-month-old daughter, who had perished in the Christmas Island boat tragedy. It was left to Joe Hockey, John Hewson, Malcolm Fraser and Bruce Baird to condemn him. A few months later, the same chap told shadow cabinet that the coalition should exploit community concern over Muslim migration for political gain, only to be slapped down by Philip Ruddock and the member for Curtin, Julie Bishop. This chap's first idea as Treasurer was to increase the GST. He led the resistance against a banking royal commission, calling it a 'populist whinge' and voting against it 26 times. This chap's energy policy doesn't go any further than waving around a lump of plastic-coated coal in question time. As Treasurer, he presided over the worst wages growth in a generation and the highest debt in our nation's history while pushing $80 billion of corporate tax cuts, including $17 billion for the big banks. This chap put his arm around Malcolm Turnbull one day then took his job the next. Malcolm Turnbull was a talented political orator who came to parliament after a distinguished business career and took a stand on issues he believed in. In fact, if he'd stuck to his ideals more he might still be Prime Minister. By contrast, in Prime Minister Morrison Australia has its most underwhelming leader since Billy McMahon: a ruthlessly ambitious man who will do anything for power; a speaker who veers from angry rants to cliche-packed homilies; a former party apparatchik driven entirely by politics, without an ounce of original policy thinking. There's a good reason people dream about Australia. Ours is a magnificent nation. That is why we deserve so much better than a mediocrity who couldn't even keep his job promoting Australian tourism to the world. Groom & Lavers Solicitors 88 11:07 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom I've often spoken in this House in relation to successful small businesses in my electorate of Groom, and I do so today about a particular firm which has just this year reached a milestone of 125 years. It is a significant achievement indeed, an achievement worthy of celebration, which is what we did just last week for Groom & Lavers, the first law firm established in Toowoomba, in 1893. Since that time, it has certainly established itself as one of the region's most trusted and highly respected law firms. Generations of families in our region have retained the services of Groom & Lavers, and it is especially significant for our region that one of the founding partners was Sir Littleton Groom, after whom the electorate of Groom is, of course, named. Sir Littleton was elected to the Australian federal parliament in 1915 following the death of his father, William Henry Groom, who was the first federal representative from our region. Sir Littleton went on to many ministerial positions, including Attorney-General, and he was also Speaker of the House during his period in parliament. Here we have a firm, Groom & Lavers, that exemplifies the efforts of small businesses in our region, spread across so many industries, in this case professional services, and shows what such firms do for the fabric of our community and our society. Between them, small businesses in our electorate represent the largest employment sector of all in our region. I want to congratulate Groom & Lavers on all their years of service. I was very pleased to be there to celebrate the milestone. In particular, I offer my sincere congratulations to Andrew Taylor and Amanda Boyce, today's partners in the firm, which operates out of Toowoomba and also the beautiful township of Oakey, just west of Toowoomba. One hundred and twenty-five years of faithful service to our community is most significant indeed. It is for these reasons that I'm particularly proud to be a member of the Morrison government, so focused on supporting small business—again, the largest employer in our economy, not only in my electorate but, of course, right across the country, particularly in regional Australia. We need to continue to support them. We need to continue to see these sorts of milestones reached, as has been the case with Groom & Lavers. Scullin Electorate: Volunteers 89 11:10 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I rise to acknowledge the extraordinary contribution made by volunteers in the Scullin electorate and, in this place, to say thank you to all of them for their contribution. On 29 August, it was my privilege to host this year's Scullin Volunteer Awards, my efforts to recognise those recipients for their contribution to community but also for the example they set for others. I think the timing of this year's awards was particularly significant because it followed a very difficult week in this place. It followed a week in this parliament that shocked many Australians and shook their faith not just in this government but in our democratic institutions and in the possibilities of politics. I found sharing a day with the stories of these great volunteers, these selfless contributors to community, the perfect antidote. I was pleased to share it with my friend the state member for Dandenong and the Andrews government's parliamentary secretary responsible for volunteers, Gabrielle Williams, and to share with her our appreciation of these great contributions from people who were not just chosen by me but recognised by their peers for their contributions to service delivery organisations, to sporting clubs and to social networks. It was an absolute pleasure to see the pride of friends and families in seeing these efforts acknowledged, and it was a privilege to be able to express my appreciation to all of those for their efforts. Speaker—Deputy Speaker, rather, for the moment!—I think it is important in this place to acknowledge these contributions. I talked about these efforts as an antidote for the feelings of disquiet and distrust with the present state of politics. I think it is important that in this place we not only honour the contribution of volunteers but seek to match their selflessness and devotion to community. It was a particular privilege to see the volunteer organisations talking to each other and looking at further opportunities to work to the benefit of community. Perhaps that's the example that we can do better to heed in this place. A good society is shaped by the democratic decisions of government, but a big part of that also must involve the efforts of community in coming together to shape for themselves how relationships are formed. This is incredibly important when we understand the costs of social isolation as well. We have here, in volunteering, something which is a good for community but a good also for individuals. National Security 89 11:13 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I want to record for the House some revelations that we heard in the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit by Defence officials raising serious concerns about the privatisation of security clearances in Australia and how private contractors are now being used to assess Australia's highest level of security, positive vetting. These are security clearances required for our most senior public servants: secretaries, CEOs, military officers and others in key roles. They're people who have access to the nation's greatest secrets. Candidates, as part of this process, have to reveal sensitive personal information, including sexual behaviour and financial, medical, drug and alcohol issues for at least 10 years prior. At a public hearing of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit a few weeks ago, we heard that, because of the backlog, they've effectively privatised it. Eighty-five per cent of these security clearances are now done by a panel of private contractors, which is quite stunning. Even more shockingly, though, we heard that because of the IT failures, which mean the private contractors can't access the Department of Defence IT, all of this incredibly private information is being whizzed around by motorcycle couriers in hard copy, and some of it has even been misaddressed and sent to the wrong place. We also heard that, as part of this privatisation—amazingly, with no explanation the department could provide—these private contractors are keeping information on file in their businesses about everyone who was spoken to as part of these very sensitive security checks. Clearly, if you even watched a spy movie let alone had any sensible thought about how these things might work, you would see that this does open up the possibility down the track of blackmail and further investigations by foreign powers. Regarding one matter of concern, I've been waiting patiently for information for two or three weeks since the hearing. I was assured by the Department of Defence, via the secretariat, that within 24 hours we would have advice from the department as to which 14 of the 22 contractors on the panel were involved in this highly sensitive positive vetting work. The department's gone silent—dead. There's no explanation. I'm unclear now what they've got to hide. We were assured during the hearing: Part of the management of the panel is increasing oversight around foreign ownership and foreign control. We were also assured that none of these contractors were doing any work for foreign governments. That's all well and good. However, some basic company searches which I've now conducted do show some foreign links—and tenuous foreign links, in many cases—between some of these contractors and foreign actors, in that some of the directors who were born in foreign countries appear to live here now and some of the directors of these companies live in foreign countries. That's not, of course, to say or allege at this time that there is foreign control. It's simply to make the point that the department has to come back and properly explain what they're doing to ensure not just that there's no foreign ownership and control but that there's no trace of foreign connections or foreign influence over this highly sensitive work. Finally, I think it would be a very good thing if the department did some cost-benefit analysis on getting public servants to do this work in the Department of Defence. Tarana Community Farmers Market 90 11:16 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I wish to bring to the attention of the House the outstanding success of the Tarana Community Farmers Market. Established in 2015, the community farmers market has grown from humble beginnings to a thriving monthly event with over 50 stallholders. Tarana is a tiny village situated midway between Bathurst, Lithgow and Oberon in the heart of the Central Tablelands. The village has an interesting history, which includes tales of bushrangers such as Henry Stratton and Richard Norris, who held up the nearby Mutton Falls General Store in 1864. And, of course, the mythical 'Tarana Tiger' is still spoken about around the village. Many have reportedly seen it, but no-one has proved it to be fact or fiction. Held on the fourth Sunday of every month around the grounds of the Tarana Rural Fire Service shed, the markets provide an opportunity to purchase products direct from local farms and kitchens where the produce is grown, livestock is raised and artisan products are made. Products range from meat to free-range eggs, fruit and vegetables, jams and preserves, cakes and sweets, breads, salami and local wines, and there are even alpacas there. The markets are run by a dedicated group of volunteers, with the money raised supporting the Tarana Rural Fire Service or other worthwhile community projects. In 2017, the committee was able to donate more than $10,000 to local projects, which included a new fridge for the fire shed, installation of a security system, a new trailer and pump for firefighting, and over $1,000 to local causes. To date, just over $9,500 has gone to local community causes. I'd like to make mention of the hardworking committee, including president, Jill Ross; secretary, Fay Shaw; treasurer, Annie Cook; coordinator, Lyn Webb; and committee members, Jeff Smith and Pamela Kalyvas. Volunteers assisting with the market include Greg and Jenny Dargin, Sue Roberts, Martin Burke, Maree Arrow, Lyn Prowse, Virginia Kurtz, Rebecca Welsh, Ben Jowett, Carl and Lynette Safranek, John and Belinda Hanks, Ian Dowson, Iain Gentle and Craig Hutchinson. I'd also like to mention the hardworking members of the Tarana RFS, who work so hard to keep their communities safe. I was there recently and I saw firsthand their outstanding facility and the outstanding work they do. I encourage all members of this House to get out to Tarana, the amazing village in the central west, to attend the markets and enjoy their wonderful local produce. Congratulations to the amazing village of Tarana. This House salutes Tarana and the Tarana Community Farmers Market. Dobell Electorate: School Garden Programs 91 11:19 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell Last week, I invited primary school students in my electorate of Dobell to tell me how to make eating fruit and veg more fun to win prizes for their schools from programs by celebrity chefs Jamie Oliver and Stephanie Alexander. Following last year's inaugural Dobell Kitchen Garden Classroom competition, this spring, I've launched the From School Garden to Plate competition, encouraging students to learn more about preparing the fresh, healthy food that they've grown in their school gardens. Last year's competition was inspired by the Tacoma Public School leafy leaders. It was to promote school gardens as an educational tool for children to learn more about gardening and growing food. This year the focus is on what to do with the fresh healthy food that you've grown. I launched the competition at Toukley Public School, who were the winners of my first kitchen garden competition last year. Under the guidance of Mr Norman, the green thumbs, who meet and garden every day at school, have grown an impressive veggie patch. They now sell produce to parents and teachers to raise money for more gardening supplies. I tasted their fresh strawberries, picked from the garden, and I'm keen to try their kale chips recipe. Students from all primary schools in my community are invited to enter the From School Garden to Plate competition through their schools. First prize this year is a Jamie Oliver learn your fruit and veg session, conducted by the Good Foundation, which was established in 2010 to focus on programs and projects that promote good health and nutrition. In the classroom session the winning students will get their hands messy and their fingers sticky as they learn about fresh seasonal ingredients and prepare a meal to share with their classmates. Second prize this year is a Stephanie Alexander kitchen garden classroom educators pack and third prize is a Stephanie Alexander Getting Started guide. Both are designed to support schools to develop gardens and lessons around fresh food. Last year students were asked to tell me how a kitchen garden classroom would help them to learn, and the quality of entries was outstanding. This year I'm asking: how can you make eating fruit and veg more fun? I'm really looking forward to the students' suggestions. This is a fun way to help students build their gardening skills and spread the word about the importance of healthy food. This is an important message, and I'm passionate about children learning to grow and prepare their own food, which sets them up for a lifetime of good health. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge the many dedicated teachers in schools across my electorate who so generously give their time to start and grow school gardens and support their students' learning—teachers like Sharryn Bowes from Jilliby Public School, which now has a garden, a chicken run and, with the support of the P&C, repurposed a classroom to a kitchen. I encourage all students to enter the competition before it closes on 28 September. From the examples that I've seen at Gorokan Public School, Toukley Public School and Tacoma Public School, I'm sure that there will be really good high-quality entries this year. I'm keen to sit on the judging panel and decide who will win my From School Garden to Plate competition this year. Bureau of Meteorology 91 11:22 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Last week the staff from the Bureau of Meteorology in Perth received a devastating blow. In fact, not only the staff from the bureau but anyone connected with the aviation, agriculture, maritime, tourism and oil and gas industries will be put at risk. The BOM has concluded that it will end local forecasting services across Western Australia. The union representing these workers, the CPSU, says that the decision to centralise all forecasting in Melbourne and Brisbane by 2020 will significantly downgrade the quality and reliability of services for West Aussies, posing a particular risk during our diverse and often extreme weather events. This decision will impact our agricultural, energy production and mining industries, and I'd hate to think of the potential dangerous situations which many may find themselves in should our weather reporting become second rate. It's totally unacceptable for our weather services to be delivered from over in the east. In the case of natural disasters there is a very real danger for Western Australians. You only have to cast your mind back to the devastating Yarloop bushfires of 2016 to understand the importance of local knowledge in local weather bureaus. Those local forecasters were credited with helping fire crews gain the upper hand in the devastating blaze, as they predicted 100 kilometre an hour winds and thunderstorms, allowing crews to react accordingly. Bureau of Meteorology management claims that this decision will result in no job losses. However, for these employees, making the decision between relocating over east and taking a redundancy is hardly a fair go. In fact, if there will be no job reductions, why do it at all? I can tell you about the importance of this localised knowledge in Western Australia. As someone from the Kelmscott Hills, in my electorate of Burt, who studied down in Fremantle, I can tell you that just across that distance in the Perth metropolitan area the weather patterns are different. I had to rely on the radar system and the localised reporting from our Bureau of Meteorology to tell me what I needed to rug up for or be prepared for when heading down the hill and across to the coast in Fremantle. The restructuring of the Bureau of Meteorology will inevitably lead to highly skilled and specialised Western Australians losing jobs at a time when WA's unemployment rate is amongst the highest in the country. It will lead to a lower skilled, less experienced workforce, engaged over east, thereby reducing the skill applied to the very important job performed by our meteorologists and forecasters, not to mention the loss of important localised knowledge, which is as much art as science, meaning that safety and accuracy will be put at risk. There will be increased costs to government from transition and relocation costs. There will be no reduction in costs. There is nothing to offset in savings, because there will apparently be no overall reduction in staffing levels. And, of course, it will mean the loss to WA's TV and radio airwaves of Matt Boterhoven and the many other excellent forecasters from the WA bureau. I implore the member for Durack, under her new ministerial responsibilities, to step in to support her local industries. As a Western Australian, she of all people should understand the importance of local weather knowledge and local jobs. Please save our bureau. Queensland: Four-Wheel Driving 92 11:25 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In Queensland we are seeing another revenue-grabbing measure. This time it is the Labor government attacking four-wheel drive owners who modify their vehicles in completely reasonable ways. This is just a cash-grabbing attack, commissioning the Queensland police, an organisation we respect so highly, to do 'fishing in a barrel' captures of people in their four-wheel drives as they attend major events. These may well have been rules for some time, but they've broken away from the national standard approaches that we would expect all four-wheel drive rules to adhere to around the nation. The toughest rules are purely in Queensland, limiting the distance you can raise a vehicle to 75 millimetres, down from 150 millimetres. That can be done by something as simple as changing suspension and putting on new tyres. We are the heartland of four-wheel driving. The last thing we want to do is kill off the four-wheel drive industry for no other reason than lack of consultation. We are getting used to really, really dumb decisions from this Queensland government. There are governments that should know better, like Victorian Labor, but there are governments that just don't know any better, and that's Queensland Labor. This is another stumbling, bumbling decision. Motorists are just innocently driving along. They were legal last year and are not legal this year. The Queensland government has created a brand-new standard that has departed from those of the rest of the nation. If you cross the Queensland border, you may be driving a vehicle that is now deemed illegal and may get these notifications of inability to drive. People can fall prey to police dragnets where just standard lift modifications have occurred. It's important to mention that these groups of four-wheel drivers—and the member for Bonner knows them well, because of our coastal location—are not people who delight in breaking the law. These are people who want to be able to drive in off-road conditions and want to get their vehicles high enough, safely, to do it, in places like Fraser Island. Standard lifts have been around for a long time. If they go above, say, 75 millimetres, it's reasonable to have a modification plate—a mod plate, as they say—to say that the vehicle has been technically checked and is safe in something like a swerve test. But keep in mind that some vehicles actually don't pass a swerve test even as they come off the production line. While some can still do suspension raises of 50 millimetres, if you just change the tyres, suddenly you're breaking the law. Mark Hammond, the owner of Capalaba's Hammond 4WD Tyres & More said: Without changing the height of the tyre, your vehicle is going to get bogged. You've got to do something to be able to survive off-road, and Queensland is making it impossible. The Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association and QORF are working together to stop this really, really silly decision. We want people holidaying and enjoying four-wheel driving safely. The way to deal with this is to consult with the industry and not misapply hoon laws to innocent people driving responsibly, simply because the vehicle has been lifted a few more millimetres. They want to do it with a compliance plate. They want to do it through legal channels which would allow it and keep consistency across this great nation. National Security 92 11:28 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce I will just finish the remarks I was making earlier. To precis: the radical privatisation of Australia's security clearances raises serious concerns about how contractors are undertaking Australia's highest level of security vetting, positive vetting. Eighty-five per cent of security clearances are now done by private contractors. Since this was revealed at a hearing of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and following media coverage, I've been contacted by people with anonymous tip-offs that these security clearances cost at least $35,000 per clearance. So it's outrageous that the government has admitted that it has completely failed to even do a basic assessment of the costs and benefits of doing more of this work in the Department of Defence. That would mitigate just about all of the risks the committee identified, including having motorcycle couriers whizzing around with the sexual information, drug and alcohol history, mental health history and financial history of Australia's most senior public servants. We don't know who these couriers are. They are Australia Post and private contractors. For all we know, they're using Deliveroo! The department must urgently provide an absolute assurance to the parliament that there are no foreign links with any contractors undertaking these sensitive security clearances. A basic company search indicates that some of these companies have directors that were born in and are living in the United States, that other directors were born in nations such as China, India, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea and appear to be living here, but there is a distinction between foreign control and foreign influence. I can't overstate the sensitivity of this work. When you know who has been spoken to as part of someone's security clearance then it's easy to reconstruct the trail to understand later on how you may blackmail these officials. That's common sense. These security clearances are black and white. The Department of Defence's agency says, on balance, you're a yes or no, weighing up all of the risks. It's clear that, if you understand where someone's vulnerabilities are, later in their career you can start to put pressure on them. The government also wants to see, as part of its policy change, more sensitive personal information like sexual behaviour and medical and financial records shared with departments, yet it appears to have no policy on how this information would even be secured. It's difficult to believe assurances that we heard at the hearing, 'Don't worry; we keep all this stuff safe,' when the Prime Minister's department recently sold a filing cabinet full of cabinet documents. I think it is a false economy to use arbitrary staffing caps, which are just controlling one input into a department's budget, divorced from outcomes or any cost-benefit assessment. Sometimes it is simply cheaper to do stuff in house. This is not just a sterile argument about privatisation versus public. As the audit report showed, this is inherently difficult and secret information, and none of the contractors can interface with the Department of Defence's IT systems. The risks are multiplied enormously when this stuff moves around by paper outside the Department of Defence. This is a radical privatisation, and the government should reconsider whether they have the balance right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 There are no further constituency statements by honourable members. CONDOLENCES 93 CONDOLENCES McCain III, Senator John Sidney 93 11:32 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein on indulgence—It's my privilege to be able to rise to honour the life of service of Senator John McCain, the true heir to the conscience of a conservative. Many people in their addresses to this parliament will recite Senator McCain's biography, but today I offer some short personal reflections. I always believe Senator McCain's unsuccessful bid to become President of the United States was one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell the United States and also the world. He was unashamedly my preferred candidate in the primaries for the 2000 election, and his defeat came with huge consequences for the world. That isn't to take anything away from the successful candidate, President Bush, but the smears and innuendo run by some against Senator McCain's character diminished his standing, so he was not able to live out the full service that I believe could have fulfilled his purpose and mission. As a relatively spritely and young 26-year-old in the United States in 2006 on a personal holiday I visited the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley in California. I was only newly out of university, rummaging through my pockets for what little money one had to be able to travel, and by pure coincidence the day that I happened to visit the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library was the day that John McCain was speaking there in the lead-up to the forthcoming presidential election on whether he was going to be the Republican candidate. I watched him give an address speaking of hope and opportunity, embodying every component of the optimism that inspires us from the United States, with all of the class and respect that we revere him for. It was one of the greatest privileges of my life to be able to see a man who lived his values in word and deed and in service to the community. Like everybody else in this chamber, I had the privilege of being able to shake his hand for the first time when he visited our parliament, shortly before his diagnosis earlier this year. What I always respected about Senator McCain was that he was a man who lived his values. He understood what conservatism actually meant. He understood that conservatism embodied civility, not crudeness; grace, not gratuitousness; nationalism, yes, but not nativism; service; and sacrifice. Frankly, many people who may claim the moniker 'conservative' today would do extremely well to listen to his example and learn. During his recent trip to Australia he got to say his final goodbyes, though it may not have been his intention, to those many people who serve in this parliament and of course to our great nation. When I, like many others, went to shake his hand and pay honour and respect to his service, though a giant in many ways, he had a quiet, humble gentleness, with the empathy and true compassion that is embodied in true conservatism. To Senator McCain we give thanks and as he passes into eternity we say: may he rest in peace. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue 94 Report 94 11:36 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's my great pleasure to be able to get up and talk about the wonderful world of tax and tax reform, one of my pet topics because it goes to the heart of the sustainability of our country, our Commonwealth and a just society. People forget often that liberalism at its core believes in freedom—and it does—and also believes in the sense of justice at the heart of society that people not just work, deserve and earn their keep but also have a responsibility to themselves so they can take care of themselves and not be a burden on others and they can help others stand on their own two feet as well. I'd like to congratulate the member for Mackellar on his outstanding chairmanship and leadership of this committee, which looked at some of the challenges we need to address around tax reform. We need a preparedness to confront the complexity of the system and to break apart the problems we have around entrenched interests that distort the economy and create huge challenges for the entire economy. We have problems with complex and disproportionate taxes on different activities and different and preferential arrangements for different types of legal structures which minimise the contribution of some parts of the community to the benefit of the others. If you want a society like ours, built on the principles of equal opportunity, and for people to have a chance meritocratically to move through different stages of life and be able to succeed, you need a just tax system, one that's open, honest and simple and enables people to have a go and get the reward of their effort. We need to focus much more on this because it is tied intrinsically to the sense of openness and social mobility that this country should promise and be able to deliver for every Australian. We know this is a great challenge, particularly for younger Australians, at the moment. We have an increasing number of people over the age of 65, who have worked hard, made their contribution and been part of building the legacy and story of this nation, but we also have fewer young people who carry the main burden of tax. Most of the tax collected by the Commonwealth is collected through income tax—in fact, about 71 per cent—and most of that hits people between the ages of 35 and 55. We cannot have a society where the few are paying the most while they're on their way up while also recognising that most of the benefits from the tax and transfer system into the future will go to those who've had their fair go. The discussion we need to have around this is: what does a generationally just system of tax look like? Some of the data is now coming out through different reports. The Productivity's Commission's 2015 working paper Tax and transfer incidence in Australia concluded: In total, families in the 60+ age group account for 51 per cent of all transfer expenditure. It also found: … families in the 60+ age group receive an average of $10 900 more in transfers than they pay in taxes. Families in the 60+ age group also pay the least in gross taxes and receive the most in gross transfers, largely because this age group is least likely to be working. That shouldn't really surprise. As I outlined, 71 per cent of federal tax revenue comes from income taxes, and families over 60 are less likely to work. In fact, the tax that people over the age of 60 mostly pay is, of course, the 10 per cent GST, whereas those in their prime working years are the principal contributors to the tax system, and that tops out at 47 per cent in income tax—though we as a government are doing something to address that and to get our tax rates down, and thank God we're doing so. What we are doing is simplifying the tax system so that anyone who's a middle-income earner will not pay more than 32c in the dollar. But we know that wealth tracks people's stages of life. So, of course, we have a tax system where so many people who are on their way up are also contributing and carrying the cost while trying to save and support themselves and their families, while most of the benefits are going to people who are not in like circumstances. The question we need to face as a country is: is that sustainable, is that just, and are we going to be able to provide the support and assistance that future generations need? That's why we need to have a comprehensive look at the tax system and assess not just who's paying tax today but when people pay tax and why, who's getting the benefits of the transfer system today, and what the key drivers into the future are. If we don't, we will have a tax system completely misaligned with the practical reality of the 21st century economy, completely inconsistent with the lived experience of Australians and completely inconsistent with the principles of a just society that promotes social mobility and a meritocracy. Now is the time. Now is the moment. I congratulate the committee and the member for Mackellar for showing their leadership. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 95 ADJOURNMENT Paid Parental Leave 95 11:42 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland Just imagine getting a phone call telling you that your mother had just been murdered by your father. Can you think of anything more shocking, more terrible and more life-changing? That's what happened to a constituent of mine, Armani Haydar. Three years ago, her mother was murdered by her father in her home in Bexley. Her mother was brutally stabbed 30 times in front of Armani's younger sister. Armani's sister was injured trying to fight her father off with her bare hands. When her mum died, Armani was five months pregnant and working as a solicitor at a firm in Sydney, and suddenly her life had been turned upside down. In addition to the grief and the trauma of losing the person who had brought her into this world, she now became a mother for her younger sisters. She had to take time off work and bring them into her home just as she was getting ready to become a mother herself. Why am I telling the parliament this story? It's because of this: when Armani went to Centrelink a few months later to lodge her paid parental leave application, it was rejected. It was rejected because she didn't meet the required work test. The work test requires you to have worked 10 out of the last 13 months before your baby is born. Because Armani stopped work at five months pregnant, when her mum was murdered, she didn't meet that test. She missed it by five days. There are exemptions built into the law for the work test, but domestic violence isn't one of them. There are two exemptions: the first is a pregnancy related illness and the second is a premature birth. Both of those exemptions make a lot of sense, but so does an exemption for domestic violence—so does an exemption for what happened to Armani. At the moment, if you're pregnant and you take time off work because you've been abused by your partner, or you're trying to get out of an abusive relationship, or you take time off work to grieve the murder of your mother by your father, you run the real risk, like Armani did, of losing access to paid parental leave. Given all of the evidence that pregnancy can increase the risks of domestic violence, and that financial uncertainty is one of the reasons that some women are reluctant to leave an abusive relationship, I don't think this makes sense. That's why, today, I'm urging the government to have a look at this and to change the law to help people like Armani. Last year, Armani's father was sentenced to 22 years in jail. Armani now has two children—a three-year-old little girl and a two-year-old little boy. Armani eventually got her paid parental leave after a bit of help from my office and the intervention of the former Minister for Social Services, Christian Porter. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank him for that. But she shouldn't have had to do that. She shouldn't have had to contact me or beg the minister—not with everything else she was going through at the time. What if she hadn't contacted my office? What if she hadn't written to the minister? What if she'd just accepted what Centrelink had told her? What if she just clicked on the paid parental leave website, read what it said, worked out that she was ineligible and didn't even put in an application? What if she was so overwhelmed by having to deal with all of the needs of her new baby and so traumatised by her mum's death that she didn't keep fighting like she did? That's why we need to change this law—not for Armani, but for the others that will follow her. Business: Payment Terms 95 11:47 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Small businesses create jobs by growing. With the resurgence in the mining sector, there is plenty of opportunity for businesses to grow in Central and North Queensland, but the ability of a small business to grow depends a lot on cash flow and having the capital to invest in that growth. So they need to get cash in the door by having customers pay their bills on time. This is where growth in Central and North Queensland is actually coming undone. You see, large mining companies are not paying their bills on time. They're not paying their suppliers on 30-day terms like most other businesses. They've stretched terms out to 60 days, in some cases 90 days, and some suppliers are waiting 120 days and beyond. It's ridiculous. The mining companies are getting away with it because smaller businesses, in particular, feel that if they don't roll over and accept it, they won't have a business at all. It's not just small business either. If a big mining company stretches out payment terms for a major contractor, that major contractor then stretches out payment terms for their contractors, and on and on it goes until it affects a small business that is, ultimately, their supplier. It cascades down like a waterfall, and at the bottom of this very murky waterfall are the mums and dads who just want a job, but they have their employment put in jeopardy because a huge multinational company, with the ability and the finance to pay its bills on time, simply isn't. That's why I've brought this issue to this parliament—to Canberra and the government—because these extended payment terms are a handbrake on our local economy, on the regional economy, and they are preventing job creation. I am pleased to say that the Liberal-National government set up a parliamentary inquiry to investigate this issue. Officially it's an inquiry into how the mining sector can support businesses in regional economies, but locals are simply referring to it as the 'payment terms inquiry', because that is the biggest issue around the mining industry affecting regional communities at the moment. I attended hearings in both Rockhampton and Mackay recently, with the member for New England and the member for Lyons. I congratulate those people who came forward and told their story. I appreciate the risk that they engaged in in taking the time to tell their story, because many businesses are too scared to say anything publicly about this issue and their circumstances, for fear of retribution by multinational mining companies and losing their business altogether. But I do thank the mining company that attended, BHP, for participating. I've got to say their testimony wasn't entirely helpful. They refused to answer a question about when they themselves got paid for the coal they delivered to their customers. While they didn't answer, I can tell you I pretty much know when they get paid. Most of their invoices would be as the coal is loaded on the ship, or perhaps even before it's transferred to be loaded onto the ship. But they are expecting that small Australian businesses are going to wait 120 days and beyond. Not only are these practices out of step with normal business practices in our communities but they're out of step with supplier expectations. They're also out of step with community expectations, particularly in regional Queensland. Regional Queenslanders expect that, when a hole is being dug in their backyard, the right thing will be done by local businesses and by local workers. That includes a good proportion of full-time jobs being created in their own backyard. Yet we have headquarters, management and automation centres in capital cities, and we even heard in that inquiry about a payment system headquarters and staff being based out of Kuala Lumpur. Goodness knows why it's then going to be a problem! The Resource Industry Network in Mackay made a submission to the inquiry and spoke on behalf of small to medium enterprises that are too scared to put their name to their own submissions. They advocated for a return to 30-day payment terms, and they commissioned Lytton Advisory to investigate and analyse the impact of these extended terms. They found reverting to 30-day terms would add 380 jobs to the regional economy and a further $150 million in wages and $250 million in gross regional product, taking into account flow-on effects. The report found a third of suppliers had more than half their revenue on extended payment terms. Two-thirds found it difficult to get finance since extended payment terms had come in. Three-quarters affected by extended payment terms were cutting back on capital. On and on it goes. Mining companies need to do the right thing and pay within 30 days. Minister for Home Affairs 96 11:52 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Members of the government, including Mr Dutton and the Prime Minister, have claimed that the Solicitor-General's legal advice resolves the question of whether the member for Dickson was capable of being chosen as a member of parliament under section 44(v) of the Australian Constitution. The Solicitor-General's advice does no such thing. We know that Mr Dutton is a beneficiary of a family trust, and we know that the corporate trustee of that family trust operates two childcare centres, at least one of which is operated on behalf of Mr Dutton and the other beneficiaries of the family trust. We also understand that those two childcare centres have received over $5½ million in Commonwealth childcare subsidies since 2014. In relation to Commonwealth childcare subsidies, the Solicitor-General suggested that the better view was that those payments did not in themselves make Mr Dutton constitutionally ineligible to sit as an MP. That is very far from an unequivocal statement of legal support. The Solicitor-General himself qualified his already equivocal opinion by noting that (1) even though the operation of section 44(v) is 'highly fact dependent', he was provided with 'very little factual information'; (2) the facts, such as they are known, are 'unlike those that have previously been assessed against section 44(v)' by the High Court; (3) there may be further facts of which the Solicitor-General is unaware; and (4) it is difficult to predict how the High Court would analyse the facts in this case. It is therefore unsurprising that the Solicitor-General clearly acknowledged: … I consider there to be some risk … that the High Court might conclude that there is a conflict between Mr Dutton's duty as a parliamentarian and his personal interests. Separate to the childcare subsidies, we also know that there exists a funding agreement between the childcare centre held by Mr Dutton in trust and the Commonwealth. Under that agreement, the Commonwealth pays one of the childcare centres $15,640 to fund a teacher's salary. In relation to that agreement, the Solicitor-General stated: … it is not possible to reach a definitive conclusion on that matter without more detailed factual information. Unbelievably, this is the legal advice that Mr Dutton and the Prime Minister are relying on to claim that there is no question about Mr Dutton's eligibility to sit in the parliament and that it is unnecessary for the High Court to rule on this matter. This arrogant government is also ignoring the views of three of Australia's foremost constitutional experts—Bret Walker QC, Professor Anne Twomey and Professor George Williams. All three have stated unequivocally that only the High Court can resolve the doubt around Mr Dutton's eligibility. And it is not just Mr Dutton's job that is at stake in this debate. According to another of Australia's most eminent counsel, Matthew Collins QC, the validity of every single decision made by Mr Dutton as a minister since 19 October 2016 will be vulnerable to legal challenge until Mr Dutton's eligibility to sit in parliament is authoritatively determined. Given that Mr Dutton has made literally thousands of decisions on immigration matters and on national security matters over that time period, this could throw the entire immigration system into chaos and cast doubt on a number of important national security decisions made by Mr Dutton. Apparently, this is a risk that the Prime Minister is willing to take. When asked this morning whether he would support calls to refer Mr Dutton to the High Court, the Prime Minister said that he will make decisions based on what he believes to be 'in the national interest'. The Australian people know that Mr Dutton sometimes confuses his personal interest with the national interest, and, by refusing to refer Mr Dutton, it appears as though Prime Minister Morrison is guilty of making the same mistake. How can the Prime Minister seriously maintain that it is not in the national interest to have certainty that decisions made by the minister in charge of Australia's national security are legally valid? The Prime Minister has said that people have had enough of lawyers' picnics on these sorts of issues. The Prime Minister should not so lightly dismiss the requirements of our Constitution. He should respect our Constitution and end the doubt about Mr Dutton's eligibility to sit in this parliament once and for all by referring Mr Dutton to the High Court. Calare Electorate: Drought Relief 97 11:57 Mr GEE 261393 Calare One of the characteristics of our country communities is that when the chips are down we rally together and support each other. And our country communities have rallied from far and wide to support our farmers and farming communities through this devastating drought. The generosity of communities not just in the central west but from around Australia has been extraordinary. I'd like to make mention of a few individuals and communities groups, and there are too many to mention today, who have been part of this extraordinary effort of support. Rebecca Childs from Orange coordinated the Fair Dinkum Farmer Fundraiser on behalf of Feed4Farmers. Feed4Farmers has grown from just a few people into a community group, providing hay, water and other supplies to farmers. I'd like to thank them all for their efforts and pay tribute to them. An event was recently held at Bletchington Public School on 26 August. There were 27 market stalls there and $5,000 was raised—I was there myself. I'd like to congratulate Rebecca and her organising team, and all of the stallholders and everyone who turned up at Bletchington school that day to support our farming communities. Rebecca is a hairdresser in Orange, and next week on Sunday she'll be donating all the money made from haircuts to Feed4Farmers. The last time she did this she raised over $2,400. Rebecca is encouraging other salons in the region to do the same. The Orange Lions Club is holding a Euchareena family day shortly—that's on next Sunday so farmers and their families can not only just enjoy time away from the farm and the reality of the drought but also talk to and support each other. The idea has been supported by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, including James Cleaver, who's a rural assistance officer based in Dubbo, as well as the Cudal Cargo Lions club. The Orange Lions Club are covering all of the associated costs for the event. It's a joint-club effort, and the Cudal Cargo Lions will be bringing their catering truck and supplying the barbecue on the day. Dianne Gill, who is the Rural Adversity Mental Health Program Coordinator for the Western New South Wales Local Health District, will be there to provide support, and it promises to be a very encouraging day. The Orange Lions Club members who are organising the event include Ron Parry; Graham Eggleston, famous for organising the camel races every Easter; Andrew Wood; and Peter Fuge. I am a member of the Orange Lions Club and I know how hard they've been working on this project. I congratulate members from all of the Lions clubs involved and thank them for their great community work. The Rylstone Red Cross was one of two branches that began in 1914, not long after the Australian Red Cross was formed. They recently held a morning tea at the Kandos golf club to raise funds for our local farmers. They raised over $1,700. Again, I had the privilege of attending. It was certainly a very impressive morning. I'd like to mention those dedicated members of the Rylstone Red Cross for supporting our farmers. They include President Margaret Jose; Treasurer Elizabeth Ferguson, who guarded the treasury tin very well on the day; Secretary Mary Vrisakis; the vice-president and patron, Barbara Reynolds; Patricia Reynolds; Margaret Elwell; Helen Merrett; Carol Hayward; Margaret Baxter; Nola Fraser; Jean Johnson; Claire Andu; and Shirley Tunnicliff. Congratulations on a job well done to the Rylstone Red Cross. I'd also like to mention 200 Bales at Mudgee, another great cause. It's based in the Mid-Western Regional Council area. Glenn Box and a group of Mudgee mates, including Kelly Dray, started a movement to deliver 200 bales of hay to farmers. They've rocketed past that target; they've now delivered more than 600 bails to farmers in need. Local fundraisers are now contributing to the cause, with Mudgee Golf Club raising $3,600, which equates to about 18 bales of hay. It has a massive social media following. Congratulations to the Mudgee 200 Bales movement. I'd also like to acknowledge Lifeline Central West, who launched their drought toolkit last week. Supported by the Orange Ex-Services Club, they are holding workshops about wellbeing right around western New South Wales, from Lithgow to Bathurst, Forbes, Walgett, Coonamble and Dubbo. Again, I was at the launch of that. I'd like to congratulate Stephanie Robinson, who is the CEO of Lifeline Central West, on all of her hard work and also acknowledge the work of the previous CEO, Alex Ferguson. I'd like to thank all of our community groups for supporting our farmers and farming communities during this very, very difficult time. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I call the member for Adelaide. Newstart 98 12:02 Ms KATE ELLIS DZU Adelaide Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker Laundy. It's delightful to see you in the role, which I'm sure you will perform with distinction. I rise today on a different matter. I rise today because I am sick and tired of the attitudes in this building, in some elements of the media and in some elements of the community which seem to equate those who are unemployed with bludgers, with leaners, with those who are just lazy and aren't getting up and doing anything to help themselves. That kind of attitude leads to us turning our backs on families who are living in poverty and, too often, are cases of intergenerational welfare dependency. So I want to address the issue of Newstart and its adequacy, because to just dismiss this issue, as we dismiss those who are unemployed, does no justice to any of us and certainly does no justice to the communities we represent. I was recently approached by one of the councils in the electorate that I am so privileged to represent here. The Acting CEO of the Prospect council, Nathan Cunningham, wrote to me saying: We have listened to our residents, heard the stories of the difficulties of living on the current rate of Newstart and write this letter to advocate on behalf of our community … An inadequate income support level not only leads to poor health and wellbeing for those who are unemployed or under employed, it is also a barrier to them finding employment and a drain on the local community … I can tell the Prospect council, I can tell the residents of Adelaide and I can tell this parliament that I absolutely agree. We cannot turn our backs on the unemployed and leave them to battle with inadequate support, as has been the case for far too long. Recently we saw a stunt from the Greens on this issue—as we so often see, grandstanding, trying to send something out to their supporters but not actually achieving anything—when they introduced a bill to increase Newstart in the Senate, achieving nothing except creating some sort of false hope for some of the most vulnerable in our community. The Greens know, as each and every one of us here knows, that appropriation bills in the House of Representatives have to be introduced by a minister. They were never going to get action; it was all about political pointscoring. It's time we talk about a course of action that will lead to increased support for those who need it. We know that, as has been the case so overwhelmingly, it is Labor who will lead the debate in this country on equality, it is Labor who will stand up for those in poverty and it is Labor who will stick up for people who have been left without a voice for far too long. I'm very proud that Labor recognise the need to assess the adequacy of Newstart and have outlined a process to do just that. In some of the amazing work that Jenny Macklin has done we've identified that we need to assess Newstart against two fundamental objectives: (1) alleviating poverty and (2) encouraging work. We also need to consider the interaction of Newstart with other factors such as jobseeker support and requirements that are placed on individuals. We know that the best way to bring about change and lift people out of poverty is through a thorough investigation—real action leading to real consequences. We know this because we have form in this regard. We set up the Harmer review, which saw a million Australians have their pensions increased and have additional support. We have announced that we need an adequate investigation and review of the levels of Newstart. This is a particular issue of importance to me as a South Australian member. In my state too many people have found themselves unemployed as a result of transitions in our economy, meaning that longstanding industries have contracted or shut down, and too many people are struggling to get back into work and to live on the Newstart payments provided for them. Unfortunately many of these people have been dealt a further blow in the recent state budget, where housing trust rents will increase massively for a number of people in our population. To all of those people I say: we hear you. We on this side will act on Newstart and alleviating poverty. Moore Electorate 99 12:07 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I inform the House that I recently met with key stakeholders to discuss a number of local issues in the Hillarys area within my electorate. These issues include strategies to revitalise and attract increased numbers of visitors and tourists to the Hillarys Boat Harbour, address antisocial behaviour and reckless driving in the marina precinct and upgrade the recreational amenities at the Whitfords Nodes Park. I also held various discussions with Mayor Albert Jacob; Councillor Christine Hamilton-Prime; the state member for Hillarys, Peter Katsambanis MLA; owner representatives from the Wyllie Group, Wayne McGrath, Todd Morcombe and Nigel Steven; as well as representatives from the Harbour Rise Association, including Martyn Glover. We discussed practical ways to address key local issues of concern and attract both private sector investment and government funding for capital works to upgrade the facilities and improve the amenity of the area for the benefit of residents and visitors. To address the law and order issues I have written to the officer in charge of the Hillarys police station to request more frequent law enforcement patrols around the marina precinct, car park and coastal roads leading north of the boat harbour. In addition the Department of Transport, which has responsibility for the harbour, will be cooperating with the City of Joondalup in the closed-circuit television monitoring of the car park precinct for motor vehicle and reckless driving offences. Federal and state funding is sought towards the proposed redevelopment of the Whitfords Nodes Park as a health and wellbeing hub. Concept plans include a fitness access staircase to be constructed on the north dune. The proposed stairway is 21 metres in height—the equivalent of seven storeys—which will provide an expansive outlook vantage point over the coast. In addition, there will be upgrades to the existing lookout and pathways, picnic shelters, barbecues, a new drinking fountain, and water bottle refilling stations. The project will also consolidate the current play equipment into a new regional play space. The stairway has the potential to become a popular tourist attraction similar to the popular Jacobs Ladder staircase located at Kings Park. Attracting tourists and visitors to the city of Joondalup is a priority, as tourism and hospitality are very important contributors to our local economy. The state and federal governments can also play a role in tourism promotion in terms of destination marketing to encourage private sector investment in modernising the Hillarys marina precinct and support the businesses operating within the marina. I welcome yesterday's announcement by the Wyllie group for a proposed $5 million investment in a pirate-themed amusement and adventure park—including two 18-hole adventure minigolf courses, a double FlowRider surf machine, a pirate galleon, lagoons, an erupting volcano, cafes, a small bar and a kiosk—at the former Great Escape water slide park site, by a local family company, Pirate's Cove Adventure Golf Pty Ltd, which has links to the British theme park group InterPark. Public consultation results show strong community support for the Whitfords Nodes upgrade project. Feedback from the community consultation shows that more than 70 per cent of the 458 respondents either strongly supported or supported each element of the concept plan, while 87 per cent indicated they strongly supported or supported the overall proposal. The project has the endorsement of the Harbour Rise residents association, which first advocated for the concept of a recreational node nearly six years ago. The City of Joondalup Council supports the proposal to enhance Whitfords Nodes Park and has listed $810,000 in the city's five-year capital works program towards the total cost of the project, which is estimated at $1.62 million. The city is now in the process of applying for a further $810,000 in federal and state grants towards the remaining elements of the scope of works. Given the regional nature of Whitfords Nodes as a coastal destination and its potential for tourism, economic development and job creation, there exists a strong business case for federal funding based on merit. R U OK? Day 99 12:12 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to acknowledge R U OK? Day, which is about us all taking a few moments out of our busy lives to start a genuine conversation, to ask the real questions and to stop and listen to the response from those we love, those we work with and those we stop to chat to in our busy lives. It's about checking on those we love or care for. It's about checking in with friends, work colleagues and neighbours. R U OK? Day is about reaching out and listening. I'd like to pay tribute today to beyondblue and the work that they have done in the area of mental health. I read with interest recently a speech by the new chair, our former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, on the research that beyondblue had done into emergency services. I have sat in my electorate office with people who are former emergency workers, who have come to talk to me, and listened to their stories. Having listened to them, it was not a surprise to me to learn that the beyondblue research found that leadership and organisational culture have equal importance in someone's journey with mental health. The research found that, although issues may have begun with trauma, leadership and culture have equal importance in the outcomes of that journey and in how well or unwell people become. Beyondblue provide us with statistics about mental health in this country. They tell us that one in two people will suffer from a mental health issue, that currently there are one million Australians battling depression and two million battling an anxiety condition, but only 50 per cent of those people will seek treatment. So R U OK? Day becomes critical as a reminder to all of us to take an opportunity to see if we can assist in increasing that number from 50 per cent, because ultimately we know that, if those people are untreated, unsupported and left alone to deal with their demons and battle with getting up every day and attending to things that they need to attend to, they may well become a statistic in our suicide numbers. For those people who are among the potentially three million today, dealing with depression or anxiety is an absolute battle for the individual. I want to use today to thank those allied health professionals who work in this space for their absolute skill, dedication, patience and professionalism. I have seen firsthand, and I know many in the chamber will have seen firsthand, the assistance that they give people. There is nothing so uplifting as to have been close to someone who has sought appropriate help, had the assistance and come through on the other side of an anxiety disorder or depression. In my years in schools, many of them spent working with adolescents, I got to work with some incredibly professional people in classrooms. It's not something we pay a lot of attention to day to day. Today is R U OK? Day, and I want to give a shout-out to all of those teachers who spend their days working with our young people and who are attentive enough to notice when something's gone awry, say, 'Are you okay?' and follow up to see young people get the assistance they need. In my journey as a teacher, there were young people for whom I saw that something had gone awry, and I was part of connecting with them and making sure that they got the support they needed. It's an incredible journey to go on with a young person even with the distance of being a teacher, let alone the distance of being a parent. So to all those who are struggling today I say: if someone asks 'Are you okay?' please take the time to engage with them. I want to pay tribute to those parents out there who are dealing with this issue with a young person in their family. It's a very tough journey. Hang in there, keep a smile on your face, keep asking the question and engage whenever you can. Thank you. Robertson Electorate: Sport 100 12:17 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I thank the member for Lalor for her important contribution today in the chamber and for drawing the attention of the House to this very important issue. To all of my constituents I say that it is important to ask, 'Are you okay?' Last Saturday I had the opportunity to watch the under-10s division 1 team from the Umina Bunnies junior rugby league club play in their grand final. I'm really proud of this amazing team from the Umina Bunnies. The boys played incredibly, and we were all cheering madly from the sidelines as they really gave it their all. They faced some formidable opponents in the team from the Wyong Roos. Even though they weren't able to get the win, the whole team made every single person watching proud. There wasn't a dry eye in the personal cheer squad on the sidelines, including my own. I've got to say I was pretty inspired by the attitude and perspective of the whole young team, particularly seeing the way they backed each other even after such a tough match and even though they didn't get the outcome they were hoping for. When the coach, Darren Phillips, gathered the boys after the match and invited them to speak, they all talked about their team and what the team meant to them. The boys spoke about the bonds they shared and how their focus was on backing each other. They spoke about their team playing not as individuals but as a group. It was a privilege to listen to a group of nine-year-old boys, some of them no doubt future NRL stars, live out what it really means to be part of a strong team, regardless of the outcome. So to every single one of them—to Marshall Michie, Kane Butler, Harvey Nitsos, Noah Constable, Ben Geddes-Brown, Kobie Flanders, Juilius Taulilo-Kautai, Logan Davis, Timana Moodie, Logan Lestrange, Riley McIver, Bailey Klumpp, Brayden Duggan and Samuel Michie, and to the team's vice-captain, Lachlan Park, and the captain, Cameron Makey—congratulations on an incredible season. I'm proud of what you've achieved. To the coach, Darren Phillips; manager, Julian Park; and trainers, Jake Makey and Shannon Michie: thank you for your commitment to local sport and thank you for your leadership. I'd also like to pay tribute to the Wyong Roos and the referee, Bailey Wolfe. This team and their story is representative of so many other teams on the Central Coast from a wide range of sporting codes. Our sports teams are the lifeblood of our community, and sport is something that connects us in a unique and important way. With plenty more grand finals coming up in the next few weeks, I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate some of the teams that have had such a great season—clubs like Gosford City Football Club, with four teams heading into the grand finals this weekend, including their women's premier league team. The East Gosford Rams already have two grand final wins under their belt, with the under-12Cs and the men's all age team winning their divisions. Woy Woy Football Club has got two teams in grand finals on Sunday, with the reserve grade women's team and men's all age 1s. Terrigal United Football Club has got six teams, including four men's and two women's teams that have already played and won their grand finals, with three more teams coming runner-up. The Mountain District Football Club has four teams in grand finals this season, with the 16Bs playing last weekend and coming runner-up. There are still three matches to go, with the rest being decided this Sunday at Budgewoi. Woy Woy rugby union club will be contesting three grand finals on Saturday, with their under-15s girls, under-19 boys and open women's team playing this Saturday. The Terrigal Trojan's first-grade team will also be heading to Woy Woy on Saturday to defend their premiership titles, aiming for three in a row when they play against the Ourimbah Razorbacks. It is not just the first-grade team that have done well this year, with the Trojans having all of their senior teams in the finals series, including the women's sevens. Three junior Trojans teams also won their grand finals last week. The Woy Woy rugby league football club is hosting plenty of finals this weekend at the home ground of Woy Woy oval, including their open age team, who will be facing the Erina Eagles—and it's fantastic to see the upgraded Woy Woy oval which was delivered, thanks, in part, to a commitment from the coalition government. The Terrigal Wamberal Sharks rugby league team had 29 teams start the 2018 season, with 13 making semifinals, seven heading to a grand final and the under-16s division 2 teams winning their finals. I'm really proud of all of these teams and hope to be able to get to as many games as I can. To everyone playing in grand finals in the next couple of weeks, good luck. I know you'll do us proud. To all the volunteers of local sporting groups that give up their time for our community: thank you for your commitment to sport on the Central Coast and thank you for what you are doing to help build better and stronger communities on the Central Coast. Auditor-General 101 12:22 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce An extraordinary thing happened on Tuesday. After question time when no-one was listening, Auditor-General's report No. 6 of 2018-19, Army's protected mobility vehicle—Light, was tabled in the House. It examines the $2.2 billion Hawkei vehicle, a replacement to the Bushmaster. It's an important capability, and I understand a great product locally made. However, there's one aspect of this report that is unprecedented and should be of concern to every member. There are large slabs of the report blacked out—page 9, page 10, page 12, page 43, page 50, page 51, page 53, page 54, page 55 and page 70—because the Attorney-General used a provision in the Auditor-General's Act, which has never been used before, and issued a certificate which gagged the Auditor-General, requiring him to delete large slabs of the report. I'll set out why the House must not let this pass without scrutiny. The Auditor-General is an officer of this parliament. It was established in 1901 by the Audit Act. It's appointed by the parliament. The Auditor-General is accountable to the parliament. The Auditor-General has no minister. The Auditor-General reports and is accountable in broad terms through the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, of which I'm the deputy chair. This is a critical distinction and not well understood. The Auditor-General scrutinises the executive on behalf of the parliament. This is absolutely central to any claim of credibility of parliamentary control over the executive in the Westminster system, and the legislative architecture is designed to preserve the Auditor-General's independence. So, how can he be gagged? A provision to allow this was inserted in 1979 to the 1901 Audit Act. It allowed the Attorney-General to issue a conclusive certificate requiring the Auditor-General to remove certain material from a report if contrary to the public interest—fairly limited in scope: things like national security, Commonwealth-state relations, cabinet confidentiality and so on. The only certificate ever issued was in 1987, when the Minister for Defence sought and obtained a certificate to withhold material for security and defence reasons. In 1997 a successive provision in section 37 was included when the current Auditor-General Act was introduced. This was a controversial provision and at odds with the recommendations of the joint committee report into the bill: Clause 37 seeks to restrict the Parliament's access to information and documentation held by the Auditor-General … In effect, the powers, privileges and immunities of the Parliament, guaranteed by section 49 of the Constitution, are to be watered down … What is so extraordinary that the Attorney-General has decided to gag the Auditor-General? At this point we do not know, but there are some clues. The Attorney-General, I will give him this, has been clever in his stated reasons, referencing 'one or more' provisions of section 37(2) in gagging the Auditor-General: (a) it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth; …   …   … (e) it would unfairly prejudice the commercial interests of any body or person; We're none the wiser, as no statement has been made and no account given. Astoundingly, the reason I'm standing here using an adjournment slot is that for two days we have asked the government's permission to refer this to the Federation Chamber to take note, allowing members to speak on this, and the government has refused. It's a peculiar approach, and it would be reasonable for members to wonder what they're trying to hide. Many would find it difficult to believe that this is really a national security issue, because the Auditor-General is working on defence related projects every day. He is frequently critical of the government and raises value-for-money concerns, yet he has always been able to get his message across to the parliament without disclosing sensitive information. Indeed, draft reports are checked by departments to ensure classified material is not released, yet somehow this report is different to anything in the last 40 years, we're told. I'm not aware that the Minister for Defence requested a certificate, as occurred in 1987. Perhaps he'll tell us otherwise. Perhaps there are valid reasons. However, the Attorney-General should explain his actions to the parliament and consider a confidential briefing to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to assuage concerns. I'm confident that the JCPAA will conduct a public inquiry into this matter; however, the House should take note of this matter, as this looks suspiciously like the Attorney-General has used his power to gag the Auditor-General in order to settle a commercial dispute. There appear to be links between the Attorney-General's actions and a Federal Court case brought by Thales Australia against the Attorney-General. This case was mysteriously withdrawn by consent on 9 July after the Attorney-General issued a certificate on 28 June requiring the deletion of paragraphs which, I understand, Thales objected to. The report appears critical of the value for money that the Commonwealth obtained from Thales for the Hawkei. The government decided in 2014 to go to a sole-source tender with no competition and a lack of proper benchmarking. Perhaps this will turn out to be for valid reasons, as I said. Perhaps we will never know. Perhaps this will turn out to be a one-off incident, but the matter needs scrutiny and must not be allowed to set any kind of precedent or suggest to the defence industry or any other commercial interest in this country that you can routinely take a court case to, in effect, reduce accountability to the parliament where commercial interests are upset. It is a serious matter, if only to make the point that this can never become routine if the parliament is to function in a Westminster system. Live Animal Exports 102 12:27 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle Congratulations, Deputy Speaker Laundy, on taking up that position. I take this opportunity to explain some things that have happened here this week for the benefit of my community. Like a lot of members, I engage with my community in a variety of ways. One of them is to visit schools and talk to kids in their final year of primary school, year 6, who are studying our system of government, civic engagement and those sorts of things. They want to know how this place works. They want to know how government works. It's encouraging when you hear that interest. It's great to see children who are 11 or 12 years old and often have quite a good understanding of how this place is supposed to work. We identify issues that need to be looked at, areas of reform that can be made. Perhaps they go through a committee process. Perhaps we get some sort of outside advice or investigation that guides government or guides the parliament. Ultimately, parliament is there to make laws. On Monday a bill that was designed to take Australia forward in relation to the practice of long-haul live export of sheep came into the House of Representatives. It was a bill whose genesis, whose design, came from a member of the government, the member for Farrer. It had started its life in the Senate, was passed in the Senate and came down to the House. It tried to put in place some arrangements that would move us towards an inevitability. The long-haul live export of sheep is a doomed trade. It's a trade in serious decline on its own terms. It only exists, really, in Western Australia. It doesn't happen anywhere else in the country. Other nations similar to Australia with great reliance on agricultural produce in exports, like New Zealand, have got out of live export. Importing countries are getting out of live export. Bahrain no longer receives sheep. The number was six million sheep at the turn of the century and is now down to 1½ million sheep. It's a trade in mortal decline, and what we need is government working with industry to help us make that transition. I think that is plain. We know that the animal welfare outcomes from the live sheep export trade are intolerable. We don't need another incident to show us that, if you're sending tens of thousands of animals crammed into 30- or 40-year-old vessels to the hottest part of the world at the hottest time of year, that is a recipe for animal cruelty and animal suffering. We know that that's the case. So the time is right to make a transition. The community overwhelmingly wants that. A majority of people in the Senate wanted that. A majority of people in the House of Representatives actually want that. We know that that's the case. Yet, when the bill came down to the House of Representatives, the government wouldn't allow it to be debated or voted upon. That is the kind of thing that causes young Australians and old Australians alike to throw their hands up in the air, scratch their heads and say, 'What is going on?' We talk about people having a lack of faith in the political system and, to some degree, the political class. We have to look at those kinds of circumstances for some guidance on how we fix it. If this parliament can't deal with something like the live export of sheep—a trade which has been shown time and time again to produce intolerable animal cruelty, and a trade that is, on its own terms, winding down and can easily be transitioned to something better that provides stability for farmers, higher value exports, more jobs in Australia and better animal welfare outcomes—children in year 6 ask, 'What is going on?' When I have that conversation with them, I honestly don't know what the answer is. I really don't. So a majority of people in both houses of this parliament know that that's where we need to get to. At the moment, by virtue of some sort of game playing, those majorities aren't being expressed. They're not able to reflect the majority that exists in the Australian community and the common sense that exists in the Australian community on this issue, and I think that's a great shame. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:33