2018-09-19 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

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

COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Selection Committee 1 Report 1 09:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I present report No. 31 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 15 October 2018, and the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today, and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business 1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 18 September 2018. 2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 18 September 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 15 October 2018, as follows: Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MR ALBANESE: To present a Bill for an Act to establish the High Speed Rail Planning Authority, and for related purposes. (High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2018) (Notice given 17 September 2018.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 2 MR CLARE: To present a Bill for an Act to give Australian workers a fair go in trade agreements and to fix the way the Commonwealth negotiates them, and for related purposes. (A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018) (Notice given 18 September 2018.) Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142. 3 MR TED O'BRIEN: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government is asking the Governor-General to establish a Royal Commission into the Aged Care Sector; (b) this Royal Commission will primarily look at the quality of care provided in residential and home aged care to senior Australians, but also include young Australians with disabilities living in residential aged care settings, as well as the challenges associated with the provision of aged care in remote, rural and regional Australia; (c) evidence to date shows that the problems are not restricted to any one part of the aged care sector, whether it is for profit or not for profit, large or small facilities, or regional or major metropolitan; and (d) the Royal Commission will look at the sector as a whole, without bias or prejudice, and make findings on the evidence; (2) commends the Government for taking action to ensure that older Australians have access to care that supports their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to society; and (3) calls on the Government to continue to provide record level funding to the aged care sector. (Notice given 18 September 2018.) Time allotted—60 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Ted O'Brien—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 12 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1   Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018 (Mr Fitzgibbon): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from18June2018). Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices 1 MS BRODTMANN: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 15 October marks International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day; (b) on this day, parents, families and friends will memorialise babies they have lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death; and (c) International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to officially acknowledge the losses experienced by parents and families across Australia; (2) acknowledges that in Australia: (a) it is estimated that one in four pregnancies results in miscarriage—that's 103,000 every year; (b) in 2016 2,849 lives were lost due to stillbirth or newborn death; (c) the rate of stillbirth and newborn death is 70 per cent higher in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; (d) despite medical advancements, the stillbirth rate has not changed in two decades; and (e) International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day is an opportunity to raise awareness of this difficult reality and start a conversation about miscarriage and infant loss; (3) expresses sympathy to all families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or infant death; and (4) commends each and every person who has supported parents and families through their journey from the loss of a baby. (Notice given 17 September 2018.) Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms Brodtmann—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day 1 Trade: Resumption of debate (from 10 September 2018) on the motion of Mr van Manen—That this House: (1) acknowledges the importance of open trade and investment policies in growing the Australian economy and creating local jobs; (2) commends the Government for leading efforts to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 nation (TPP-11) agreement; (3) welcomes the recent conclusion of this landmark deal which will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone with a combined GDP of AUD $13.7 trillion; (4) notes the significant opportunities offered by new trade agreements with Canada and Mexico and greater market access to Japan, Chile, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei; (5) recognises the importance of the agreement for Australia's farmers, manufacturers and service providers in increasing their competitiveness in overseas markets; (6) notes indicative modelling by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, which found that the TPP-11 agreement would boost Australia's national income by 0.5 per cent and exports by 4 per cent; and (7) encourages the Parliament to work co-operatively to ratify the TPP-11 agreement so that Australian exporters can take advantage of the many benefits it delivers Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Notices—continued 2 MS SHARKIE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) discarded plastic, glass, cardboard and aluminium beverage containers are detrimental to the environment and represent a valuable economic resource; (b) Australians use more than an estimated 13.1 billion beverage containers a year, which represents over 35.9 million beverage containers used every day; (c) South Australia's container deposit legislation, the Beverage Container Act 1975, later incorporated into the Environment Protection Act 1993, became operational in 1977 and has now operated to great environmental and social effect for 41 years; (d) South Australia leads the nation in the recovery, recycling and litter reduction of beverage containers with an overall return rate of 79.9 per cent; (e) a major survey in 2012 demonstrated a 98 per cent level of support from South Australians for a national container deposit scheme; (f) in 2016-17, South Australian collection depots recovered almost 587 million beverage containers (43,298 tonnes) for recycling and over $58 million was refunded to South Australians, especially to community groups, charities, and sporting clubs; (g) beverage containers have been estimated to make up only 2.9 per cent of litter in South Australia, compared to 43 per cent in NSW prior to the introduction of their container deposit scheme; and (h) according to the 2016-17 National Litter Index, the Northern Territory has seen a 50 per cent decrease in beverage containers as litter since the introduction of their container deposit scheme; (2) congratulates South Australia, the Northern Territory, and now the ACT and NSW, on their successful container deposit schemes, and welcomes the upcoming introduction of schemes in Queensland and Western Australia; (3) calls on the Tasmanian and Victorian governments to enact a container deposit scheme and to do so with speed and urgency; and (4) calls on the Australian Government to work with the state and territory governments to begin implementation of a National Container Deposit Scheme before the next federal election. (Notice given 21 August 2018.) Time allotted—40 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms Sharkie—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day—continued 2 Small businesses and Government defence contracts: Resumption of debate (from 10 September 2018) on the motion of Mr Wallace—That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the Government's record $200 billion investment in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) capabilities represents a unique opportunity for Australian businesses; (b) many Australian businesses who first supplied defence materials to the Australian Government go on to export these products overseas; and (c) Australia ranks thirteenth in the world for defence expenditure, but is only the twentieth largest exporter; (2) congratulates the Government on its activities to date to encourage local small businesses to bid for Government defence contracts, including the 2016 Defence White Paper, the Integrated Investment Program, the Defence Industry Policy Statement and the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC); (3) welcomes the Government's efforts to develop a Defence Export Strategy to plan, guide and measure defence export outcomes that will support our foreign and trade policies, defence industry, defence capability and national security objectives; and (4) encourages small and medium enterprises all over Australia to explore the opportunity to supply products and services for the ADF, and to contact the CDIC to learn more. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3   Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 (Mr Shorten): Second reading—Resumption of debate (from10September2018). Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Notices—continued 3 MS COLLINS: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 20 October is World Osteoporosis Day and aims to increase awareness of the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis; (b) osteoporosis is a fragile bone disease that causes painful and debilitating fractures, particularly of the hip and spine; (c) every year in Australia around 165,000 fractures occur, many of which could have been prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment; and (d) 4.7 million Australians over 50 have poor bone health; (2) acknowledges that the cost of fractures associated with osteoporosis nationally amounted to $2.1 billion in 2017; and (3) recognises that: (a) early action can be taken through regular exercise, a bone-healthy diet and consultation with a doctor about osteoporosis risk factors; (b) diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis can halve the risk of fracture; and (c) effective preventative treatments include regular exercise, a bone healthy diet and consultation with doctors about risk factors. (Notice given 10 September 2018.) Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms Collins—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day—continued 4 M obile Black Spot Program : Resumption of debate (from 17 September 2018) on the motion of Mrs Marino—That this House: (1) recognises the vital importance of mobile phone coverage to people living, working and travelling in regional and remote parts of the country; (2) notes that: (a) the Government has committed $220 million to the Mobile Black Spot Program to invest in telecommunications infrastructure that improves mobile coverage across Australia; (b) over 600 base stations have already been activated under the program; and (c) base stations constructed under the program have already connected approximately 10,800 Triple Zero emergency calls; and (3) calls on the Government to maintain its commitment to regional communications. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Notices—continued 4 MS O'TOOLE: To move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) the immeasurable commitment and sacrifices that our Australian Defence Force (ADF) members make to serve our nation; (b) the Australian Defence Force families play a pivotal role in supporting our current serving ADF men, women, ex-serving personnel and veterans; and (c) Australia has a proud military history, and as such we have an obligation to all of those who have served in the name of our nation for our freedom; (2) acknowledges Labor's commitments to veterans, ex-serving personnel and their families, which includes: (a) Australia's first Military Covenant that will establish a formal agreement to ensure the nation's ADF personnel are fully supported during and after their service, and will legislate regular reporting to the parliament on how Australia is supporting military personnel; (b) a $121 million investment for a comprehensive Veterans' Employment Policy to provide greater support to our defence personnel as they transition to civilian life; (c) the development of a Family Engagement and Support Strategy for Defence Personnel and Veterans to provide greater support for military families; and (d) supporting ex-service organisations calls for the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to be included in the terms of reference for the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry; and (3) calls on the Government to support veterans, ex-service personnel and their families by matching Labor's commitments. (Notice given 18 September 2108.) Time allotted—50 minutes. Speech time limits— Ms O'Toole—5 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 10 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. Orders of the day—continued 5 Financial management: Resumption of debate (from 26 June 2018) on the motion of Mr T. R. Wilson—That this House: (1) recognises the positive effect of the Government's measures to ensure that it lives within its means, in particular by: (a) legislating tough measures against multinational tax avoidance; (b) delivering disciplined financial management, including through a tax-to-GDP cap of 23.9 per cent and the lowest rate of spending growth of any government in more than 50 years; and (c) maintaining the integrity of the welfare system so that support goes to those who need it most; and (2) notes with deep concern that the Opposition: (a) opposed our multinational anti-avoidance legislation in Parliament; (b) refuses to commit to spending restraint or a tax cap so that the economy is not burdened with higher taxes; and (c) has no plan to support Australians to get off welfare and into work. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 6 National Disability Insurance Scheme: Resumption of debate (from 25 June 2018) on the motion of Ms Husar—That this House: (1) acknowledges that the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS): (a) supports a better life for hundreds of thousands of Australians with a significant and permanent disability, and their families and carers; and (b) will provide about 460,000 Australians under the age of 65 with a permanent and significant disability with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live an ordinary life; (2) notes that: (a) the NDIS began in a number of trial sites around Australia from July 2013; (b) the NDIS is now operational across Australia; (c) as at 31 December 2017, there were 132,743 participants with an approved plan with the NDIS and 9,523 children receiving support through the Early Childhood Early Intervention approach; and (d) the NDIS roll-out in Western Australia will commence 1 July 2018; (3) calls on the Government to urgently address delays and inadequacies in the NDIS operations and roll-out, including: (a) funding adequacy and access to the scheme; (b) NDIS plan approvals and plan renewals; (c) access to adequate health services, care and supports, housing and other essential services; and (d) ensuring that the pricing structure of the NDIS enables service providers to deliver high quality support to participants in the scheme including for group activities that are being threatened by the current model; (4) reaffirms its commitment to: (a) ensuring Australians with a disability continue to get the support they need; (b) the scheme roll-out continuing to ensure a smooth transition for people with disability and support providers; and (c) an adequately funded and resourced NDIS; and (5) encourages all Members of Parliament to support the NDIS roll-out and the access to support it provides to people with disability. Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm Speech time limits— All Members—5 minutes. each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins] The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day. 3. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made— Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Social Security Commission Bill 2018 BILLS 6 BILLS Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018 6

Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 6 Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018 6

Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018

First Reading 6 Second Reading 6 09:32 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I move: That this bill be now read a second time. It's important that Australia's aviation security framework remains effective and fit for purpose in an evolving and increasingly complex security environment. The Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018 will ensure that Australia's aviation security framework remains responsive to changes in the security environment, while reducing the regulatory burden on smaller aviation industry participants. Aviation is an enduring and attractive target for terrorists. This was evidenced in July 2017 by the disrupted attack in Sydney. The attack marked a significant shift in the threat and risk to aviation in Australia, and it demonstrated a level of sophistication not seen before in our country. To remain ahead of the evolving threat, the Department of Home Affairs is working with industry to introduce a range of new security measures, including sophisticated new technology, screening devices at major and regional airports and enhanced powers for the Australian Federal Police. It is vital, however, to balance aviation security needs with maintaining a viable aviation sector, particularly in regional Australia. Not all industry participants face the same level of risk. The department uses intelligence and characteristics specific to each aviation operator to assess that risk. This shows, not unexpectedly, that larger aircraft and major airports are more attractive targets. This bill will introduce measures to allow the Secretary of Home Affairs, or their delegate, to give a model transport security program, or TSP, to a lower risk aviation operator. An industry participant is required under the act to have a TSP, and it sets out the measures and procedures that they have in place to meet their regulatory obligation. The Department of Home Affairs assesses all TSPs, including minor amendments, and undertakes rigorous compliance activities to ensure industry participants meet their regulatory obligations and to maintain security. Currently, the act requires all industry participants to maintain a comprehensive and bespoke TSP. This is despite the differences in the risk, size, sophistication or complexity of their operations. This approach places a disproportionately high administrative burden on some lower-risk industry participants, such as smaller regional airports. In practice, an industry participant would be given a secretary-issued TSP if assessed as lower risk and where the administrative burden of preparing a bespoke TSP is not proportionate to the security outcomes. The secretary-issued TSP will enable lower-risk industry participants to direct resources to maintaining security measures rather than towards preparing documents for government. If an industry participant's risk profile changes—for example, they start operating larger aircraft or experience a significant increase in passenger numbers—the department will reassess their risk profile and adjust their security requirements accordingly. Measures provided for in this bill will uphold security outcomes while ensuring security measures and costs are commensurate with risk. I commend the bill to the chamber. Debate adjourned. Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 7

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018

First Reading 7 Second Reading 7 09:36 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 and the associated Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 give effect to Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, cost recovery measures in the higher education sector. This is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework. The 2018-19 federal budget includes HELP cost recovery measures (an annual charge and an application fee) affecting higher education providers, which are the subject of this bill. Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to put in place an application fee on applicants seeking approval as higher education providers under the act. The fee will be applied from 1 January 2019. The level of the application fee will be set in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, at an amount that will recover the government's full costs of administration and assessment of applications from prospective providers. Part 2 of schedule 1 to the bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the introduction of an annual charge on higher education providers under the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018. The annual charge will partially recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. The amendments will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, as a condition of their continued approval under the act. The amendments will also enable the Higher Education Provider Guidelines to set out the administrative detail of collection and recovery of the annual charge; for example, when assessment notices will be given to providers, whether there are penalties associated with late payment of the charge, and when and how extensions of time to pay the charge can be given. The HELP cost recovery measures announced in this year's federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as similar charging measures already exist in the vocational education and training sector. The HELP cost recovery measures are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and link the cost of services to those who benefit from them. In this case, the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students. Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also raises awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred to the Commonwealth for administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs, and the costs of assessing applications from prospective FEE-HELP providers. The HELP cost recovery measures are expected to provide a combined estimated saving of $14.1 million over the 2018-19 to 2021-22 period for both charges. This is an amount that the general taxpayer will not have to bear. The government is in the process of finalising a cost recovery implementation statement on the HELP cost recovery measures for consultation with the higher education sector. It is anticipated that the cost recovery implementation statement will be released for consultation with the higher education sector soon. This will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to submit their feedback and comments on the HELP cost recovery measures, including the method and amounts of the cost recovery charges. After consultation with the higher education sector has been completed, the method of calculation of the annual charge will be settled and prescribed in regulations, and the application fee amount will be settled and prescribed in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, along with the administrative processes for collection and recovery of the annual charge. Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018, the HELP cost recovery measures are to commence from 1 January 2019. However, higher education providers will not be issued an invoice for the annual charge for the 2019 calendar year until 2020, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 8

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018

First Reading 8 Second Reading 8 09:41 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2018 gives effect to the annual charge cost recovery measure in the higher education sector, consistent with the Australian government charging framework. This separate bill is required to provide for an annual charge to be applied on higher education providers, which is separate from education legislation. The 2018-19 federal budget included an annual charge cost recovery measure affecting higher education providers, which is the subject of this bill. The bill implements an annual charge on all higher education providers whose students are entitled to HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The annual charge will partially recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth each year in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs from higher education providers. The bill does not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by the regulations. It is anticipated the amount of the charge will depend in part on the size of the providers, determined by the number of enrolments per year. The annual charge will commence from 1 January 2019, and higher education providers will receive their invoice for the annual charge for the 2019 calendar year in 2020, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred. The annual charge measure announced in this year's federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as a similar charging measure already operates in the vocational education and training sector. In this case, partially recovering the costs of the annual charge reduces the impact of the annual charge on all higher education providers. The annual charge measure is consistent with the Australian government charging framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. In this case the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students. Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also increases awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs. Associated amendments will also be made to the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the annual charge measure, set out in the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018. Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2018 the annual charge measure is to commence from 1 January 2019—although 2019 charges will not be issued until 2020. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018 9

Customs Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 9 Second Reading 9 09:45 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 to implement Australia's obligations under chapter 3 of the free trade agreement between Australia and the Republic of Peru, known as PAFTA. Chapter 3 sets out the rules of origin criteria and other related documentation requirements for determining if goods exported from Peru are eligible for preferential tariff treatment in Australia under PAFTA. Peru has been one of South America's fastest growing economies since 2000, with average annual GDP growth of over five per cent. It has a gross domestic product comparable to that of Vietnam, and a population in excess of 31 million people, providing a similar consumer base to that of Malaysia. Yet Australia's trade relationship with Peru is comparably far less than what it could be. Peru has high barriers to trade in goods and services, which, without an FTA, would continue to limit Australia's ability to export to its growing market. Opening new markets for Australian producers and exporters is a core part of the coalition government's ambitious trade and economic agenda. Tapping into the fast-growing markets of Latin America will ensure our businesses have greater options to grow and diversify. I launched PAFTA negotiations on 24 May 2017 and the then Prime Minister announced its conclusion on 10 November 2017. I had the honour of signing PAFTA with my Peruvian colleague, the Peruvian Minister for Foreign Trade and Tourism, Mr Eduardo Ferreyros, on 12 February 2018 in Canberra. This is the third FTA that the coalition government has recently concluded and is in the process of implementing—as the members of this chamber would be aware, legislation to implement PACER Plus, and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP-11, is currently before parliament. These deals demonstrate our commitment to open markets and strong economic reforms to promote jobs and growth in Australia. These deals respond to calls from our industries to break down tariffs and other barriers overseas. This government knows the benefits that open trade brings and knows the costs of sitting idle or walking down the protectionist path. Australia and Peru are both signatories to TPP-11. PAFTA complements TPP-11 as it builds on and improves the significant gains provided under the TPP-11 with improved market access, accelerated reduction of customs duties and new tariff quota access for key agricultural exports. Exporters can choose which agreement best suits their needs. Under PAFTA, Australia achieved unprecedented access to the Peruvian market, with new quotas for Australian sugar, dairy, rice and sorghum free from tariffs and from Peru's price band. This level of market access was not possible in a regional agreement, such as the TPP-11, given Peru's sensitivities with other parties. The Peruvian market is not a level playing field for Australian exporters, especially as key competitors like the United States, Canada, and the European Union have already forged trade deals with Peru. Bringing PAFTA into force will level the playing field and provide an edge over other competitors. Peru will also eliminate its relatively high tariffs, up to 29 per cent in some cases, on our key exports like dairy, beef, grain, sheepmeat, sugar, wine, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods, medical devices, paper products, iron and steel. This bill, along with the companion Customs Tariff Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018, will see the elimination of nearly all customs duties on Peruvian-originating goods, the majority at the commencement of the agreement and the rest over the proceeding four years. These tariff cuts represent a real cost saving on imported goods for Australian households and businesses. PAFTA isn't just about goods—it also opens up an array of new opportunities for Australian service providers, provides recognition of Australian degrees and creates opportunities for Australian education providers to establish campuses in Peru. Mining equipment, technology and services, and oilfield service providers will benefit from improved temporary entry commitments. Guaranteed access will be afforded to a wide range of Australian services including lawyers, engineers, architects, accountants, urban planners, business people, telecommunication service providers, health service providers and hospitality and tourism service providers. Australian businesses will also be guaranteed the right to bid for a range of Peruvian government procurement contracts. PAFTA provides improved investment opportunities for Australian businesses through the liberalisation of investment regimes in key Peruvian sectors such as mining and resources, telecommunications and financial services. The agreement will also promote foreign investment in Australia by liberalising the screening threshold at which private foreign investments in non-sensitive sectors are considered by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Once it enters into force, and my intention is that this be before the end of the year, it will provide tangible benefits to Australian businesses and households through improved access to Peruvian markets, cheaper Peruvian imports, expanded opportunities for Australian service providers and improved investment opportunities for both Australian and Peruvian businesses. This agreement reinforces the coalition government's commitment to growing Australia's strong economy through free and open trade, and providing new opportunities for businesses of all sizes. I also thank the excellent work of the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in particular Andrew, who was the chief negotiator on this deal. I thank my team, who worked very closely together with those officials, for the very timely way in which the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as my office, were able to conclude this deal in a matter of only months. It does represent terrific opportunity and a new headland, for lack of a better term, into the Latin American market, and I'm confident that in time we will see that this is a deal that has helped to expand and broaden the trade and investment ties between Australia and Peru. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Tariff Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018 10

Customs Tariff Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 09:53 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I reiterate the comments I made in relation to the introduction of the earlier bill, the Customs Amendment (Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2018. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018 10

Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018

First Reading 10 Second Reading 11 09:54 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Australian government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market. In October 2017 the Black Economy Taskforce delivered their final report to government. The 2018-19 budget Black Economy Package—combatting illicit tobacco gives effect to the report's recommendations, including establishing a new framework to protect tobacco duty, a permit system to import tobacco and the Australian Border Force led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce. Together these measures will disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. To give effect to the new framework to protect tobacco duty, the government is introducing the Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill. Current legislation allows duties on tobacco to be paid at the point that tobacco products leave licensed warehouses as well as when it is imported. Leakage from these warehouses to the black market contributes to around a quarter of illicit tobacco in Australia. From 1 July 2019, tobacco importers will be required to pay all duties on tobacco upon importation. From that date, the option to enter imported tobacco into a licensed warehouse and delay the payment of duties will no longer be available. This will deny criminal groups the opportunity to defraud the Commonwealth of revenue that secures essential services for all Australians, prevent criminals from undermining government strategies to improve public health outcomes and protect law-abiding local business operators. The bill will also include transitional arrangements for the treatment of tobacco that is in warehouses at 1 July 2019. By tackling black economy activities in the tobacco-warehousing environment, the government will protect Australian revenue, protect the health of Australians, reduce criminal activity and provide an estimated $3.3 billion in revenue to the Commonwealth. I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018 11

Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018

First Reading 11 Second Reading 11 09:56 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act) to streamline the implementation of our free trade agreements (FTAs) and help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our FTA partners. The bill does this by changing the way the product specific rules (PSRs) of Australia's FTAs are given effect in domestic legislation. Australia's in-force FTAs contain rules of origin and PSRs. PSRs define the minimum requirements that must be met for goods that are comprised of materials that do not originate in a party to the FTA—to be considered eligible for a preferential rate of customs duty in accordance with the FTA. The PSRs are based upon the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (harmonized system). The harmonized system is an international naming system for the classification of traded products. It currently covers thousands of commodity groups and is used by more than 200 economies as a basis for customs tariffs and the collection of international trade statistics. Over 98 per cent of merchandise in international trade is classified in terms of the harmonized system. Each FTA has a separate PSR annex, which is currently, (with the exception of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)), implemented domestically in rules-of-origin regulations (ROO regulations) for each FTA. Five-yearly revisions of the harmonized system by the World Customs Organization usually compel FTA parties to update their agreements' PSRs, which, in Australia's case, means subsequent amendments to the FTA's ROO regulations. The size of these regulations ranges from 257 to 1,977 pages. Due to their size and the steadily increasing number of FTAs (currently 10), amendment of the ROO regulations to update the PSRs requires considerable time and resources for what are essentially technical changes that do not alter the operation of the treaty and do not have any direct financial implications for government, traders or consumers. The proposed amendments seek to simplify this process by amending the Customs Act to apply FTA PSR annexes agreed by parties by direct reference and remove the need to replicate PSR annexes in ROO regulations. The proposed amendments to the act are technical in nature. They will not affect the practical operation of the legislation or the agreements that are the subject of the bill. Parties to the agreement to establish the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, otherwise known as the AANZFTA, have agreed to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the HS2017 PSR schedule into force domestically on 1 January 2019. These amendments will ensure that Australia is able to meet its AANZFTA deadline, to minimise the administrative burden on Australian businesses and officials in trying to juggle new and old HS codes, and will further streamline trade between Australia and our FTA partners. In 2017, trade with Australia under AANZFTA totalled A$120 billion. ChAFTA and JAEPA PSR annexes are also included in the amendments, which will simplify the transposition process for these agreements once the FTA parties have agreed them. Further similar amendments to the Customs Act will be brought to parliament to facilitate the update of the PSRs of Australia's other existing FTAs in the foreseeable future. The bill before this chamber will allow the revised PSR schedules of these FTAs to enter into force in a far more efficient and timely manner. Once these amendments are made, future changes to the PSR annexes for AANZFTA, ChAFTA, and JAEPA will be able to be made simply by the completion of any provisions contained in the agreement pertaining to such updates, and completion of Australia's domestic treaty-making process. The bill also refers to and applies the annex containing the chemical rules of the SAFTA, which were not included in the amendments to the Customs Act that implemented the agreement to amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2017. The bill also makes minor amendments to existing FTA divisions in the Customs Act. These minor amendments will ensure consistency between our legislation and the FTA text in the Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile and ASEAN-New Zealand FTAs. The government is committed to the passage of these amendments in 2018. They will greatly reduce the administrative burden of the current transposition process, cutting costs for business and taxpayers, with flow-on benefits to consumers and households. In passing this bill, the government honours its commitments to its FTA partners to ensure our agreements remain up to date, supporting our jobs and growth agenda, reducing red tape for Australian businesses, and helping to keep costs down for Australian households. I commend the bill to this chamber. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 12 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 12 Membership 12 10:02 The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip nominating a member to be a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purposes of the committee's inquiry of the review of the four major banks. 10:02 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon by leave—I move: That Ms O’Neil be appointed a supplementary member of the Standing Committee on Economics for the purpose of the committee’s inquiry into the review of the four major banks. Question agreed to. DELEGATION REPORTS 12 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to China 12 10:03 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, I present the report of the delegation to China from 2 to 6 July 2018, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ALEXANDER M3M Today, I present the report of the parliamentary delegation to China. In July 2018 a delegation from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities visited the People's Republic of China. Travelling to four cities in five days, the delegation spent time in Beijing, Tianjin, Chengdu and Hong Kong. It witnessed the incredible progress made by China, particularly in the development of cities and transport infrastructure. A number of key lessons arose from the visit, perhaps the most important being that we have much to learn from our biggest trading partner in the planning and development of infrastructure and cities. One critical lesson from China is the importance and value of integrated planning. All China's infrastructure is planned hand in hand with land use. This ensures that infrastructure development supports and is supported by other key economic, social, and, increasingly, environmental objectives. Furthermore, it ensures that the uplift in property values created by this integrated development is automatically captured to entirely fund the infrastructure development. In particular, the development model used by the MTR in Hong Kong is directly applicable to Australia, both in retrofitting infrastructure into our cities and in the infrastructure required for strategic decentralisation and sustainable growth. MTR provided the delegation with a full briefing of their business model—integrated planning of transport and land use, using comprehensive value capture to fully fund infrastructure development. MTR are already familiar with Australian conditions. They could easily apply their experience and expertise to assist with the development of transport infrastructure within our cities. More importantly, that model could be applied to the development of high-speed rail in Australia. China also provides lessons for the development and financing of housing in Australia. Official government policy is directed at ensuring that the housing market favours homebuyers over investors, with much higher equity requirements for investors in purchasing real estate, and restrictions on the amount of property that can be purchased by individual investors. Planned growth is about housing future generations. The delegation to China was also an opportunity to, in a small way, enhance China-Australia relations. The delegation received a warm reception at every meeting and had the opportunity to engage in open discussion on issues significant to both countries—a practice that should be encouraged. It is the delegation's view that, given the importance of China-Australia relations and the part that Chinese trade and investment is likely to play in the future development of Australia, it is vital that Australian policymakers have a stronger understanding of Australia's principal trading partner. This understanding can be gained only through direct engagement with and our experience of China. It was noted in a briefing to delegation members that in the past four years nine committee delegations had visited Australia from China, but that in the past five years only three Australian parliamentary delegations had visited China. The delegation therefore believes that more opportunities should be created for Australian parliamentary delegations to visit China, thereby exposing more members and senators to the reality of modern China. I'd like to personally thank those who played a part in the organisation and conduct of the visit—our hosts in China and the consular staff who supported us. In particular, I would like to thank Her Excellency Jan Adams, Australia's Ambassador to the People's Republic of China; Mr Tony Walter, the Acting Consul-General in Chengdu; Mr Sam Guthrie, the Acting Consul-General in Hong Kong; and Dr Yin Kwan, the Counsellor for Infrastructure with the Australian Embassy in Beijing. Dr Yin travelled with the delegation throughout the visit, ensuring that everything ran smoothly. I would especially like to thank my delegation colleagues, the members for Scullin, Fairfax and North Sydney, who, in a spirit of bipartisanship, ensured that the visit was pleasant and productive. On behalf of the committee, I commend this report to the House. COMMITTEES 13 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 13 Report 13 10:08 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into the trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 by leave—The number of elephants in Africa has declined rapidly over the past century. A little over 100 years ago their population was estimated to be five million. However, a census in 2016 estimated that the number had declined to around 350,000. Further, it found that African elephant populations had declined a further 30 per cent between the years 2007 and 2014. In the last century we've witnessed a 95 per cent decline in that species. In recognition of this ongoing problem, in 2016 the international community agreed to a non-binding resolution that called upon all CITES members to implement a domestic trade ban on elephant ivory. Since that time, a significant number of countries have implemented a domestic trade ban on elephant ivory. The world's largest consumer of elephant ivory, China, implemented its ban in 2017. The world's primary exporter of elephant ivory products, the United Kingdom, is currently in the final stages of reviewing legislation that will implement a domestic ivory trade ban. The United States legislated its ban in 2016. Australia is yet to introduce an equivalent ban. The recommendations of the committee are that the Australian Commonwealth states and territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, develop and implement a national domestic ban on elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn; and that the domestic trade ban should be consistent with those implemented in other like-minded international jurisdictions. However, I would like to note that the international trade in ivory was actually first banned in 1989, and the 2007 CITES agreement, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, adopted a moratorium back in 2007, yet this was not successful in stopping the poaching. To the contrary, since the moratorium was in place, there has actually been an increase in demand and, as I mentioned before, there's been a further 30 per cent decline in elephant populations. The committee also notes that there are no known examples in human history where efforts to eliminate demand for a product by governments simply legislating to make it unlawful have succeeded. The committee notes that there is a risk of such bans resulting in a perverse outcome: that ivory could become rarer and could be viewed as an inflation-proof investment, fetching higher prices and actually increasing demand and increasing illegal stockpiling. However, we do note that the evidence indicates that the bans recently implemented in China have had the effect of reducing demand. It was the view of the committee, in supporting the ban, that publicly visible trade in ivory or partial legalisation of that trade undermines all attempts to change public attitudes and all attempts to stigmatise the ownership of ivory products. Government bans are not going to save the African elephant. What is going to save the African elephant is if we can make it socially unacceptable and create a stigma throughout the world that to purchase or own ivory products is taboo. That is the reason the committee supports Australia joining China, the US and the UK in implementing a likewise ban. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I thank the member for Hughes, who will move that the House take note of the report. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 14 10:13 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018 14

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018

Second Reading 14 10:13 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: 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 makes note of the Government's lack of long term policy and planning to assist primary producers and rural Australians facing drought conditions". Labor will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018, which amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow immediate deduction rather than deduction over the course of three years of the cost of fodder storage assets, such as silos and hay sheds, used to store grain and animal feed. The government has made the case that this will assist primary producers by making it easier to invest in these assets. The measure was announced on 19 August 2018 and applies to fodder storage assets first used or installed ready for use on or after that date. The fiscal impact of the measure is $75 million over the forward estimates. While we are supportive of this measure, we do note the haphazard approach which the government has taken to the drought that many Australian farmers are suffering from. First, there was the increase in the farm household allowance payments from three years to four years, effective on 1 August 2018. Then, a few days later on 5 August, the government announced a $190 million drought package, claiming that it provided immediate additional financial support to help farming families and their communities, which is a bit of a stretch given that the additional funding did not start flowing on 5 August. We're yet to see how many farmers will actually access the farm household allowance supplementary payments. And, as the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, has pointed out, there is a real risk that farming families will miss out on the full $12,000 because the government insists on splitting the payment and denying farmers the possibility of getting a lump-sum payment. Then, in his second reading speech introducing this bill, the Assistant Treasurer made mention of increased funding for mental health support, something which should of course be welcomed by both sides of this House. Yet, it was just later that week that the new Prime Minister tweeted an extremely insensitive video that claimed that drought is 'a necessary evil' that 'can help cut out the bottom 10 per cent that probably shouldn't be there anyway'. That isn't what struggling farmers need to hear at this time of crisis. Labor has called on Prime Minister Morrison to apologise and to remove the video, but he refuses to do so. Then we have the fact that, on 19 August 2018, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the appointment of Major General Stephen Day as the National Drought Coordinator. But then, interestingly, in introducing this bill in the House, the Assistant Treasurer made no mention of support for the appointment of the drought envoy position by the current Prime Minister, so the status of that envoy is unclear. We also know that, as the former agriculture minister, the member for New England did very little to address the long-term systemic challenges of the agriculture sector. We all sadly remember his failed white paper, which was full of short-term initiatives so poorly designed that most are yet to be implemented. This House will recall that one of the first acts of the member for New England as Minister for Agriculture was to dismantle the Standing Council on Primary Industries as part of the COAG council. That body, the so-called SCoPI, worked on longer-term drought reform measures, and its abolition means that we have one less avenue through which to pursue long-term reform. And, of course, we had the member for New England doctoring the Hansard. Everyone in this place will remember his doctoring of the Hansard, which ended up with the unprecedented firing of his departmental secretary, but some may have forgotten exactly the topic on which he was caught out doctoring the Hansard. It was his attempt to exaggerate the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's drought assistance measures. Farmers have not experienced any meaningful relief from drought in the time since. As the shadow agriculture minister has said, the Morrison government must immediately take action to restore the COAG drought policy reform process, to respond to the review into the intergovernmental agreement on drought reform and update the parliament on the progress of the new agreement, and to help farmers better adapt to climate change and embrace best practice regenerative farming methods to combat drought—a topic that I will return to. To go to the tax aspect of this measure, we on the Labor side support the principle that more rapid depreciation—what's known in the US literature as 'immediate expensing'—can be good policy. Labor has supported the government's instant asset write-off. We did so noting that the government had scrapped Labor's instant asset write-off and then put in place their own instant asset write-off. Much like the low-income superannuation contribution, they scrapped the policy, railed against it and then restored Labor's policy when finally they saw sense. On top of the instant asset write-off, Labor has announced an Australian investment guarantee. That delivers for all companies investing in Australia and is a much more targeted policy than an across-the-board company tax cut. Work carried out by Victoria University suggests that, if you're after investment, then the bang for your buck of an investment guarantee of more rapid expensing is three times larger than a company tax cut. Labor's Australian investment guarantee has the benefit too for firms that it is permanent, permanently accelerating depreciation for all companies and thereby ensuring that we're able to improve the investment pipeline that businesses deliver. This is responding to a concern that many economists have raised about the level of business investment in Australia. As the shadow Treasurer has noted, business investment in Australia has fallen by 20 per cent. The Reserve Bank of Australia has recently commented that non-mining business investment has been 'disappointingly low' in recent years. Our support for more rapid depreciation schedules, as a long-term growth measure, is something that is important to put on record. This measure is using accelerated depreciation as a form of fiscal stimulus, if you like, and as a way of getting farmers through the drought. In this exercise, it's less clear whether that will have a strong benefit for farmers. The benefits of more rapid depreciation only come to firms that pay tax. If you're not paying tax, then being able to depreciate does not necessarily boost your growth prospects. It's a long-term policy and it has no end date, but it's couched very much by this government as a crisis response. While Labor recognises the economic value of more rapid depreciation schedules, we do put on record at this stage our concerns about the benefits that this measure will bring in helping farmers tackle drought. To that end, I do want to put on record that Labor intends, if we win government, to review this measure to ensure that it's having the intended effect. We've taken such an approach with other measures that we have supported in this House, such as the measures contained in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 that passed the House earlier this week. A careful, independent review is warranted in a context such as this to ask questions such as whether providing the benefit to all firms but restricting it to fodder storage assets is the best use of resources. We need to make sure that we are safeguarding taxpayer money, particularly at a time when under this government we've seen net debt almost double since the coalition came to office and at a time in which Australian debt is rising more rapidly than it did even during the global financial crisis. That was when Australia was taking on debt not through government mismanagement, as we are under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, but to deal with the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression and to save 200,000 jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses. It's important too that, in order to tackle drought, we address climate change. We've seen, as the shadow minister for climate change and energy has pointed out, the fact that the Liberals have no climate policy, and no measures to contain, let alone reduce, Australia's rising carbon pollution. A number of Morrison government ministers continue to repeat the lie that Australia is on track to meet its international climate commitments, but we're simply not. They have a target of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020, but the coalition government's own data, snuck out in the days before Christmas, showed there would be a zero per cent cut in pollution by 2020. The Liberals have committed to the Paris Agreement with a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 from 2005 levels. But the same government data—again, snuck out before Christmas 2017—showed there would only be a four per cent cut in pollution by 2030. That means Australia is on track to miss its carbon abatement targets by a whopping 24 per cent. And this was all at a stage when the National Energy Guarantee still had a possibility of garnering bipartisan support. Since the junking of the National Energy Guarantee, the new energy minister seems to take it as a virtue that the coalition has no plans to reduce emissions. Australia's emissions are substantial. The electricity sector is responsible for a third of all Australia's emissions and has the lowest cost of cutting pollution. That's why Labor has been willing to work with the coalition on their various plans—the emissions intensity scheme, the clean energy target, the National Energy Guarantee. And that's why we're so disappointed at the government's decision to entirely walk away from meaningful action on climate change. This is a great concern to our Pacific neighbours and to the European Union, but it's also a concern to Australia's farmers, who are suffering the impact of drought. As we know from the scientific evidence, extreme weather events will become more frequent as unchecked climate change continues. In South Australia, there's the famous Goyder's Line, the line which demarcates the boundary of sustainable agriculture. We've seen Goyder's Line shifting towards the coast, shrinking the area of viable agriculture in South Australia: an impact which has been traced directly back to climate change. A government with no plan to tackle climate change cannot be a government that is doing everything to tackle the scourge of drought and the impact of drought. Mr Thistlethwaite 182468 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 Fenner has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to, so the question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 10:28 Mr GEE 261393 Calare I rise to support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. This drought continues to exact a heavy toll on country communities around Australia, but particularly in central western New South Wales. It's exacting a heavy toll on the farm and on farming families. There is a physical toll attached to this drought—the drudgery of having to get up early, feed stock, check troughs, check stock and check dams. There's the economic toll of worrying about how you're going to be able to feed the flock, or the herd, where you're going to be able to source feed from, how it's going to get there and if there will be enough of it. And then there's a huge mental toll as well. I've seen the toll that it's taken, because I've been travelling around our region and around our farms and farming communities, talking to them and doing anything that I can to help. The toll is being exacted on the farms, but it's also being exacted in the towns as well—through the small businesses, the mechanics, the tyre fitters, the rural suppliers, the fuel distributors and even the grocery outlets. Despite some recent rain, this drought hasn't broken, and our region is facing a long, hot and, potentially, fiery summer period. We need to be continuing to ramp up drought support as these conditions worsen. At the moment our total drought support package is hitting $1.9 billion. This bill is part of that response. It won't be for every farmer. I have many farmers in my region just focusing on sourcing feed, and not every region in Australia is in drought, but it is a useful measure to assist farmers to get through potentially devastating dry times both at present and in the future. Basically it means that there's an immediate deduction for fodder storage assets first used or installed and ready for use from August 2018, and they can get the tax benefit straightaway. Currently primary producers can deduct the value of fodder storage assets over three years by one-third of the amount in the income year in which the expenditure occurred and one-third in each of the following two income years. Under the new arrangements this will reduce to one year with effect from 19 August. I think it's a valuable measure. It's about getting through this drought but also preparing for the next drought. As I mentioned, it's part of a suite of measures which the government has introduced, now totalling almost $1.9 billion. The Regional Investment Corporation, which is going to be based in Orange in the Central West, is going to be dealing with $2 billion in concessional loans and $2 billion for national water infrastructure at the concessional loan rate—very welcome in country Australia and a great example of decentralisation. The farm household allowance has just been extended. The asset cap has been lifted to $5 million. That was a big issue with many local farmers. The total payment for a couple is now up to $37,000. This is a substantial measure, which has been well received, designed to put food on the table of farmers and diesel in the ute when there is no income. The paperwork is being simplified, and I encourage the government and all of those agencies involved to keep going on that, because it is a great source of frustration to our local farmers. The Rural Financial Counselling Service has also been boosted by $5 million in recent times. We need more rural financial counsellors on the ground in the Central Tablelands. I know that help is coming, but we need to ramp that process up, because at the moment the counsellors we have are on the raggedy edge. They are overworked, they have a huge backlog of cases and they need more help and support. There are also a suite of measures to manage weeds and pest animals—very much welcome. There are new measures for weather forecasting. The government has committed a further $36.9 million to 2023 for Great Artesian Basin water security. This funding will help to drought-proof farms and maximise the availability of water. There's more money for water infrastructure and a suite of taxation measures, including the farm management deposits scheme, which has been in place for a while now. That is a very useful resource for farmers, and many farmers are using it. You also have the instant asset write-off. There's the small business instant asset write-off, which is basically for assets that cost less than $20,000. Anyone can access that if they're in business and have a turnover of less than $10 million, but this measure today goes beyond the $20,000 cap and means that if you want to get a storage silo for your grain or a shed for storing fodder then you can get the tax benefit in the year that you purchase that infrastructure. You also have measures such as income tax averaging, which enables farmers to even out their high- and low-income years. The tax payable over a maximum of five years ensures they don't pay more tax over a number of years than do taxpayers on comparable but steady incomes. All are valuable measures but, as I've said, we need to keep ramping it up as these conditions worsen. One of the big issues we're facing is sourcing feed and fodder. If we need to release more water from dams in order to irrigate fodder, we need to be doing it. This is an emergency situation. If the Australian government needs to underwrite grain to get it from Western Australia—where they're going to be having a bumper harvest—into the Central West, where there's not much around, then I think we should do it. We need more rural financial counsellors, as I've said. We need to keep moving our response and ramping it up as these conditions worsen. I was very pleased to see that Major-General Stephen Day is on the ground working hard. I'm meeting him tomorrow to talk through some of these measures. One of the distinguishing features of country communities is that when the chips are down they come together, and you see this all over our region and all over country Australia. The communities rally and support each other, and the country community spirit has particularly shone through in these dry times. For example, I'll give you just a taste of what the Bathurst RSL club are doing. This club was established in 1928 and has more than 14,000 members. The club is supporting a Buy a Bale in September campaign, kicking things off with a $10,000 donation to the appeal. They've got banners in the club highlighting the appeal so that members can donate every time they purchase a meal. The club has been creative; they've also given away a dollar from every chicken parmigiana sold in their Parma for a Farmer campaign. Deputy Speaker, I would invite you and all members to drop in for a parma for a farmer— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I don't like chicken parmas, mate. If it were a beef parma I'd be onto it! Mr GEE 261393 I'm sure they could do that. In fact, for all of the folks listening at home, wherever you may be, if you want to support drought stricken communities come and visit us. Come and support the hotels, the restaurants, the pubs and the clubs. Back to Bathurst RSL, 20c from every coffee sold at the club's coffee shop, The Grind, is going to the appeal. And in the popular weekly members draw, if a member wins cash the club will match that amount for Buy a Bale. So far this month the club, with the help of its many members, has raised over $22,000, with plenty more to come. Individual members have also been making donations. For example, one anonymous member left $2,000 on the bar to help those crippled by drought conditions. The Bathurst Filipino community, for example, kicked in $600. The region is looking forward to more hay on the way, with loads expected to arrive in Bathurst on 24 September. Special thanks to Ian Miller, the president; Ron Hollebone, the vice-president and Harry Robertson, the vice-president and treasurer. Thanks to the directors: Brett Kenworthy, Les Anderson, Paul Hennessy and Coral Miller. And, of course, thanks to the general manager, Peter Sargeant, who has generally let staff wear jeans for the month if they buy a bale. Congratulations to Bathurst RSL club for all of their hard work. The hard work continues right across the region. For example, the Millthorpe Village Committee held a hugely successful farmers day on Sunday at Redmond oval to support those affected by drought. After I attended the show, where there were many farmers, I also dropped in to see how the farmers day went. It was an opportunity for locals to gather and listen to the representatives from the various assistance bodies and organisations, to hear about what services and support are available. For example, there were representatives from the NSW Farmers Association, the New South Wales Rural Assistance Authority as well as mental health workers. It was highly successful. There were about 200 people there on the day. About 400 sausage and steak sandwiches were served—it wouldn't be a country event without the sausage sizzle. It was very strongly supported by the Millthorpe branch of the CWA. The Millthorpe Village Committee has around 100 hardworking members. Special thanks for organising the day needs to go to Sam Yeates, president; Russell Keogh, vice-president; Sue Marsh, treasurer; Nick Anganostaros, secretary; and Mary Dowrick, publicity officer. The farmers day itself was a suggestion of committee member Lyndall Harrison, who runs the annual Millthorpe Garden Ramble. Congratulations to the Millthorpe Village Committee on their successful day. It's great to see grassroots community groups stepping in to support our farmers, and, as I said, that's what we do in the country. Have a look at Mudgee, where you've got the 200BALES campaign. It started off with a group of volunteers getting together and asking the community to sponsor a bale of hay for farmers. They were aiming for 200 bales, but they've well and truly exceeded that target. It's been a godsend to many farmers. Many of them don't ask for the help, but when the trucks roll up they are truly grateful. I've been out in that region talking to farmers who've been the recipient of the 200BALES campaign, and it's just lifted their spirits. So to Glenn Box, Kelly Dray, Will Bateman and the whole team—all of the hay runners—I just want to thank you on behalf of a grateful community for all of the work that you're doing. As I've said, this drought has taken a heavy mental toll on our farmers as well. There are some wonderful people out there doing wonderful work, including the folks from Lifeline. I was at the launch of Lifeline's Drought Tool Kit recently in Orange, and there were many Lifeline volunteers there who give up their time. They don't get paid for it, but they work tirelessly through the night and through the day just to make sure that, when people call, there's someone there on the end of the line, and sometimes just being able to talk to someone can make all of the difference. Being out on farms can be isolating for people, and some of the farms are very physically isolated. Some are up in the high country, for example, in different parts of the Calare electorate. I think that just being able to talk to someone and knowing that someone's there if you need them and that you're not alone can make all of the difference. So I'd like to thank Lifeline and all of their hardworking volunteers. I also thank the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health. They've got the Glove Box Guide to Mental Health. Basically, both of these resources let farmers and farming families and communities know where they can get help. I've actually been into farmers' homes, talking to them, and on the table there has been the Glove Box Guide to Mental Health. Both of these publications, from Lifeline and the Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, are distributed through local publications, and I just wanted to thank them for that, because their work is largely unseen but the community should know that they're out there working really hard in very difficult times. So we need to be backing our farmers to the hilt in this time of drought. During the recent economic slowdown, it was the Australian farmers and the farm sector which got Australia through, so they've actually been doing the heavy lifting economically for a long time now, and we can't take them for granted. If we want a strong and vibrant farm sector, we need to keep backing them through these dry times. I think people in the cities tend to take their food for granted. They just think that it's something that appears, but we can't take our farmers for granted. We need to be backing them and ramping up relief as these conditions worsen. I fully support this bill and commend it to the House. 10:43 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Labor is supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. However, I'm speaking in support of the second reading amendment that was moved by the member for Fenner, which really highlights the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's lack of any long-term policy, planning and approach to assist primary producers in rural Australia facing drought conditions. This bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act to allow primary producers to immediately deduct, rather than depreciate over three years, the cost of fodder storage assets such as silos and hay sheds used to store grain and other animal feed. This will assist primary producers by making it easier to invest in stockpile fodder. The measure applies to fodder storage assets used or installed, or ready for use or installation, on or after 19 August 2018. The measure has a fiscal impact of $75 million over the forward estimates. Despite these measures, it's clear that there has been a lack of any long-term policy and planning to assist primary producers in rural Australia facing drought conditions by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments. New South Wales, the home state that I represent, is entirely in drought. Farmers are facing falling crops, short supplies of water and diminishing livestock feed. We've already heard from farmers who say that the government's slow response has been too little too late. Unfortunately, there's been no real planning by this government for drought conditions when we know—as we've heard from climate scientists and others—that we're going to face an increase in frequency and an increase in severity of drought conditions in Australia due to climate change. The government has been on notice for some years now that, according to climate scientists, these conditions are going to worsen; but the government hasn't adequately planned for them and that's why many farmers are saying that this is too little too late. That's what happens when you have a policy vacuum and a failure of the hodgepodge, last-minute measures from the government. Drought policy shouldn't only be designed during a period of drought. It should be planned for during other periods to ensure that adequate planning has been done to cater for the fact that climate change is occurring in this country and that all of the evidence and all of the expert advice of climate scientists is that climate change is going to worsen the effects of drought and increase the frequency of drought in Australia. We also need to ensure that the management of water resources is better planned for around the states, in terms of their provision of access to water resources through agreements with the Commonwealth government. Again, this is something that this government has a dismal record of planning for. Importantly, through measures such as what we're discussing today, our taxation arrangements and our system of deduction—particularly for the purchase of assets—need to be appropriate and meet the needs of farmers, ensuring that they can continue to operate and survive during drought conditions. Unfortunately, this reactive approach to policy initiation by this government is all too common. We've seen this in terms of the financial services sector, which, again, has had a big effect on farmers. We've seen the rounds of evidence that have come through the banking royal commission and the effects that some bad decisions by banks have had on many farming families and businesses in the agricultural sector. Again, the royal commission was a knee-jerk reaction from this government. We should never forget that for 600-odd days, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments voted against a royal commission. That was when many farmers were saying that what was going on in their industry was at crisis levels and the government needed to initiate a royal commission. Many National Party senators, particularly Senator Williams, had been crying out for a royal commission for some years. Crisis shouldn't be the only catalyst for change when it comes to supporting Australian farmers. Sadly, after the five years of policy inaction by the Turnbull and Morrison governments, we now have had four drought announcements within three months. Firstly, there was the increase in the farm household allowance payments from three years to four years, which is effective from 1 August 2018. Then, on 5 August, the government announced a $190 million package, claiming that it provided immediate additional financial support for farming families and their communities—although it didn't really, given that the additional funding didn't start flowing until 5 August. Time will tell how many farmers access the farm household allowance supplementary payment. It's possible that many farming families will miss out on the full $12,000 amount because the government insisted on splitting the payment and denying farmers the option of receiving a lump sum payment. The minister then made no mention about increased funding for mental health support, yet last week the Prime Minister tweeted an extremely insensitive video claiming that drought was 'a necessary evil' and that it can help cut the bottom 10 per cent of people that 'probably shouldn't be there anyway'. That's not what struggling farmers need at this time of drought crisis. Labor have been asking the Prime Minister to apologise and remove this video for what we believe are insensitive remarks to people that are really battling and doing it tough at the moment. On 19 August 2018, the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, announced the appointment of Major General Stephen Day as the National Drought Coordinator. Interestingly, no mention was made on the appointment of the drought envoy position by Prime Minister Morrison, and we think that that's quite telling. The member for New England was clearly an answer to a question that farmers had never been asked. Unfortunately, when the member for New England was the agriculture minister there was a distinct lack of action and planning to deal with what was inevitably going to be another drought situation in Australia, given the advice of climate scientists. Of course, we also had the failed white paper, which was full of short-term initiatives, many of which were so poorly designed that they never saw the light of day. One of his first acts as Minister for Agriculture was to dismantle the SCoPI, the COAG council working on long-term drought reform measures. When it comes to drought relief, farmers have not experienced any meaningful and long-term planning from the various iterations of this conservative government. The government has failed to deliver long-term policy and planning for primary producers and rural Australians facing drought conditions, including a failure to take mitigation and adaptation responses when it comes to climate change. We need to help more farmers better adapt to climate change. It's pleasing to see that many farmers are now on the front line of arguments for greater action for climate change, because those that work on the land probably understand better than all of us that the climate is changing, that it is having an effect on conditions for farming in this country and that we need to embrace best-practice regenerative farming methods to combat drought. The National Farmers' Federation support this approach, saying that real impacts of climate change will mean that drought and rain events could be more extreme and could be more frequent, yet the Prime Minister still won't say whether human-induced climate change is associated with the drought. He's saying he's not terribly interested in engaging with this crucial aspect of policy design for supporting Australian farmers. Unfortunately, when it comes to drought, energy policy or electricity prices—which, again, have had a big impact on the profitability of farms and farming businesses—the government is willing to ignore the evidence. Their ideology overlooks the fact that, according to climate scientists, widespread and prolonged droughts like the millennium drought will occur more frequently in Australia. Researchers at the University of Melbourne and the Australian National University argue that droughts are getting worse compared to recent centuries and may be exacerbated by climate change. In particular, they say that recent shifts in rainfall variability are either unprecedented or very rare. If it's serious about supporting farmers, the Morrison government must institute some long-term planning around drought resilience and ensure that the agricultural sector can survive what are going to be increasingly frequent and more severe events. We need to be doing that planning with the states to ensure that it takes place at a coordinated national level and has the support of the states. The Morrison government must also take immediate action to restore the COAG drought policy reform process, respond to the review into the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform and update the parliament on the progress of the new agreement. We can't, as a nation, continue to ignore the fact that, unfortunately, according to climate scientists, drought is going to happen more frequently and more severely in this country. If this parliament have the interests of the livelihoods of Australian farmers and their families in mind—those that toil and work on the land year in, year out—then we need to make sure that we are properly planning to mitigate the effects of climate change and that we're working with state governments and local governments to ensure that we have better processes in place to mitigate those effects. That is what was being approached through the COAG process. It's disappointing that this government stopped that collaborative approach, and has really put its head in the sand about the effects of climate change that we see in their approach to energy policy and electricity prices. It's been five years since this government was elected, and they still don't have a policy on energy prices in this country. That's simply not good enough. 10:55 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. I've said repeatedly in this House that I believe I'm the only dairy farmer in this place with a family and a business that's still actively dairy farming, and one that's passionately committed to our farmers in this nation and very keen to speak on their behalf at any given opportunity. The government has acted to support our farmers during this period of drought. Those of us who are farmers live by the weather, and we have no control over it. There are times when life gets really tough for those of us who live and work on the land. There is no doubt that we love our dirt, we love the grass and we love the water, and we know how essential it is for those of us who farm. In my part of the world we fortunately have access to some irrigation systems fed by a series of dams in the hills. These dams are critical to the long-term future of the region, and I'm very pleased to see that the federal government is investing in securing and improving those water supplies in the Myalup-Wellington project. This underpins that the opportunity for all of us, basically, is water and the quality of our soils and how we manage our land. I think around 90-plus per cent of our farming land is family owned. It's really a great testament to them—their passion and commitment for their land and their farms—and that they know to pass it on to a future generation in better condition, perhaps, than it was when they inherited it. That's a great passion that the farmers I meet have, and they do it particularly well. Often they make really challenging decisions that affect their bottom lines, about how they manage their property, their water supplies and their fertiliser. They're constantly having to improve, and they always are doing more with less—less land, less water and less fertiliser. Yet look at what we contribute to the Australian economy and how many people around the world we feed. That's a great tribute and a great testament to the efforts of our Australian farmers. I am always proud to rise in this place and stand up for our farmers, to actually represent them. I don't want to see what we saw so many years ago with Labor, when they shut down the live cattle export trade overnight, and the damage that that brought to an industry, to individual people and to Indonesia itself. How important those cattle supplies and the live trade are. So when I look at the measures in this bill and I see the efforts around fodder storage assets—including the fact that a farmer has now an incentive through the tax system to be able to write off that asset purchase or the installation, whether it's silos or whether it's sheds or bins—and we talk about how we as farmers future-proof ourselves against the constant changes. In all my years as a farmer, I've seen constant change. Whether it's in rainfall or whether it's in weather patterns, it's been a period of constant change, and I suspect that will continue. When you look at your own individual business you have to make decisions about how you're going to manage that constant change. When I look at our irrigation system in the hills, there are years when we have not received a full allocation—in fact, we've received far less—and we still have to manage our farms and our businesses. The farmers make those decisions on-farm. They decide what paddocks they might dry off. They decide what extra cost they have to go to—whether they're going to produce additional silage or hay, and whether they actually have to feed more bales to their animals to get through that period. Those are the decisions we make on a daily basis. So this measure that the government is applying gives those that are constructing additional fodder storage an opportunity to write it off over one single year. This is in addition to the $20,000 instant asset write-off for the eligible small businesses, which is being extended further, yet again. The $20,000 instant asset write-off is really valuable, and it's being used extensively by small businesses—not just farming businesses but right across the board. I'm a great supporter of it and, with my colleagues, fought hard for these measures for small businesses—and of course our farmers are small businesses. This is a practical measure that allows farmers to make really good decisions in their businesses. Some of those decisions are around managing their actual land. Around 96 per cent of farmers are members of landcare groups. These are the practical groups that make a difference on the ground on individual properties and in whole areas. Farmers work with catchment councils. There are a whole lot of groups that work together through our landcare movement to get improved outcomes on each individual property and for the farmers involved. It can be to do with water sources and water resources, it can be to do with fertiliser use or it can be around how they manage their business more broadly. We've seen no-till and low-till practices come out of Western Australia. These are all very important parts of how farmers individually make great decisions in their businesses, because the future of their business and future generations relies on the great decisions they're making today, and they do it on a daily basis. I've said before in this House that we take for granted the quality of the food that we have available to us in this nation. I think the access to quality food has been brought into very sharp relief with what we've seen recently in relation to strawberries. I've been to other countries where the quality of the food is not what it is in Australia. I look at my own area in the South West of Western Australian, and we produce some of the best quality food in the world right there. I am inordinately proud of the people who produce it, often in really extreme circumstances. Some of our local climatic conditions can be extreme, but we still keep producing. We still keep making it available for people to walk into a supermarket or their local market or wherever they buy their products. As I say, Australians have basically never been hungry. When you go to other countries in the world that, during war years, have gone hungry, they place an extraordinary value on their farmers and the food that they consume. That's something that we've never had to think about too much in Australia. It's when we have a situation, such as we have with the strawberries, that brings that into sharp relief that people are immediately made very aware of the immediate impact on those businesses of simply not being able to sell their products. I was really pleased this morning, when I was at a breakfast for GPs with the Minister for Health, that he took up to the podium a wonderful Australian strawberry and said he wanted to encourage people to cut and consume local strawberries. The minister has just entered the House. Minister, on behalf of every strawberry farmer in Australia, thank you for you what did this morning. It is a very important message to get out to people: to cut strawberries but not cut them out. I think that's a really simple message. We see the volume of strawberries that are being dumped. I have heard of one group of over 100 people who've lost their jobs. That's the reality for those of us who live and work in rural regional Australia who are farmers. That's how direct it is. In small communities, the loss of 100 jobs has an enormous impact on every small business. So every time there's an issue, whether it's drought or a situation such as the one we're seeing with the strawberries, there is a loss of income. The other issue that bothers me greatly is the impact on our international reputation. I hope the law takes absolutely full effect on the people who are doing this. This is having an enormous impact on our reputation as a clean, green producer of high-quality products, worldwide. That reputation is something that we as the farmers in this country have worked so hard for so many years to create. Often, historically, we've had to compete with countries that have significant tariff protection. It's only with the free trade agreements that this government has worked on and delivered that some of those barriers are starting to be, have been and will continue to be removed. But, historically, as farmers, we've often felt as though we've had to work with one hand tied behind our back because of the tariffs that were applied and the concessions that were available to farmers in other parts of the world. We have to compete, and we do compete very well, because we have some of the most efficient producers in the world. Not only are they efficient but they produce absolutely top-quality produce. And they will continue to do that no matter the challenges they face. I'm really pleased to see the Rural Financial Counselling Service is available to our drought-stricken farmers. I'm encouraging every farmer to take advantage of that. Sit down with these people. There are a whole lot of things happening in your family. There are a whole lot of things happening in your business. There are a lot of things happening in, and impacts on, your community, and no-one is immune. Community service organisations; emergency services, often staffed by volunteers; local volunteers; local farmers; local people and local business people are all affected when we have a drought like we're having. They're also affected when we get a crisis like we're having with the strawberry farmers. There's going to be less money in the small local communities—in community service organisations and community sporting clubs. And that's not going to be overcome overnight either. The impacts of that are like dropping a stone into a bucket of water—the ripples continue. There will be businesses that may not survive this. As I said, the impacts are significant, and I want the full impact of the law to be visited upon those who are perpetrating this. It's having a much greater impact than people actually understand. It's having a direct impact on the ground with our farmers and with the pickers, the planters and the packers. In Australia, as I said, the farmers produce some of the best-quality food in the world. I can say to the Australian people that we'll keep doing that. My dairy farmers are going to keep producing some of the best-quality milk in the world for you. They're going to continue to produce amazing products for you. I know that once the strawberry growers get back into full production, you'll be buying the most wonderful Australian produced strawberries. Whether it's in the horticultural sector, the food sector or the fibre sector, what everybody needs to know is that every farmer goes out there every day to do their job the best way they, and often it's under really tough circumstances. There are times when the market does not return the sorts of profits that were expected and demanded in other parts of our economy. But our farmers keen producing. And they produce extraordinary products. Look at the food that we take for granted when we walk into a supermarket. As I've said frequently, I look at some of the prices that are being paid in the supermarket—I'll touch on the $1 milk—and see that the market is demanding more and paying more for water than it is for milk. It's in the hands of our consumers. Make a great choice and buy a branded product—a branded product that you know pays more for that product so that our farmers, in the broader sense, are able to keep producing the products that we all take for granted. Every farmer in Australia, as I've said previously, works constantly. They are very, very technology savvy. They are constantly innovating and improving. They don't sit back. Most of their information now is coming electronically. They're doing amazing work, and they rely on their technology. I'm really pleased with the mobile phone black spot tower rollout that we've been so strongly supporting and putting the funding into. This has made a huge difference to small businesses, which are, of course, our farming businesses. It gives them access and opportunities. They can be sitting in a tractor—the hay season is not far away, and I am really sorry that in New South Wales it's going to be a challenging hay season because they won't be able to grow the crops that they need for the next 12 months. It's not just this last 12 months that's affected by drought. Look at the feedstocks ahead. I want to thank every one of the farmers and organisations in Western Australia and around Australia who have contributed and are contributing fodder into New South Wales. They know that this is pushing up the prices for the rest of the farmers locally, but they're still doing it to support their fellow farmers. I thank and congratulate everyone who is doing that, and I say to the farmers affected by drought: 'Hang in there, and use your rural financial counselling services as well.' 11:10 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Labor will always stand by the people of the bush. People often forget—and it is worth reminding people sometimes, especially those opposite—that Labor was born of the bush. In 1892, the Australian Labor Party was born under a tree in Barcaldine, Queensland, during the Shearers' Strike. Men were fighting for a better deal. Men were fighting for better pay and conditions and a fair go from the pastoralists. Labor was born of the bush, and its mission to fight for a fair go has never changed. Labor are proud to stand here today and support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018, but we're not going to pretend that this bill is the answer to all the problems that are besetting farmers during this drought. The bill before us today is, at best, a mild response to what is a very serious problem affecting New South Wales and Queensland. I don't want to belittle the bill, but it really is window-dressing. What it will do is offer mild relief to some farmers who are beset by drought. It will allow some farmers a provision whereby they can get instant asset write-offs for things like silos and grain sheds, rather than waiting three years for depreciation to take effect. It will be of some assistance, but it won't do nearly enough to address the real issues besetting farmers. One of the concerning things throughout this whole episode has been the government's rather piecemeal approach to responding to this drought. We've heard speeches from various members on this issue. We've seen this government's piecemeal approach reflected in the fracturing and the failures of the government itself. We've had a National Party leader replaced by another National Party leader. We've had an agriculture minister replaced by another agriculture minister. We've had a Prime Minister replaced by another Prime Minister. The failures of this government are reflected in the failures of its drought strategy. It is a fractured and piecemeal approach; it is not good enough. It is not good enough that there has not been a coordinated, strategic approach to combatting this drought. As I said before, this bill is a very modest measure in the scheme of things. It will have a fiscal impact of around $75 million over the forward estimates—and, to be blunt, it is window-dressing. It will be of some assistance to farmers, but it won't do much—and we really should not pretend that it will. This is, as I say, the fourth drought announcement by the government in three months. Instead of planning and preparing a comprehensive response, the government is, frankly, all over the place—a little bit here, a little bit there, a little bit later on. It has all the hallmarks of the utter dysfunction that plagues the government. People who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who are in tears over the condition and misery of starving stock, deserve better. On 19 June the government announced an increase in farm household allowance payments from three years to four, effective 1 August 2018—a very modest measure. On 5 August, the government announced a $190 million financial support package and a $12,000 supplement to the farm household allowance. The government announced it but the funds weren't released then—no; the government has split the payment. So farmers who are beset by drought now must wait till the next financial year before they can access the second $6,000 instalment. It's unnecessary red tape getting in the way of helping farming families who are in need of assistance today. Later on, the minister announced some increased funding for mental health support. I welcome this initiative. Done properly, it will be of great assistance, and I do commend the minister for this thoughtful initiative. I know mental health workers in my electorate do incredibly important work and have saved scores of people, particularly men, from taking their own lives. I refer in particular to the organisation Rural Alive and Well—or RAW, as it is better known—which is based in the town of Oatlands in my electorate. The more we can do to improve the mental health and psychological resilience of farmers and other members of regional communities, especially in times of financial crisis, the better. It is difficult to get men in regional Australia to open up about mental health, but it's getting better. There is less stigma attached to discussing and disclosing mental health, and we must do all we can to ensure that we remain on this trajectory. A couple of weeks later, on 19 August, the then Prime Minister announced the appointment of Major General Stephen Day as National Drought Coordinator. I have every confidence that Major General Day will bring his expertise to bear in bringing together charities, NGOs, donors and arms of government, and I look forward to getting a progress report from the minister. It has been a month since Major General Day was appointed and I know the parliament would be keen to get an update on how things are going. Then, following the still unexplained change of Prime Minister—and the country is still asking why: a question the government seems unable to answer—the member for New England was announced as drought envoy, a position we know little about in terms of what it is meant to achieve other than perhaps to keep the troublesome member for New England in Queensland and New South Wales as much as possible. Indeed, in his first week on the job, the drought envoy suggested diverting water that is vital for environmental sustainability to farmers and also suggested opening national parks to grazing. He has been silent, however, as far as I know, about his government's decision to allow Adani to access 12.5 billion litres of river water without going through an environmental impact study. The fact is that the government's drought response has been a mess. Farmers have had to contend with, first, the change in the Nationals—with the member for New England out as leader, Deputy Prime Minister and agricultural minister, and the member for Riverina in as leader and Deputy Prime Minister, and the member for Maranoa in as the agriculture minister—and then the change in the Liberal leadership, with the former member for Wentworth out as Prime Minister and the member for Cook in as Prime Minister. From all the public statements flying about, it seems responsibility for the drought response is being undertaken jointly by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the agriculture minister, the drought envoy and the Drought Coordinator. What makes this dog's breakfast even more bewildering is that the government had a template for drought response at its fingertips. Ten years ago, the Productivity Commission completed an inquiry into drought support and, in 2008, the federal and state primary industries ministers, the majority of them representing conservative governments, signed an agreement on drought reform. The ministers, sitting as the COAG committee known as SCoPI, agreed to commission the PC inquiry and report. So a coordinated drought response was ready to go, pretty much with a ribbon tied around it, but instead it has been all but ignored and discarded. In fact, the federal coalition elected in 2013 abolished SCoPI and thereby removed an important coordinating body between the federal and state primary industries ministries. It was an act of policy vandalism, idiocy and arrogance to abolish SCoPI and it bore all the hallmarks of a born-to-rule federal coalition government that believes it, and only it, has all the answers and needs no input from the states to develop policy. The result has been a disaster. With New South Wales and Queensland suffering the worst drought in living memory, there has been no coordinated or strategic response. Ten years after a coordinated drought response was agreed to by all levels of government and backed by key farm leadership groups, we are scrambling with three piecemeal announcements in two months from a government that's changed leadership amongst both its senior and its junior coalition party partners. The elephant in the room is climate change. The mere mention of climate change is enough to have some coalition members sticking their fingers in their ears and making loud sounds to drown out the noise. The truth hurts. Climate change is real. It is here, it is happening and it is having a real and lasting impact on our agricultural sector. The former agriculture minister, the member for New England, did nothing about mitigating the impacts of climate change because he simply doesn't believe it's real. He says, 'We've always had droughts and we always will.' He shrugs and says, 'This is no different than what's happened in the past.' It's a she'll-be-right attitude that flies in the face of scientific, measurable facts. Annual temperatures are hotter than they've ever been in recorded history. The trends are hotter and dryer. Extreme events are occurring more often and are more extreme. Any agriculture minister who seeks to respond to the drought without having a climate change strategy is not doing their job. Climate change is the elephant in the room and it has to be contended with. Those opposite just have to deal with climate change; they have to get on board with this. They can't say, 'There's a drought on right now. We can't discuss climate change. That would be insensitive to those going through it.' Increasingly, we're getting farmers and those who represent farmers saying to us, 'Yes, climate change is real. Yes, it's having a real impact on our farms and on our ability to grow produce. We need to have a strategy to deal with it.' Farmers are calling out for this. Farmers are just as frustrated as we on this side are by the government's failure to grapple with the scientific facts that climate change is real and that climate change is absolutely contributing to the conditions that farmers face today. This is a land of drought and flood; we know that. But the 100-year floods are now 20-year floods. The bushfires are hotter and faster. They are happening more often. The experts, the measurable data, the facts and the charts tell us that climate change is responsible. You have to have a strategy in place to deal with it. You can't have a drought response and you can't have a response to the crisis enveloping Queensland and New South Wales without having a climate change strategy. It is absolutely crucial. I will finish where I started off: Labor will always stand by the people of the bush. We were born of the bush. We're not what those opposite like to paint us as. We're not just a bunch of inner-city lefties who go down to the cafe for a soy latte. That's not us. We represent blue-collar workers: farmers, shearers and the men and women in the shops and the IGAs. It was Labor in Tasmania that brought on the irrigation scheme that is transforming Tasmania today. It was Labor who put through the infrastructure, the roads through the regions, that allow us to get to goods to market quicker. It is Labor that looks after the bush. The pretenders over there think that wearing a big hat and having a subscription to RM Williams is enough to make people think that they represent the bush. They say one thing out there to the people in the regions, and then they come in here and all they do is vote with the Liberals on big corporate policy. It was Labor fighting the $17 billion giveaway to the big banks. It wasn't the National Party standing up for the people of the regions when the Liberals were trying to give that $17 billion corporate handout to the big banks. It was Labor that helped get that stopped; it was Labor that brought on the policy change from the government. We brought the pressure to bear to stop the $17 billion giveaway to the big banks. It wasn't the National Party; they rolled over and had their tummies tickled on that. I just mention here, by way of passing—and I don't want to get personal—that I can't help but smile when I recall that the deputy leader of the National Party, the self-proclaimed party of the battlers of the bush, doesn't live in the regions. She lives in inner-city Melbourne, if I recall, in the member for Melbourne's seat. The deputy leader of the National Party lives in a Greens seat. That's what I understand. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Mr Hunt 00AMV If you want to go down to where your members live, we'll do that. Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 That's okay. That's okay. As I say, I'm just mentioning by way of passing that the Nationals put on the big hats, the checked shirts and the RM Williams and they wear the whips on their sides as if somehow that tells the story of representing the bush, and it's not accurate. It takes more. It takes policy answers to represent the people of the bush and the people of the regions. It takes policy and a commitment to the real issues: cost of living, Medicare, access to health and access to infrastructure. These are the real issues that affect the people of the bush and the people of the regions. Instead, what the National Party does is vote with the Liberals every day of the week to back in the big corporates, even against the interests of the people of the regions, and they need to be held to account for it. 11:25 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I too take great pleasure in rising today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. I'd hoped that the member for Lyons might stay here for a minute. He might learn something. I will not be lectured by the Labor Party about responses to drought. I have been in this place for more than a decade, and for three decades before that I was a farmer. I have lived through the Keating years, when we were paying 22 per cent interest, and I know what it's like trying to farm in that area. I was in this House when the member for Watson, as the minister for agriculture, changed drought policy. He said: 'We don't have drought policy anymore. We now won't even refer to the word "drought". We are going to refer to it as "dryness". Because of climate change, we're going to have "dryness".' He talks about farmers wanting to adapt to climate change. Well, I can tell you our farmers are way ahead of the field, mate. I have my colleague here with me. When he was the shadow minister for the environment, he got to see what my farmers are doing with zero-till, where they're conserving every drop of moisture and growing crops now in adverse climates. Your mates in the Greens want to ban glyphosate, so even that's going to be harder. We hear the members opposite talking about there being no response to the drought. The federal government has committed $1.8 billion so far, and that figure is rising. The former minister for agriculture Barnaby Joyce's white paper brought in accelerated depreciation for fodder storage, water, grain silos and fencing. Previously it was 15 to 20 years; it was brought back to three years. This legislation brings it back to instant asset write-off. If the members opposite actually knew something about regional Australia, not just what they saw on Facebook or popular TV shows, they might know that that policy has made a big difference in how farmers are impacted by this drought. I've spoken to many of my farmers who are now selling grain at a good price because they took the initiative that was offered to them by the government and have invested in their own storages. This patronising idea that I'm getting from members of the Labor Party that somehow farmers need the government to tell them what to do and are somehow poor, helpless individuals is something I find deeply offensive, and so do the people that I represent. This legislation is very much appreciated and welcomed by the farmers that I represent, because farmers are not victims. Farmers will know that this is a genuine piece of legislation that will help them plan for the next drought. It gives them greater control not only in their preparedness for drought but in the general marketing and storage of their own product. At the moment, we have a crisis because of the shortage of hay. One of the reasons for this is that the vast majority of all hay that is produced never leaves the farm that produces it. It is cut and stored in preparation for drought. This legislation will enable farmers, when the seasons return and they end up with a wool cheque or a grain crop, to instantly depreciate the cost of a hay shed so that they can store more hay on farm, ready for the next drought. The cash storage through the farm management deposits scheme is very important. The fact that farmers can withdraw that in less than the 12-month period during a period of drought, to enable that cash to be used to help through the drought to purchase that fodder, is very important. This morning I spoke to one of my constituents, who was unloading a load of hay, and he said that load of hay has brought his fodder bill for this drought up to $400,000. That's what one farmer has spent on fodder. He said that, because he had the money in a farm management deposit scheme, put aside for that very purpose, he's managed this drought. Those opposite would have the government in control of what farmers do. I have heard academics in the last couple of weeks saying, 'Maybe we're going to need legislation, so that farmers can be instructed where they're going to grow certain crops, or run livestock.' I can tell you one thing that farmers don't want: they don't want the government in their lives. They want the government to provide positive programs like this: legislation like this will help them. The member for Hunter has just walked in. Some of the comments he has made about this drought over the last month I find deeply offensive to the farmers that I represent. They are getting thoroughly sick of being treated as victims. I can tell you that the farmers in Australia are the most productive and the most innovative in the world— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 A point of order: there are processes in the House. If the member wants to make allegations he needs to authenticate them. What quotes from the member for Hunter is he referring to? Mr COULTON HWN The member for Hunter wants me to go through them. I probably wouldn't have enough time left in my speech, but I have heard comments about the lack of support—$1.8 billion going to farmers is not a lack of support. The member for Hunter was a member of the government that removed that policy when the member for Watson was the minister, so one of the advantages of— Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 With your support— Mr COULTON HWN Rubbish. One of the advantages of being here for a long time is that you have a corporate memory of these things. This legislation is very, very important. This legislation, to be honest, is not going to help farmers through the current drought; this legislation is all about preparedness for the next one. During the current drought, we are supplying farmers with household support. That money is to provide some dignity: to take the pressure from the daily lives of farmers who need to worry about how they're going to clothe and get food for their families, and other basic essentials. Major General Day has been appointed as National Drought Coordinator to facilitate and coordinate some of the programs that are in train now. I know that last week he was speaking to the charities to try and get a coordinated approach, so that we don't have areas that are falling through the cracks. With the help of social media, this drought has brought the plight of farmers to people in the cities. The support that's coming from people away from farms has been exceptional, and I know it's very much appreciated. But one of the downsides of social media campaigns is that the true situation is probably not presented. When people see a picture of a skinny cow, there could be various reasons why that cow is in that condition, and it's not always as portrayed. As I've touched on earlier, one of my concerns about the current drought is that farmers are being portrayed as a group that have lost control of their own industry, and their own destiny, and that's far from the truth. They're incredibly resilient. I don't come into this place speaking from theory or philosophy; I've actually lived through droughts as a farmer. Several times in my life I've gone through drought seasons where we haven't grown a grain for the entire year. I know what it's like trying to purchase sugarcane tops from the coast to feed cattle when you've exhausted your own supplies. I know what it's like to spend night after night on a machine baling hay in preparation for the next drought. I know the work that's involved in this. I stand up here today in support of the farmers that I represent and the farmers of Australia, knowing that this drought will end, knowing that they will step up and be back in production very, very quickly and knowing that the vast majority of them out there now, while it's incredibly difficult, are managing this because they have prepared. They have prepared because of previous policies put in place by this government. This legislation that we're talking about today will certainly make preparation more appropriate and easier for them to do for the next drought. When production does return, they'll be able to take advantage of the markets that are opening up now through the free trade agreements that are being negotiated—some are already agreed to; some are before the House at the moment—which will enable them to trade on the global stage at an advantage over our competitors. I support this legislation. I know that the farmers I represent support this legislation. They are pleased to see a government that's actually putting in practical measures, not the philosophical, ideologically driven, patronising discussions that we're hearing from the other side. 11:36 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter What an embarrassing contribution from the member for Parkes, full of fluff and full of platitudes. Oh, my God! We couldn't have academics making a contribution to one of the most serious challenges facing this parliament and our country! We couldn't have policy based on fact! We can't have long-term planning! We just have to trust people like the member for Parkes, who, of course, is a farmer! That makes him the expert! He's practical! His approach is practical! I heard the member for Forrest saying the same thing, declaring herself a dairy farmer. Well, here's an idea: how about some of these members start declaring an interest in some of these matters. If I were a financial planner and I came in here to speak about a matter relating to financial planning, they'd be all over me like a rash. Conflict of interest, they'd be saying. Now, let us not have this great boast from those on the other side that, because they are farmers, they don't need policy contribution from any of the experts. That's a ridiculous proposition, and it's an embarrassing proposition for this national parliament. Farmers don't want just sympathy and platitudes from their members of parliament; they want a government that reacts properly, thoughtfully and in a timely way. We are in the seventh year of this drought, and this is a government that did nothing until the media started paying this issue attention. Yes, we had some concessional loans. We had some concessional loans which, of course, were a replication of concessional loans programs that the former Labor government had in place. But concessional loans have been the policy response of choice for this government. No matter what the problem: 'Oh, we'll set up some concessional loans.' Which takes me to the point the member for Parkes made: this continual misrepresentation of what this government is spending on drought. They say $1.8 billion. Well, how did we get to $1.8 billion? Pretty simply. What they do is count the full capital value of all loans provided for, whether they're taken up by farmers or not. Have a think about that. They put a billion dollars aside for drought loans and they count that as a contribution to the drought assistant package whether or not farmers take those loans. That takes me to the contribution of the member for Calare. I listened carefully to the member for Calare. Of course it wasn't that long ago that the member for Calare was boasting that the member for New England's so-called Regional Investment Corporation in Orange was going to create 200 jobs. Think about that. Then it was 100 jobs. I'll tell you how many jobs the Regional Investment Corporation has provided so far—one, and it's an interim job. This Regional Investment Corporation is no longer mentioned by the member for Calare. I wonder why that is. The answer, of course, is that he's moved beyond the political phase of that campaign or that idea and he's now realising what a joke the member for New England's proposition was. We all know it was a response to another very bad state by-election result for the coalition in 2016. They said: 'We'll have to do something about that. We can't have the National Party losing Orange. We'll create a pork-barrelling exercise and put a regional investment corporation into that town.' That is a regional investment corporation which still has no office, still has no staff and still has no real job to do. We need a government that is serious about drought reform and drought policy, not a government that comes late to the party and makes three announcements within two months because the media has started taking notice. The only thing that has occurred more often in this country than drought itself has been the review of drought policy, including the one we started in 2009, the Productivity Commission's review, which was manifested in the 2013 intergovernmental agreement on drought. Speaking of that agreement, I've got a confession to make. I changed my positioning on the speakers list, hoping to follow the member for New England. I was hoping to respond to his contribution. Alas, he's not here. I've been around this place long enough to know he may have good reason not to be here, so all I can do is express my disappointment that the member for New England hasn't presented himself to the House to make his contribution and my disappointment that I won't have the opportunity to respond to him. But I still hope he makes his way in here at some point to explain himself and to explain why, over a five-year period, he stalled drought policy reform in this country, he didn't progress the intergovernmental agreement on drought policy and he abolished the Standing Council on Primary Industries, the key COAG committee which was to progress that reform. He does need to come in here and explain himself. He will talk about concessional loans and he will talk about the provisions in this bill. Labor support the provisions in this bill. We support anything that will help farmers through drought after a five-year hiatus on drought reform policy. We must. We don't agree absolutely with any of the policies this government has put forward, but we've been prepared to support them because they are the only thing on offer and it's the only thing an opposition can hope to do—urge the government to act and support anything that it does, within reason. There's nothing wrong with an immediate write-off or an investment in storage. That can only help. I do note, though, that the Productivity Commission rejected that proposal because they argued there's no market failure obvious and there's no broader community outcome or benefit in it. I'll challenge that somewhat because I would argue that, if this helps farmers better prepare for and protect themselves from drought, there is a broader community benefit. We know that it's not just farmers affected by drought; the communities around them are affected by a drop in income and therefore a drop in consumer spending in their towns. Not only have we had a five-year hiatus but we don't even know who is in charge of drought policy in this country anymore. We had the member for New England, and then he was gone, and now we have Minister Littleproud, and he's still floating around, but we have the Drought Coordinator, Major General Day, and now we have the drought envoy, and there appears to be no coordination between them. I welcome the member to New England to the debate. I'm glad he turned up at my urging. I would have been most disappointed if he hadn't. We don't know, after a five-year hiatus, who is in charge of drought policy in this country. Is it the envoy? Is it Minister Littleproud? Is it Major General Day? We simply don't know. Those on the other side can't have it both ways. They come in here with their platitudes and unthoughtful contributions, but they also want to tell us how well the farmers are doing. Thankfully it is true that some farmers are doing it okay. Some farmers have managed to better prepare for drought than others. Sometimes those reasons are merely geographical, sometimes it's about access to infrastructure, but it is true that some have done better than others. But it's counterintuitive for those on the other side to come in here on a daily basis and claim credit for the things that are doing well but not accept responsibility for the others. Thank goodness the Prime Minister doesn't seem to be in charge of drought policy, because he told us via tweet last week, by authorising a video, that drought is a necessary evil. What it does, he said by authorising the video, is it allows you to wipe out the bottom 10 per cent who are struggling most. What an amazing thing for a Prime Minister to say. I know the Minister for Health would have been shocked by that as well. The Prime Minister tweeted and authorised, and therefore promoted and endorsed, a video that claimed drought is a necessary evil because it wipes out the bottom 10 per cent who shouldn't be there anyway. Mr Hunt 00AMV That is utterly false. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 The Minister for Health says that's a false accusation. I say to the minister that I was very careful about how I said that. He tweeted and authorised a video in which that was said. I think in anybody's language that is akin to promoting and endorsing thoughts in that video, particularly when the text of the tweet said something like 'another way of thinking about drought'. If the Prime Minister wasn't sympathetic to that statement, there is no way in the world he would have tweeted that video. What is the alternative explanation? What other conclusion could we possibly come to? Why else would the Prime Minister be tweeting that video and writing something like 'another perspective on drought'? There's only one conclusion you can come to. Those opposite have been coming to this debate saying, 'We've been doing this; we've been doing that.' I've dealt with those issues, but members of the House don't have to take my word for it. At the National Press Club recently the president of the National Farmers' Federation, Fiona Simson, said this: … we don't have a comprehensive national strategy to deal with drought. That's what the president of the National Farmers' Federation said, and she is right, because the member for New England stopped the progress of the reform program. The member for Parkes outrageously gestured over towards the opposition and said, 'They got rid of all the good programs.' I remind the member for Parkes that that historic agreement between the Commonwealth and the states in 2013 was supported by all members in this place of all political persuasions—I shouldn't say that; I'm not sure what the member for Kennedy, for example, had to say at the time, but it was supported by the major parties and that minor party they call the National Party, even though that's not really their name, and the National Farmers' Federation. This approach was the commencement of a program which had the support of all the major parties and the leading farm organisations. It is not appropriate for the member for Parkes to be pointing his finger across at this side; he should be pointing his finger at himself, because his party was very much part of that process. You can't have a drought policy or hope to develop and progress a drought policy until you accept that the climate is changing, fairly obviously, and until you accept that it's important—if only based on the precautionary principle—to do something about carbon emissions. We have to do something about carbon emissions. Again, we've had five years of a government that is unprepared to do that and climate deniers like the member for New England, who want to continually run a political campaign on that point. It doesn't have to come at a high cost; the cheapest way to do it is through the electricity sector. The best way to prevent this ridiculous discussion about going to the farm sector for the abatement is to do something in the electricity sector. But the member for New England doesn't want to do that. If people start gesturing to the idea of going to the farm sector for the abatement, blame people like the member for New England, who don't want to do anything in the electricity sector. Mr Joyce E5D Why don't you do something about water policy? Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Yes, I will say something about water. It was the Labor Party that built water infrastructure projects in this country in the six years it was in government. I heard my colleague talking about the Northern Midlands project in Tasmania. That was entirely a Labor project. How about Chaffey Dam in the member for New England's electorate? That was entirely a Labor project. I give credit to the former member for New England, Mr Windsor, who urged the Labor government at the time to build that augmentation project. The member for New England has to stop taking credit for things he had no responsibility for. He needs to get on board with some decent drought policy. (Time expired) 11:52 Mr JOYCE E5D New England What a load of nonsense. What a load of prattle and nonsense. I don't know where to start with such a load of nonsense. Let's start with the fact that there was no extension on Chaffey Dam when Labor, the Greens and Independents—that lot was a merry little bunch—left government. We had to get the approval through. They didn't have an approval. They were bent over backwards looking after the Booroolong frogs. You have listened, ladies and gentlemen out there in radio land, to the shadow minister for agriculture. Did you hear one thing that could even vaguely relate to a policy by the Labor Party? Of course not. Oh, hang on—they have to do something about carbon emissions! They said that, before they do anything, they've got to do something about carbon emissions first. The member for Hunter is going to cool the planet and, after he's done that, he'll come back and give you a drought policy! If there's anybody still here when that happens, good luck to you. There will be nothing left. Those opposite never have the gumption, they never have the motivation and they never have the muscle to come in here and nominate something that they will actually do. What they do is say: 'Well, you know, we're going to first of all reduce carbon emissions. We'll then look after the farmers who have no money. We'll then look after the fact that there is no fodder.' They don't even mention that. There's no plan. I'm going to give you a plan. We'll start by moving 6,500 tonnes of fodder over to Parkes. We're talking about that today. There's another 500 tonnes just up the road; that's going to join up with it as well. We're also talking about what we're going to do with the crop. There's a crop over in Western Australia that's just had to deal with a frost, and that frost means that there is a great capacity for wheat and hay to be moved to the east. We've been having discussions this morning with the Prime Minister about how we can get further stimulus into regional towns on top of the $1 million that we've put into every council in the drought areas to help them out. Ladies and gentlemen, these are policies. Here, today, we are talking about a 100 per cent write-off for fodder storage assets. That's huge. If you spend $10 million on new silos, you can write them off straightaway. If it's associated with the drought, you can do that. That's real policy, just like we have the 100 per cent write-off for water reticulation, which is part of a white paper; just like we have the 100 per cent write-off for fencing, which is part of a white paper; and just like we've changed the farm management deposits from $400,000 to $800,000, which is part of a white paper. Mr Drum 56430 What did you ever do, Joel? What did your mob do? Mr JOYCE E5D What did they do? We set up the Regional Investment Corporation, a new regional based bank which the Labor Party are going to get rid of. We have put money on the table to build the inland rail. The Labor Party hasn't. The Labor Party doesn't believe in it. We have money on the table for dams. The Labor Party is going to take the money out. That's the difference. Everywhere they go, they are destroyers. They are the political Shiva of rural Australia. Every time they go somewhere, they are going there to destroy it. We believe in decentralisation. Does the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, stand by the movement of APVMA to Armidale? He's silent now, isn't he? He will never actually go in to bat for regional Australia. Well, the Labor Party candidate in Armidale wants to know where you are. The Labor Party candidate in Armidale wants to know where you're going. He'd like you to go a long, long way away. That's where he'd like you to go, because you're not helping him when you arrive. Everywhere they go, they never stand up for regional Australia—never once. We always have to go back in to bat. It's great to be sitting in the room today with the Prime Minister, with Major General Stephen Day, with the president of the NFF, Fiona Simson, and with the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, to try to make sure we take this step forward. Not once has the Labor Party gone to the dispatch box at question time and asked a question about drought. They don't do it, because the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, is so politically impotent that he does not have the capacity to get a question through tactics. He can't get a question up at tactics time. Either they just don't care about agriculture or they don't care about him. I say it's both. They don't care about either. So we have so much more to do, and we're going to make sure that we drive ahead. I am happy to say that, in my discussions with the Prime Minister this morning, there's a real motivation. We are going to make sure that the empathy stops and the action starts, starting right now. About now, or in a few minutes time, the Prime Minister will be doing a press conference, and I'm absolutely certain that he will be mentioning the further things we have to do to assist other areas, especially with what's happening with the adulteration in the strawberry industry and the disaster and hurt that has caused. That would be something you'd believe— Mr Drum 56430 They might want to ask a question. Mr JOYCE E5D They might want to ask a question on that. Maybe the shadow minister for agriculture might get a question today and show some interest. I'm going to help you out. I'm going to help you out. I'm going to ask the Labor leader for tactics, Mr Tony Burke, the Manager of Opposition Business, to see if he can get the member for Hunter a question today. I plead with you: give the member for Hunter a question today. Give him some relevance. I'm helping you out here. Give him some relevance. What we are doing here is building on the $4 billion agriculture white paper. It's great to see the dam that we built, Chaffey Dam, the dams in the Midlands in Tasmania that we are building and the Wimmera-Mallee pipeline that we are building. It's great to see the pipeline that we are building in the Macalister Irrigation District. And what about Rookwood weir, which we're building? The Labor Party fought it all the way through. They ran to any rathole they could to look after their Greens mates and Greens preferences. We're trying to get infrastructure built. I know the member for Kennedy. He's a big fan of Hells Gate. This is a great project. You've got no hope of ever getting something like that past the Labor Party. They'll be looking after their Greens mates, the same Greens mates they look after when they don't want to open up Galilee Basin. It's incredibly peculiar that the member for Hunter, formerly supported by blue-collar workers, has turned his back on them as he turned his back on the farmers. They've given up and become the party for the inner suburban areas, and they're getting a vote to match. This bill is part and parcel. It's not the fight; it's the start of a whole range of issues that we have to deal with in what is the worst drought on record in certain areas. The rainfall of Tamworth so far this year is slightly better than the annual rainfall of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. It is so devastating that what is happening right now is that there are gum trees—and they're a pretty good indicator of how dry it gets—dying because of a lack of water. We have a national crisis, and we have to deal with it as a national crisis. We have to hope that the efforts of this parliament are put towards a constructive debate to drive policy. So I'm happy that we have made changes to the farm household allowance, and I commend the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who's just now come into the chamber. We've gone a long way. I remember when the Labor Party were in government only 367 people got access to the farm household allowance. Now we have well in excess of 8,000 people who have had access to it, and this is so vitally important. It's uncapped. About a quarter of a billion dollars has been spent on it, and that's so vitally important. That's really money that is going on the table to help people. And I know there's more we can do to streamline that application process, and I know the minister for agriculture is working on that. We had discussions about precisely that this morning, and the minister for agriculture is doing an absolutely remarkable job, a splendid job. He's hard at work. Because of the vastness of his electorate, the member for Maranoa has such a great understanding of how agriculture works. I know that the member for Maranoa, the minister for agriculture, would dearly love to be challenged in question time by the vociferous and cogent questions delivered by the member for Hunter. But he isn't! The member for Maranoa might as well do sudoku when he comes in here because he never gets a question from the member for Hunter. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D Point of order, Member for Hunter. Mr Joyce E5D Oh my gosh, he's on his feet! Mr Fitzgibbon 8K6 I alert the member for New England to the fact that he doesn't have to go his full 15 minutes. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The member for New England has the call. Mr JOYCE E5D He's a funny man! Gosh! He's in the wrong career, the member for Hunter. He should have been at the Emmys the other night. He would have done a lot better job! We have to make sure that we get the absolute focus of this nation's parliament on helping these people who are doing it so tough during the drought. We now know that in the abattoirs—I was speaking to one the other day—they are killing many of the cows with the calf inside. That means people are going through their breeding herds. And because they're going through their breeding herds that means when the drought is over there's going to be serious problems for abattoirs. The stock prices will go through the roof and their capacity to make a dollar is going to go through the floor. The last thing we want is for these abattoirs to shut down, because that will mean blue-collar workers, who we have to look after that, will be out of work. Part of the challenge of this parliament would be to suggest how we're going to keep these workers—many of them are probably members of the AWU—in a job. Has the Labor Party ever proposed during question time a discussion about this? Of course not. They've talked about the reduction of carbon emissions. Well, I'm sure I'll be able to hand that to someone on the boning floor of a local abattoir. I'll say, 'What the Labor party is going to do for you is reduce carbon emissions. Good luck; I hope that keeps you in a job.' But I don't think it will. I think they'll be looking for something a little more direct than that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D A little bit more tangible. Mr JOYCE E5D A little bit more tangible. They'll want something to take home to their partner. How are they going to pay for their house if the abattoir closes down? I don't think it's going to be a policy on carbon emission reductions. I think it's going to be: what is the government doing to make sure that, if this drought continues, I, as a meat worker, still have a job? The Labor Party won't ask those questions, but we are. We are in the process of working out precisely how we deal with issues such as that. The drought has become more pronounced in the last years. You might have been in opposition for five years, and that's very understandable. If you look at how you performed, it's a wonder you're not there for 50 years. What we have to make sure of is that we continue on this path—a 100 per cent write-off for fencing, a 100 per cent write-off for water and, now, a 100 per cent write-off for all your fodder storage, and the extension and streamlining of the farm household allowance. We're making sure that the Regional Investment Corporation that we set up and that the Labor Party wants to get rid of is focused on making sure that, when the recovery phase comes, we're able to deliver an outcome back to regional Australia to keep the cash flow going. The stimulus package is a million dollars per council. I'm sure there is more we can do. I know that the Prime Minister has been made aware of that by the ardent efforts of such people as the member for Maranoa in making sure we go forward with a drought policy that actually delivers on this crisis. A great example of how a government works is how they deal with a crisis. Away from all the theatrics there is something very important: who is providing a path of real policy to deal with the crisis of the drought? I would suggest that the National Party and the Liberal Party, supported by such people as the member for Kennedy, are doing that. I would suggest that the Labor Party have said nothing. They have shown that, when a crisis is at their door, they have nothing to say except theatre— Mr Drum 56430 Negativity. Mr JOYCE E5D and negativity. They never come forward and challenge us with real policies. It is all a rhetorical flourish. As we are speaking here today, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018 is showing precisely that. We are bringing forward the legislation to support Australian farmers. This is merely part of what is to come. I think it's going to be very important for people—it's good to see Councillor Webb and Mr Bede Burke in the gallery today—to understand that this parliament is hard at work helping them, making sure that we ask the questions and deliver on the outcomes so that we can get fodder from Western Australia over to Tamworth, Gunnedah and the Upper Hunter, an area quite relieved that they now have an advocate who takes agriculture in their area seriously. It's going to be an interesting test today: will the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for agriculture, in the middle of a record drought, get a question up? Once more the only ones that people in regional Australia can truly rely upon are the National Party and the Liberal Party. 12:07 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy It was very good to go to Brisbane, where there were three ex-treasurers and two ex-premiers of Queensland, to listen to Sir Leo Hielscher. Two of the three biggest bridges in Australia are named for Sir Leo Hielscher. I think he was the outstanding figure in economic administration in the nation's last hundred years. A tribute to him was that so many important people—there were four ex-ministers as well, myself being one of them—were in that room for his address. For me it was Paradise Lost. Was the world ever really like that? The budgerigar media and the lily-pad lefties say, 'But Bjelke-Petersen; they are corrupt.' There was never a single case of corruption; there were four ministers who misused their personal travel allowance money. That's not government corruption; government corruption is when you do a job for somebody, the public benefit is involved and you get recompense for that. There was never any of that. It was all police corruption. I am going sideways; let me return. I would ask the budgerigars supposedly in government to listen to what I am saying. You can see the minister is having a little chat with his mate over here. If he were to listen to me, he might find out what needs to be done in these situations, because I was in a government which successfully dealt with them. The price of sugar in Queensland in the eighties dropped clean in half, as it does regularly. It is a cyclical effect that occurs, like a drought. You have to be ready for it. A well-run government has to know how to handle it. I point out to the people listening to this debate that the minister is now having a chat with somebody else, and that's what I would probably be doing if I were in his shoes, because he's been in those shoes for some time, I am informed, and he has done absolutely nothing about the drought. What we did was immediately discuss with the state bank a reconstruction loans approach. The head of the bank said no; so we asked him again and again and again. When two weeks were up, according to the media, we sacked him. Whether we sacked him or not, I will leave that to somebody else to say. After his departure from the state bank, I had primary responsibility for it. The Treasurer, Bill Gunn, and I were very close friends. We worked closely together and we discussed it. As usual, we put out, I think, about $700 million or $800 million in loans to the sugar industry. I want to repeat that, while I have been telling the minister what a successful government did to deal with these problems, he has been constantly talking. He is not the slightest bit interested in finding out what to do, which leaves it open to me to savagely attack him for having no interest whatsoever in solutions to this problem. We borrowed $700 million or $800 million. We bought out the banks so that the sugar industry— Mr Littleproud interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 He is now laughing, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will give a running commentary on his performance while I'm speaking. People will enjoy this. We're talking about a situation where it would appear that a farmer is doing away with himself every five or six days, and he is laughing! Mr Littleproud interjecting— Mr KATTER HX4 And now he is screaming abuse. So he talks to his mates, he laughs and then he screams abuse. What is he going to do next? We put the $700 million out so that the farmers owed nothing to the banks. They now owed it to the state bank, which was called the QIDC. We were borrowing it at a little under three per cent at the time, so we were able to put the loans out to farmers at three per cent. If they owed $1 million at the time, they were probably on about 10 per cent interest, so it was $100,000 in interest, and they were probably up for about $50,000 in repayments. So the cane farmer was up for $150,000 a year. They now owed the money to the Reconstruction Board and all they had to find was $30,000 a year—not $150,000 a year. Within two years, as we knew it would, the upcycle occurred—the price of sugar doubled. The farmers went to commercial interest rates, and Bill Gunn and I, as part of the Bjelke-Petersen government, made some $200 or $300 million in profit, because we now held those loans. Not only did it not cost the taxpayers any money; the taxpayers made money out of it. At all times we knew that that would occur, because we had at our disposal the greatest administrator the country has ever seen in the form of Sir Leo Hielscher. He was offered a position at the World Bank. I'm most certainly very proud to say that I am very much a protege of Sir Leo Hielscher. The greatest fighter for Hell's Gate and the Bradfield scheme in Australia was none other than Sir Leo Hielscher. It's no surprise that I was the No. 2 fighter for that area. What we did was just quietly make available Reconstruction Board loans. I believe that my son was not very interested in politics initially. What got him interested was when, as part of an inquiry, he went around Queensland talking about the possibility of a reconstruction board. He assumed that people on the committee were listening when every single person they spoke to said that they wanted no further debt. At every meeting—albeit I attended only three—Robbie Katter said that people wanted no further debt. You can bet London to a brick that this government will offer them further debt. They won't offer them reconstruction of their debt; they will offer them further debt, which is specifically what people said they didn't want. When it came to a vote on this committee, he expected that both Labor and Liberal would agree, because clearly that was what every single person who had gone before the committee had said. To his shock and horror—and I think 'shock' is the right word—he couldn't believe it. Here's the logical thing to do. You know it works. It's been tried a million times. Every government in Australian history has done it. It was the essence of the Country Party philosophy. Yet, here they are, both sides, voting against it. I think his shock led him to believe that he had a job to do in politics. From that day forth he was a person who didn't want to get into it and was trying to get out of it. He became very, very dedicated and passionate in his belief. I want to say some positive things about previous people in positions of power. Wayne Swan called a debt round table with Rowell Walton, the president of Katter's Australian Party. Rowell called a meeting with Wayne Swan and myself, and we got a debt round table. Out of that debt round table we had $450 million made available. We thank former Treasurer Swan for that. Barnaby Joyce attended another meeting called by Rowell Walton at St George. It was very big of the former Deputy Prime Minister, because he knew that we were a competing political party. But he was a big enough man to go to that meeting and provided $200 million on top of the $450 million. Then Robbie Katter called the last meeting, in which Alan Jones was the main feature item. At that meeting former Deputy Prime Minister Joyce put another $150 million aside. Again, we thank him for his approach. This is the very sad part, they gave that money to the LNP government of Queensland. I think the member for Groom—I'm never too sure of these things—might be the member sitting here at the table. I don't know— Mr Littleproud 265585 No, mate, I'm Maranoa. I'm your neighbour. Mr KATTER HX4 Again, he's laughing and joking. Whilst people out there are doing away with themselves he is laughing and joking. That is true. He just laughed and joked. Don't say it's not true. It's on the record. The radio will have picked up that you were laughing and joking. The tragedy of this was that Wayne Swan, former Treasurer, ALP, and Joyce, National Party—not LNP; National Party—are both from outside Queensland, in the sense that their parties are controlled from outside Queensland. They gave $750 million. It was given to the LNP government of Queensland, and they did not go to a reconstruction board. They did not reconstruct the loans. They gave them further debt. Very seldom in my entire life have I heard my son shocked and in trauma, but when the figures came out he said, 'The figures have come out. At the back of Queensland, principally North and Central Queensland, the subject of the cattle collapse'—he's had a lot to do with the cattle collapse, as a result of the ALP's actions on live cattle—'out of 2,500 cattlemen who needed that assistance they have given it to four people.' Four people got that assistance. We worked like dogs down here to get $450 million. God bless former Treasurer Swan, because he took pain in getting the $450 million made available. God bless Barnaby Joyce, because he took pain in getting that money made available. In good faith they gave to it the state government—the LNP government of Queensland—and they gave it to nobody. I said that we were suffering one suicide every three weeks and I was corrected. A number of people venomously attacked me, because it was one every two weeks in the industry. Don't think about graziers here; think about the contractors, the workers and the businesses that depend upon this industry. But four people got it. The policy of this current government is exactly the same as the policy of the LNP in Queensland. The minister comes out of the LNP in Queensland. It is exactly the same policy. Now, I've spoken to the Prime Minister personally. I have pleaded on my bended knees to go to a reconstruction board approach. Theodore, Chifley, Curtin, McEwen and Doug Anthony, arguably the greatest men in the political history of this nation, all went to a reconstruction board. They knew what needed to be done. But if you can't go to a reconstruction board then you are simply imposing more pain and more debt upon the people. It is counterproductive in the extreme. Having said those things that needed to be said, I put it before the Prime Minister. I went to see the last Prime Minister. He stared at his watch and he stared out the window. I may as well have had a conversation with a gum tree. The next morning I went down to see Arthur Sinodinos. I told him what had transpired. He, like a good and faithful minister, said nothing. He said: 'Shut up. What do you want?' I named four things. He said, 'Have your chief of staff in my office at 10.30 tomorrow morning.' By half past 11 that day, we had the four things through. I don't think I contributed in any way to the downfall of Mr Turnbull. I most certainly contributed to the downfall of Julia Gillard. She was responsible for the live cattle decision, and she copped it. What, did she really think that I was going to walk away and not break a leg if someone did that? Running commentary: the minister is talking again at the table. At no stage has he listened to anything we've said, just like the LNP people that went on the inquiry all over Queensland and didn't listen to anything that the people there said. They just won't listen! The second thing that needs to be done is on grain. There has to be feed. A grant to people using grain is absolutely essential. I mean, the cattle have to be fed. To feed the cattle, you have got to do that. I might add, in conclusion, that Hell's Gate would feed a million head of cattle a year. Wouldn't that be a weapon? Hughenden and Charters Towers—two little projects we put before the Prime Minister—would feed 300,000 head of cattle a year. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had that weapon at our disposal as well? 12:22 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018 is an important bill to have the opportunity to talk to, because we all know that the drought is cutting right throughout regional Australia right now. I must admit, though, I find it difficult to sit here in silence when the Labor Party come in here and start espousing the values of the Labor Party and what they're doing to try and help our farmers. What they do and what they say they will do in government is quite scary and it spreads a lot of fear through the farmers in my area of Murray. I don't come to the parliament and profess to be an expert on the union movement. I don't understand how these new workers in the Melbourne infrastructure projects that the government is going to build are going to get $50 an hour, and $100 an hour for Sunday work. The average labourer is going to pick up $150,000 a year from Daniel Andrews. The taxpayers in Victoria are going to have to pay for that. I don't understand how the union movement works. I imagine the Labor Party have full expertise on how the union movement works. But to have the Labor Party turn up here and tell us that they are the party for the farmers, I find that a little bit of a stretch too far. I talk to the leaders of my area and I watch Labor Party policy. There is no support for agriculture from within the Labor Party's leadership. It starts first and foremost with water policy. We know very clearly that, when it comes to setting water policy in place that is going to enable irrigators right up and down the Murray-Darling Basin to afford to grow their produce in an efficient and profitable manner, the Labor Party, along with the Greens, are the biggest opponents to those two million people that live along the Murray-Darling Basin. They are the ones who are going to make water so expensive that, effectively, we're not going to be able to grow the produce that we have been able to grow for as long as we can remember. It is the Labor Party who are going to make sure that even more water is taken out of the consumptive irrigators' pool and put into the environment, effectively creating a tipping point. We have these Labor Party people who come in here and talk about agriculture and who have no idea what their water policies are going to do to agriculture. And, yet, they still maintain that somehow they are miraculously on the side of farmers. It is just a joke. They don't understand exactly how directly their cutting policies are going to hurt people in the irrigation areas of the Murray-Darling Basin. We understand that this drought makes the debate around water policy even more succinct and heightened to another degree again. So we have to put in place now the policies that are going to effectively help farmers today, as best as we possibly can, and help them through this time. In my patch right now, farmers are making the incredibly heartbreaking decision to maybe cut their crops for hay. Some farmers will be saying, 'No, there is enough in them that we will give them the chance to get further spring rains so that we'll be able to get the crops through and be able to harvest them around Christmas time.' But this decision is being made right now, right throughout southern New South Wales and Victoria. When you have to make that decision to cut your crop for hay, it's heartbreaking. It means that your profits in that particular crop are going to be less. You'll get your money back, plus a little bit. Ultimately it's all going to depend on the price of fodder. To deal with this, this bill is putting in place an accounting procedure that's going to make it much more attractive for people to prepare for storage of fodder into the future. So, as has been said throughout the debate this morning, the ability for farmers to increase the numbers of bunkers for silage and the numbers of silos and various bins around farms that are going to help them store their grain won't be used to help people through this drought as much as it will be used for future dry periods right throughout Australia. We've already seen the instant asset write-off have an enormous impact on a whole range of businesses, not just farming businesses. The instant asset write-off has been able to create a real opportunity for many people in small business to further invest in their business and have that offset against their tax. It's become very, very important. We've also seen the outcomes of some of the measures that we currently have in place, not just for the drought. Before I first came into the federal parliament, we had the milk crisis. We had processors that were offering a price that was unsustainable and then, all of a sudden, they had to make an announcement and come clean and then start clawing that money back out of dairy farmers. They had paid them at a price that was unsustainable. We saw the farm household allowance ramped up at that stage to enable more and more farmers to gain access to it. Under the government and Minister Littleproud's watch during this drought period, we've seen that farm household allowance increased to $37,000, with the new additional money being paid over two instalments. We've also seen a reduction in the amount of paperwork that is needed for mums and dads and individuals to be able to get onto the farm household allowance. We have also seen an enormous uptake in the number of people who have been able to access low-interest loans. Again, these are things that are tangible and have been able to assist farmers as they go through this incredibly tough period. Right now, the government has Major General Stephen Day working as the Drought Coordinator. There are a whole raft of people out there in the community who are trying to assist in any way they possibly can. I bumped into a great mate of mine, Kevin Sheedy, recently. He was trying to work out with the Essendon Football Club and some of their supporters how they could move into the market and buy hay for the farmers of the Riverina and throughout New South Wales. When you've got people whose hearts are right behind the farmers and right behind the agriculture sector, you need someone like Major General Stephen Day, who can get all these different actors in the industry coordinated so that we can actually get the best bang for our buck. Barnaby Joyce has now been appointed as the drought envoy. You've heard some of the figures. Thousands and thousands of tonnes of grain are being accessed in Western Australia and brought over to the eastern seaboard by Barnaby Joyce and his connections. Again, they are trying to source the produce from various parts of Australia where we actually have grain and fodder, and bring it over to the eastern states where the ravaging of the drought is worst. But, again, we need special people out there who understand what's really going on and who also understand the difficulty of bringing that produce over to the East. We also argued as hard and as fiercely as we possibly could with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder about whether they had the capacity to release more water into the market, to lower the price of that water so that it could have found its way to the fodder producers three weeks ago, who would then have been in a good position to grow the lucerne that we were looking for. It's good to see that we've got both Minister Littleproud and Barnaby Joyce from this place bringing together the drought packages and drought assistance. We've also got Major General Stephen Day as the overall coordinator and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer putting in place financial bills like this that are going to assist farmers to make the investments that they need so that they can be better prepared for future droughts. This is a horrible situation that exists in our regions at the moment, and it's probably going to get worse as we move into the summer months. We need a government that is going to be receptive—in the way that the government is already—but it's a reality that we are also probably going to need more and more assistance in the months to come. 12:32 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden I thank all those members who have contributed to this debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. It's an important issue in our national discourse. The government well and truly recognises the need to support Australian families during difficult times, with drought being one of the most difficult. One way we're doing this, of course, is to help farmers better droughtproof their properties. Some four weeks ago, on 19 August, the government announced an instant depreciation initiative for fodder storage assets. This bill gives effect to that announcement. The government is moving, legislating, and acting quickly. This measure amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to allow primary producers, from 19 August this year, to immediately deduct the cost of fodder storage assets, such as silos or hay sheds used to store grain and other animal feed. Previously, primary producers generally had to deduct the cost of fodder storage assets over an extended period of some three years. Implementing this instant depreciation initiative will certainly assist farmers. It will make it easier to stockpile fodder, and farmers will no longer have to track the depreciation of fodder storage assets for more than one year for tax purposes. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Fenner has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the member for Fenner be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 69 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Katter, RC Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM McGowan, C Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 71 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Consideration in Detail 36 12:45 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy The best way to explain the amendment I am moving is this: if I am a farmer, or a business supplying the farms, or a worker in trouble because of what's happening, and let us say I owe $1 million, I am now paying about $90,000 in interest and about $40,000 or $50,000 in repayments, so I have to meet $150,000 a year or be sold up. Under this arrangement all I have to meet is the government borrowing interest rate, which is about three per cent, so instead of paying $150,000 this year, all I have to find is $30,000. Thanks very much to the efforts of Treasurer Wayne Swan and the family assistance scheme, I can get my income topped up with welfare payments and I'll almost certainly be able to meet that $30,000 a year of repayments. This worked for us in the sugar industry, where the head of the state bank said he wasn't going to provide a reconstruction approach. According to the newspapers we sacked him nine days later, but he had said that 25 per cent of the industry had to go. We said: 'That's ridiculous; you don't know what you're talking about. It's a cyclical industry; the price will be back up in the next two or three years.' The only thing that went was him. We put the money out and about four per cent of the farmers still went down, but we successfully brought through over 20 per cent of the farmers that would have gone down. The many free marketeers in this place would argue that we made a hell of a lot of money out of it because, when the prices doubled, as they did the next year—we said over the next two or three years, but it was the very next year—we went to commercial interest rates and made about $200 million out of the deal. That's the difference between public servants and career politicians—on both sides of the house—and people with hard hands and hard hats on, who backed their judgement with their own money. Having said that, I again thank and pay very great tribute to both Treasurer Swan and Minister Joyce, who did the right thing in giving away that money. The Queensland LNP government, who touted themselves as successors to the National Party, which they're not, did it in such a way that no-one got any benefits at the end at all. I heap great praise on then Treasurer Swan not only for that but also for his welfare payments, the family farm assistance benefits, which are now carrying nearly 10 per cent of farmers in Australia. If you look at some of these things, you have to wonder whose side the LNP is on. You just can't say that they're on our side—hence my voting for the last piece of legislation. This needs to be done. It is the way to handle it. It costs the taxpayers no money, and it will give real assistance. If we continue to go down the pathway laid down by the LNP and past Labor and Liberal governments, it will continue to cost the taxpayers money and provide no benefit to the farmer. I have not had time—and I apologise—to distribute this earlier to the House. We got some wrong advice on timing. I take great pleasure in moving the amendment: (1) Page 2 (after line 6), after clause 2, insert: 2A Rural Loan Reconstruction Authority (1) When the necessary appropriation is approved by the Parliament, the Minister be authorised to borrow whatever funds are necessary to provide a Rural Loan Reconstruction Authority. The Authority is to provide a process by which the bank debt is bought out and all of the debt transferred to the Reconstruction Authority. The Reconstruction Authority is to borrow at the current Government borrowing rate providing the farmer with a Government interest only liability. (2) The Reconstruction Authority will not provide finance for farmers and contractors and farm-workers or industry where there is not long term viability. But, it will reduce/eliminate the annual liabilities of the borrower of other punitive, discretionary charges will be removed as well as the common rate of interest. It will remove the liability for repayments and in most cases the onerous 6 monthly valuations. It also removes the debt to equity trigger that bankrupts farmers who have been meeting faithfully their annual liabilities to the banks ( interest repayments). Typically, a farm supply business may owe $1 million, in the current climate they would be paying 8 ½% interest, with bank charges and impositions an extra 1 ½ %. On top of these repayments over 20 years would add $50 000 a year to $100 000 he is already facing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Mr KATTER HX4 We'll abide by that judgement, despite the fact that we have not had time to advise people of the content. We thank the House for its time. Bill agreed to. Third Reading 37 12:50 Mr ROBERT HWT Fadden by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 37

My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018

Second Reading 37 12:51 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders The intent of the My Health Records Act has always been clear: to help improve the health care of all Australians and to ensure that health information is managed safely and securely in the My Health Record system. The government recognises that you cannot have one without the other. The My Health Record system is changing the nature of health care in Australia for the better. It is increasingly becoming a standard feature of good health care. More than six million Australians are, I am advised, already experiencing the benefits, with access to important health information when and where it is needed so that the right treatment can be delivered more safely and faster. When the predecessor to this was first brought to the parliament under the previous Labor government, it passed through both houses of the parliament, I am advised, with not just bipartisan support but unanimous support. I know that, when the updating legislation was brought to the parliament in 2015, it was also passed unanimously through the House and through the Senate. That was to facilitate and enable opt-out. I welcome the presence of the member for Ballarat in the chamber. She said in relation to the measures to allow the opt-out at the time and the measures which were included in the bill, 'We think they are sensible measures.' She was correct then. Since then, I would note that on 15 May 2018 the member for Ballarat said: Labor welcomes that the Turnbull Government has at long last announced the opt-out process for the national rollout of electronic health records. Three days later, she reaffirmed: Now the My Health Record is something we've supported—we've supported the Government in having an opt-out approach … There was a slight change some weeks later, but I understand they still support the opt-out. They do not support the current timing. That is, however, at odds with the position of the RACGP and the AMA. We recently had a reaffirmation of support for the opt-out approach at COAG unanimously, from all states and territories. This is an important development that will help save lives and protect lives. As the President of the AMA, Tony Bartone, said in his article in The Sydney Morning Herald, this can save lives. He gave examples of where it can do that. So to further delay it would be a very poor outcome. The government will not be supporting, therefore, those amendments, given the advice of the medical professionals, given the progress to date and given the actions we are taking in the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018. In advice given before the Senate this week the head of the Digital Health Agency noted that the opt-out rate so far has been significantly lower than the government had anticipated. We had anticipated a 10 per cent opt-out; at this point it's about three per cent. There's more to go, so we won't make a final prediction, but it's significantly lower than we had anticipated. We had not been anticipating any significant uptick in voluntary opt-ins, given that the process will soon be complete, and that was significantly higher, according to the Digital Health Agency head, Mr Tim Kelsey, than was anticipated. I thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this bill. This bill will strengthen the privacy protections for the My Health Record system, and remove any doubt as to how seriously the government takes the security of health information. The bill will provide additional confidence and additional protections, and it will remove the ability of the system operator, in particular, to disclose health information to law enforcement bodies and other government bodies without a court order or express consent from the consumer. The bill will also require the system operator to delete health information that it holds for any consumer who has cancelled their My Health Record. Once they cancel it, it will be deleted forever. The legislative changes further strengthen the existing privacy controls that apply to every My Health Record. They build on a system that was designed and implemented after consultation with consumers, privacy advocates and experts, health sector representatives, health software providers, medical indemnity insurers, and state and territory governments. The protections enshrined in this bill are some of the strongest in the Commonwealth. Once a consumer has a My Health Record they can set a range of access controls. For example, they can set up an access code so that only those organisations they elect can access their record, and they can be notified when their record is accessed. The My Health Record is an important—indeed, fundamental—piece of our national health infrastructure. It addresses a critical problem with the Australian health system. Our health information is fragmented and spread across a vast number of locations and systems. This problem is a longstanding one and its costs are well understood. The benefits of a safe and secure system are significant for all Australians in terms of health and economic outcomes through avoided hospital admissions, fewer adverse drug events, reduced duplication of tests, better coordination of care for people who are seeing multiple healthcare providers, and better-informed treatment decisions. Against that background, I respect and appreciate the contributions made, not just within this House but also outside it, by different people to provide the additional elements in relation to public confidence and security. It's a system that has been operating extraordinarily well for six years, with six million participants to date. I think in years to come it will be seen as a critical and fundamental basis for the Australian healthcare system. It will save lives and protect lives, simply—to use the words of the president of the AMA, no less. I particularly want to thank the AMA and the College of General Practitioners for their role and their leadership in working with the government on these changes. I would note that the Senate is currently inquiring, and we'll address and consider any issues that are raised in its report. I am open to discussions on those, subject to their not interfering with the fundamental integrity of the system. That will allow further matters to be dealt with within the Senate—and I say that in a genuine, positive spirit, to the opposition and others in the chamber and within the parliament. The Australian government is committed to the My Health Record system, because it is changing health care in Australia for the better and because it can and will save and protect lives, at the very moment that people are most likely to need access to that information but may be the least capable of providing it because of accident, emergency, crisis, or physical or mental inability—for example, if they are having a major attack. The Australian government is therefore equally committed to the privacy of individuals' health information. These measures to strengthen the privacy protections demonstrate this commitment and appropriately balance the need to protect personal health information with the benefit of clear and consolidated health information to support clinical decisions. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Ballarat has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Ballarat be agreed to.

The House divided. [13:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

67 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Ellis, KM Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Jones, SP Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swan, WM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilson, JH Zappia, A 72 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 Third Reading 40 13:10 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 40

Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017

Second Reading 40 13:10 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I thank the House for the opportunity speak on the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 and to indicate to the House that Labor will be supporting this bill. It is part of the enabling legislation to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Absent the connection that it has as an enabling piece for the CPTPP, which is slightly more controversial, I think this bill before us would be largely uncontroversial. What this bill does is implement a more accessible judicial review process to allow suppliers to challenge procurement decisions if and when they feel the rules have not been appropriately followed. It means that small and medium sized businesses are likely to benefit from this new arrangement. For those in the broader community who have expressed their concerns to us, it's important to remember that nothing in this bill will further restrict the Commonwealth's procurement arrangements as they stand. As I said, the bill will provide suppliers with a more timely, effective, transparent and non-discriminatory review process when it comes to breaches of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, the CPRs. This might include, for example, where an agency sets a deadline for responses to a tender of less than 25 days, despite the procurement not meeting the conditions for shorter time frames specified in the rules. The bill allows suppliers to ask the Federal Circuit Court to review their case instead of the Federal Court. This is an important change, because, by allowing it to be heard at that level, it's likely to be cheaper, faster and more readily available for suppliers in regional areas. The new review procedure will allow earlier intervention to preserve a supplier's opportunity to participate in a tender process if they feel that they have been inappropriately excluded. And, if a breach does occur, it allows for corrective action before the tender has been finalised or, in some cases, it allows for compensation. While big multinationals have the resources to navigate our current review arrangements before they are changed by this bill, what this change does is gives the small and medium sized opportunities better opportunities to hold the Commonwealth to account, and that's very important. The amendment that I'm moving to this bill really reflects some of the concerns that we have with the broader procurement process. As I said, we will be supporting this bill because it's expected to benefit Australian businesses, but we do feel that there is a bit of a failure to maximise all of the opportunities of the broader $50 billion a year procurement program. Obviously, as a significant purchaser of goods and services, the Commonwealth should demonstrate best-practice procurement—that's a no-brainer—while ensuring it achieves value for taxpayers' money and also complies with its important international obligations. In that context of the broader procurement rules, we welcome the government's introduction of an assessment of economic benefits in Commonwealth procurement. That does provide an opportunity for a more detailed assessment of value for money. But the Public Service doesn't yet seem to be embracing the approach as much as it could. So we indicate that we on this side of the House believe that more can be done to ensure that the new test of economic benefit can be maximised and that here in this chamber we are doing all we can to support Australian jobs. That's why I'll be moving the second reading amendment in my name: 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 disapproves of the Government's failure to properly maximise the opportunities for Australian businesses in the Commonwealth Government's $50 billion procurement program". I know that a number of my colleagues will want to speak to that amendment, because a lot of members in this House who represent manufacturing areas or other areas where there are key suppliers—perhaps to the defence industry or other industries—have well-considered and well-formed views about how we can get a bigger slice of the action for Australian companies, particularly in our regional and outer suburban areas, not just in the big cities, so that they can get their chance to participate in the procurement program. As part of that we also need to fix up the transparency issues in procurement. In my own portfolio this is quite stark in the area of contractors, consultants and labour hire firms. Spending on these categories of tenders has grown in an extraordinary way over the past five years. Labour hire spending has tripled. There's been a big blowout in contractors and consultants. There are a whole range of reasons for that, which I've gone into in other forums. But the point I would make is that when we are spending so much money as a country, as a government, on contractors, consultants and labour hire, we need to do all we can to make sure that the spending is transparent. We need to make sure that Australians know exactly how much money is being spent on external contractors and consultants. That's why we on this side of the House have already indicated that we will ensure that government spending and procurement data is collected in a central database, including contract reporting and consultancy spending, and we will require agencies to keep records of some contractors used. Our intention is to make sure future governments can't hide or obfuscate the spending going on in these areas, in the Public Service in particular. As I said before, this bill is part of getting our ducks in a row to be part of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the CPTPP. It will have some other benefits in terms of other agreements. The World Trade Organization agreement is another one that is relevant here. In agreeing this, in passing this bill through the House today, we, along with the government, will be doing our bit to make sure that the other pieces of the puzzle are in place for us to join those agreements. Labor and the labour movement of course have a very strong record when it comes to trade and when it comes to being part of international agreements, which create jobs here in Australia and create prosperity for our people. For example, the tariff reforms of Hawke and Keating are one of the reasons we've had almost 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth. The average Australian household's real income is now $8,448 higher because of these reforms, according to analysis done in 2017. It was Labor who began the negotiations for the original TPP in Melbourne in 2010, if I remember rightly; the trade minister at the time was probably Simon Crean. So these negotiations have been going on for some time. We were there at the beginning. Obviously there have been a number of substantial changes to the agreement and to the parties involved in the agreement, principally the United States, since that starting point eight years ago. The CPTPP will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs in a trade zone spanning the Asia-Pacific, with a combined GDP worth $13.7 trillion. That means that our farmers, our manufacturers and our services exporters will benefit from new market access opportunities in economies that have nearly 500 million consumers, and obviously that's very important. It's important to also recognise the deal has changed not just in the member countries but also in the inclusions. It now represents 13 per cent of the world's GDP, and some of the more controversial provisions from the original agreement with the Americans in it have been shelved for now, such as for biologics, copyright and other aspects as well. We think that the increased market access to the deal will have noticeable benefits for manufacturers of raw materials like iron and steel, the resource sector, agricultural producers, and the list goes on. There are a whole range of things that will be said in the broader conversation about the CPTPP. There are a whole range of reasons why we have said that we will support the agreement, but we have some substantial reservations around the ISDS provision and the labour market testing provision and we will seek to change and improve those if and when we come into office. That's an important way that we can not just keep faith with the promised upsides of trade and jobs the agreement can help create but also ensure it's the best possible version of a trade deal. There are some favourable aspects in this deal around the environment and labour protections, but there are those substantial downsides. We have indicated that we will seek to change them at the first opportunity. I wanted to pay tribute as well to a colleague, the shadow minister for trade, who has also proposed a whole range of other measures which will improve the way that we strike trade agreements in this country so that there is more visibility for the broader community—the union movement, the business community and the NGOs—giving them opportunities, also making sure that we do rigorous economic modelling so that we're arguing not on the basis of ideology but on the basis of credible, reliable, robust modelling so that the parliament can do its job, armed with the full information, as deals move from being prospective deals to deals which a government of either persuasion is asking the parliament to support. We have a whole range of things that we would like to do in the trade area to make sure that we are striking more progressive trade agreements which do more to ensure that we get the upsides of trade without those substantial risks around particularly the labour force. What this trade agreement doesn't do is restrict Australia's procurement arrangements from any form of preference to benefit small and medium enterprises. It doesn't restrict our procurement from being able to protect national treasures. It doesn't restrict it from implementing measures for the health, welfare and economic and social advancement of Indigenous people. We want to make sure that when the next agreement comes to us—which will be the WTO agreement—it doesn't constrain those things either. We're satisfied here that there is enough room for Australia to do the right thing by its people. We want to make sure that we can say the same thing about the WTO agreement when it's finished as well. As I said at the outset, Labor will support the bill. We believe very firmly that the Commonwealth could do more to maximise the benefits of the tens of billions of dollars that we spend every year on procurement. We think more could be done to ensure we're investing in local jobs so that the Australian people are getting the economic benefit from the money that we as a government invest. The bill is expected to help small and medium-sized businesses. That's a good thing. A more timely and accessible review process will give them more accessible power and more affordable power when they feel like they have been hard done by under the Commonwealth procurement rules. The other thing which is important—and another reason why we support this bill—is that strengthening the governance of procurement arrangements around the world will give our country and our businesses the opportunity to participate in procurement elsewhere, confident that there are appeal mechanisms if things go awry. So, for all those reasons, we do support this bill. We have some reservations about the broader program and the CPTPP which we hope to fix, but overall this limited and narrow bill that we're dealing with now is good for Australian businesses, and that's why we're on board. 13:24 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo I second the amendment. I'm pleased to support this amendment moved by my colleague, and to speak on the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, because, as outlined, whilst it's not a controversial bill, it does give me an opportunity to talk about the role that government procurement can play in our country and, in particular, its importance to the regions. As mentioned, this bill relates to the CPTPP, which we have just debated in this House. I again want to express my concern about that agreement. I really stress and push the government to consider what they are doing to ensure that we protect local manufacturing jobs, particularly in relation to procurement. Any government, federal or state, is a big procurer of services. In the past, we have seen more and more of those services and goods outsourced to overseas contractors. One example is defence uniforms. Combat uniforms are proudly manufactured in my electorate. ADA, Australian Defence Apparel, manufactures those uniforms. This secures about 100 high-skilled jobs in my electorate, predominantly for women, but, of course, they are on a lower pay scale when compared to other defence manufacturing industries. The dress uniforms contract came up under this government and, because of their procurement policies, that contract went overseas, to Vietnam. Even though it was ADA, this government did not go for the local procurement option; it went for the overseas procurement option. Overseas manufacturing is being brought in. If that contract had stayed in our country, and if that procurement contract had stayed in Bendigo, it would have created between 50 and 70 jobs in Bendigo or in Melbourne, where their other facility is located. That demonstrates how we as a country, and as a government, could use our purchasing dollar more effectively. We as a country haven't yet worked out or valued what it means to have people employed. Other countries, particularly those in the TPP, have worked it out. They have worked out that, if you have local people working in local manufacturing, their wages stay in that region. Other countries have worked out that, if you have local businesses supplying into those supply chains, it benefits local economies. We're starting to get there, as a country, but we need to get there pretty quickly, because far too many of our local manufacturers are in competition with overseas manufacturers. At the moment, when this government compares contracts, it doesn't take into account the value of having local people employed in those jobs and the impact that has on local economies. It doesn't take into account the supply chain jobs. This bill gives us an opportunity to raise the importance of government procurement for our local regions. If we look at the supply chain, for example, paper and other forestry products, we could be sitting down with the timber industry and talking about how this government could be supporting this industry by ensuring that as much local content as possible—not just our paper but other wood and fibre products as well—is included in those contracts. When government focuses on securing as much local procurement as possible, those contracts become the foundation contracts for many of our small to medium-sized manufacturers, and it allows other industries to then seed off that. It becomes an ongoing, continuous contract, which gives them the certainty to keep their doors open. This is why, when we start talking about being a global country and making sure that we are satisfying our obligations under the WTO, we really sell ourselves short there, particularly when we look at the illegal dumping that is going on in our country. A lot of our manufacturers say that, if we could we just get to WTO standards, it would give our industry more protection. The legislation that is before us will help in some way, but we need to do better. Illegal dumping—where really cheap product is dumped on markets—is economically driven and is designed to crash local product and local production, so that they can then up the price. This is occurring in our country. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the member for Bendigo can seek continuation. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 43 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS National Week of Deaf People 43 13:29 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta I am pleased to acknowledge the Deaf community in Australia this National Week of Deaf People. This week is a time for all of us to recognise the Deaf community's contributions and culture. This is the first time this event will happen at the same time in Australia as around the world. So congratulations. That's my favourite—congratulations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Congratulations to the member for Parramatta. Ms OWENS E09 I am looking forward to celebrating with my Deaf community at the Deaf Festival on 20 October at the Parramatta River. I would also like to say thank you to the Deaf Society for supporting me to make this speech in Auslan. Thanks to Kate. Happy National Week of Deaf People. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 I applaud the member for Parramatta. Gilmore Electorate: Shoalhaven Youth Drama Awards 43 13:31 Mrs SUDMALIS 241586 Gilmore Wow! Member for Parramatta, you're amazing. On 16 September, as patron of the Nowra Players, I was invited to see some of the talented young actors of the Shoalhaven at the annual Youth Drama Awards. These talented young women and men delivered a range of performances, including the outstanding Damn You William, performed by Eleanor Petricevic, Hannah Brookes and Phoebe Sherer. It was an entertaining and remarkable five-minute perspective on Shakespeare. These three young women also delivered solo performances demonstrating their talents across different dramatic works. I was very impressed by all the performances, and I also commend the skills, talent and professionalism shown by Lucy Hadfield, Sammi Vella, Aidan Sezenenko, Emma De Costa, Ceradwen Cole, Lulu Clarke, Morgan Dootson and Bonnie Butler. The presentations included Amelia and A Woman Alone, which were great references to the strong roles of women in different social settings, breaking ground where women had not previously excelled. For me it was a perfect way for some of these young actors to start their journey of women making a difference. Congratulations to all involved from the Nowra Players in keeping and growing a strong dramatic arts presence in the Shoalhaven. Our dramatic artists' presence has been maintained for 50 years in the same building, as they proudly say, and they continue to present fantastic productions every year, constantly booked out almost as soon as they announce them. Vietnam: Human Rights 43 13:32 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I congratulate the member for Hotham for arranging a meeting of the Vietnamese community here in Parliament House today to discuss human rights. I particularly welcome Paul Nguyen, the President of the VCA, and all his delegation. I thank them for their longstanding commitment to freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. I am privileged to represent one of the largest Vietnamese communities in the country. This has given me the opportunity to learn much about the Vietnamese community, particularly about their struggle for the recognition of human rights in their homeland. In Vietnam today, the government maintains a monopoly of political power, supported by a justice system that fails to consistently apply the rule of law. I am pleased, however, to learn that the Vietnamese authorities have released prominent human rights lawyer Nguyen Van Dai and his colleague Le Thu Ha. Both are now living in exile. I'm also happy to learn from the Australian embassy this week that Tran Huynh Duy Thuc, who has been on a hunger strike protesting the treatment of prisoners in Vietnam, has ended his hunger strike and is now being cared for. It still remains a concern that four members of the Brotherhood for Democracy, as well as a blogger commonly known as Mother Mushroom, remain in prison serving very lengthy prison sentences on charges of violating vague national security laws. I will continue to take an active interest in the matters and work with the Vietnamese community and the Australian authorities seeking the realisation of human rights in Vietnam. Deakin Electorate: Football 44 13:34 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin This coming Saturday, the eastern suburbs will come to a halt when Vermont and South Croydon face off in the Eastern Football League Division 1 grand final at Bayswater Oval. This is a replay of last year's grand final when South Croydon just got over the line. As a sponsor and a supporter of both clubs, it will be a slightly tough day for me. It will be a bit like the United Nations! I won't be picking a team other than to say we hope for a good, clean and close grand final match. I want to particularly acknowledge South Croydon president, Cathy White, her team and her volunteers as well as Vermont president, Michael Rennie, his team and his volunteers for the countless hours that they put into their respective clubs, which are both magnificent examples not just of football clubs but of community organisations that care for the community more broadly. I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Ringwood Football Club, which has had a great year both on and off the field. It was disappointing to see that they just fell short in the grand final on the weekend, but I want to congratulate them on a great season. We know bigger and better things are to come. Finally, I want to congratulate Vermont on winning the Eastern Region Girls Football League grand final. They narrowly beat Mount Evelyn. It's wonderful to see just how much women's participation in sport is increasing, particularly in our local area, and we're very pleased that Vermont got over the line. Vietnam: Human Rights 44 13:35 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham I rise today to speak on behalf of my Vietnamese-Australian constituents in Hotham and the Vietnamese-Australian community Australia-wide. I do so because today we have 100 incredible Vietnamese-Australian community leaders here in our parliament visiting us, and they are listening to these speeches in the main committee room. To the delegation, I say: 'Kinh chao. Chao don quy vi den quoc hoi lien bang Uc Chau.' I want to thank all of you for taking the time to be here for this very important discussion. The reason that this delegation has come from, really, all corners of the country is to raise the urgent situation of human rights in Vietnam. We have a community of people living in this country who have worked so hard to build an incredible life and an incredible community here in Australia, but, when they look back to Vietnam, what they see is a very tragic deterioration in the human rights situation for their cousins, their brothers and sisters, and their family members that they've left behind. We heard some incredibly important concerns about religious freedoms not being protected in Vietnam. We heard about a new draconian cybersecurity law, which we're very concerned to hear will be used to surveil the Vietnamese. We heard about some very concerning issues around the use of police powers, particularly in preventing people from engaging in peaceful protest, and some appalling treatment of people who are in prison, including deaths in custody. The Australian parliament must do more about these important issues that affect so many of our friends here in Australia and in Vietnam. Windaroo Valley State High School Pi Competition 44 13:37 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde Often when we talk about school students and pi, we think of the meat pie, like the famous Yatala pies in my electorate of Forde, but it is another pi that has been the focus of students at Windaroo Valley State High School. The other pi, the mathematical formula that pi approximately equals 22/7, represents the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. The maths teacher at Windaroo Valley high school, Michael Gardiner, better known as the 'Pi Guy', started a competition around pi—an irrational number that, when expressed as a decimal, goes on to infinity. Students had to remember as many digits as they could in the number pi, and there were some amazing results. Year 9 student Kahlos Oloapu won the competition by reciting 227 digits. He was followed by year 9's Jacinta Ferrier, who recited 157. Third place went to Ruben Kanafani, who remembered 58 digits. It's been reported that Kahlos and Jacinta apparently memorised more than 400 digits but couldn't get that far on the day. Headmaster Leonard McKeown summed it up best: The pi competition allowed a novel way for students to build memory skills to be able to achieve remarkable feats of mathematics by commitment and determination. He was in awe of the results. Well done to everyone at Windaroo Valley State High School, and I look forward to next year's competition. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 We are having a multitalented thing today. We've got sign language, languages and maths experts. Aged Care 45 13:39 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon Labor has been saying for some time that Australia's aged-care system is a system in crisis. It is a system in crisis because this Prime Minister, as Treasurer, cut almost $2 billion out of the sector and is sitting on dozens of reports into what is wrong, but refuses to act. This side of the House welcomes the royal commission into aged care, but the royal commission must look at all aspects of the aged-care system. It must look at the impact of the Prime Minister's cuts, it must look at the future funding sustainability of the sector and it must look at workforce issues and workers' pay. The royal commission is very important to Tasmania. According to the ABS census, Tasmania's population is the oldest and is ageing faster than any other part of Australia. Almost 20 per cent of our population is 65 years old or older. In my electorate, between the years 2011 and 2016, the community of Latrobe saw the greatest increase in its population in those aged over 65. Tasmanians need, right now and into the future, quality aged care. It is for these reasons the Prime Minister must ensure the royal commission holds public hearings in Tasmania. The banking royal commission did not, sadly, run anything in Tasmania, meaning that Tasmanians were forced to travel interstate just to be heard. There is no reason why Tasmanians should be treated any differently. I call on the Prime Minister to ensure Tasmania is not left off the map again. (Time expired) Bonner Electorate: Pathology Services 45 13:40 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner For most people the word 'pathology' means only one thing, but recently I was shown that it means much more than needles and blood tests. I am proud to have one of Australia's largest pathology laboratories in my electorate for Bonner. Recently, I joined John from Pathology Awareness Australia and Dr Debra Norris, John and Peter from QML for an inside look at their local lab. Located in Murarrie, QML serves people from all over Queensland, from Minister Karen Andrews's electorate of McPherson all the way up to Warren Entsch's electorate of Leichhardt and everywhere in between. The laboratory employs more than 800 people, including scientists, clinical lab technicians, administrators and pathologists. Let me tell you, it is much more than blood tests. Pathology is front and centre of the prevention, early detection and management of disease, which I got to see first firsthand at the lab at Murarrie. Using pathology testing, scientists and doctors are now able to identify causes of diseases and genetic anomalies at the cellular level, as well as being able to tailor treatments for patients based on pathology results. It is exciting medical work and is happening right here in our own backyard in Bonner. The coalition supports the pathology industry. We are spreading the message that it is not something to be afraid of. I was pleased to take part in the detecting diabetes event held right here in Parliament House last month and the prostate cancer test last week. I urge others to do the same. Pathology testing allows for early detection of health conditions, which results in better health outcomes. Seventy per cent of medical treatment decisions are based on pathology testing. (Time expired) Victor Harbor Men's Shed 45 13:42 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo There are a thousand men's sheds across Australia and many are in my electorate. Men's sheds are doing what men's sheds do best: creating safe spaces for men to connect, to learn, to laugh and to heal. Last week, I had the great pleasure of attending the opening of the Victor Harbor Men's Shed. I think it is the biggest men's shed in the electorate and possibly one of the biggest of the nation. It is two sheds; it has the woodwork shed, the metalwork shed and also a commercial-grade kitchen. I would just like to do a shout-out to the men who actually did the catering for our opening, which was very exciting. It's a wonderful group. This group started out by using a small part of the Encounter Centre for their workshop. It has grown to be their own fully-fledged men's shed on their own site, and their numbers are growing week on week. I would also like to quickly thank the Adare Uniting Church and the Victor Harbor council for coming together and helping with the initial vision. We know that men's sheds are valuable in the community. I was so pleased to meet them and help them with their Building Better Regions Fund application. I am proud of our men's sheds right across Australia. Because of Victor Harbor Men's Shed's hard work and persistence, they were able to create this wonderful asset for our whole community. A big shout-out to the men's sheds right across Australia and particularly to my ones in Mayo. Well done, Victor Harbor Men's Shed. (Time expired) Robertson Electorate: Ettalong Channel 46 13:43 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I am pleased to update the House on the matter that I raised in this place last week when I called on the New South Wales government to do whatever it takes to get the dredging of the Ettalong Channel done. It has been too long. I'm pleased to say that the New South Wales government has now announced funding of $1.225 million for the dredging of the channel, with the Central Coast Council also contributing up to the same amount. I congratulate the state member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch, and Taylor Martin MLC on their work to secure this commitment to a longer-term solution. Local businesses and residents are also pleased with this announcement but understandably are still very concerned about the need for the dredging to be completed as soon as possible. Local resident Diane Blackbourne said on Facebook: 'So many of us are frustrated at the slowness of this dredging.' Sarah Wade, a local business owner, said: 'I'm the business owner of Cosy Home Ettalong Beach. My first 18 months were sensational, but the last five months since the ferries stopped have been a disaster.' I've received hundreds of other comments like these. Local residents are crying out, saying enough is enough. I continue to encourage ongoing consultation with the local businesses and residents who are suffering every day that the channel is not dredged. The funding is a welcome announcement, and I thank the New South Wales government for this important next step, but we still need to continue to work together diligently, night and day if need be, on this issue for the sake of local businesses and residents. Thanks for the funding. Now let's get it done. Rockingham Rams Football Club 46 13:45 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I've spoken in this chamber before about the wonderful Australian Rules footy team that I get to sponsor in my hometown of Rockingham, the Rockingham Rams. In 2017, I was over the moon to be able to sponsor the first women's team of this footy club, which has been a part of the community for over 60 years. Women's footy is proving very popular, and more young women have taken up playing for Rockingham. In 2018, I was able to support another women's footy team in that club. It's a terrific club, and the young women that play there are an inspiration. It's the business end of the season for many sporting codes all around the country, and both of the Rockingham Rams women's teams made the grand final this year after a long year of training and teamwork. They played last Friday night but, sadly, both teams went down. The year 9/10 girls played against Safety Bay, but the Safety Bay girls won in the end. The year 11/12 girls played their great rival, Pinjarra, and, unfortunately—well, great for Pinjarra—Pinjarra won and Rocko lost. That's the thing: it's never much fun losing your grand final, but it's an important life lesson that things don't always go your way. These young women in all the teams that played across the grand final on Friday night train hard all year. They love the game, they are good at it and they have fun. I would like to thank the coach, Allan Godfrey, and all the great volunteers, parents and kids around the Rockingham Rams footy club that support the young women that play this great game. You are each amazing, and together you are phenomenal. Go, Rocky Rams. National Disability Insurance Scheme, Menzies Electorate: Hanke on Tram 46 13:46 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies How we treat the most vulnerable in our community is the mark of a compassionate and caring society. This, of course, is the underlying rationale for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, to provide appropriate and adequate services to our fellow citizens who have a disability through illness, disease or some other cause. For a number of people, this requires specialist housing to meet their needs and to enable the provision of services to those with extreme functional impairment or those with very high support needs. It's estimated that some 28,000 Australians will require housing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and this includes people living in all our electorates, including my electorate of Menzies. I note this because I was delighted to participate in a turning-of-the-soil event for a new specialist disability accommodation home in Doncaster recently. The 'Hanke on Tram' development, referring to the two streets, will provide eight individual apartments in a three-level, modern apartment block and will be fitted with assistive technology to help occupants with their everyday tasks. I was delighted to be there not just as the member for Menzies but also as the chair of the parliament's oversight committee on the NDIS, and was delighted to acknowledge this local development. I hope to see more of them not only in my electorate but also elsewhere for the needs of those 28,000 Australians. Dobell Electorate: Marriage 47 13:48 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell A wedding took place last weekend at the beautiful North Entrance Beach on the Central Coast. It was the wedding of a couple who have been together for 16 years and have three children. The wedding of a couple who, this time last year, weren't able to marry. Because this House and this nation said yes to same-sex marriage, they could say 'I do'. Their son, Josh, would be known to many in this place. His letter to the then Prime Minister about the same-sex marriage debate went viral last year, and he became the face of the gaybies campaigning for equal rights for their parents. Josh told me he was emotional during the service when he heard the new legal term 'between two people'. After all of these years, he was finally able to sign his parents' marriage certificate. During the service, Kelly and Lyn made vows to each other and to their three children. During the speeches, Lyn announced that she would be legally adopting Josh, making this family complete in the eyes of the law for the first time. But, of course, this family has always been complete. They have always been surrounded by love. The road to marriage equality has been tough for rainbow families like this, but now it's the time to celebrate. It gives me tremendous joy to congratulate Kelly and Lyn on their marriage. Congratulations on the love you have shown your children, Rhianna, Dakota and Joshua, and the example you have shown to our community on the Central Coast. On behalf of our community, who overwhelmingly supported the right for same-sex couples to marry, and on behalf of my colleagues in this place who were determined to make it law, I wish you and your family joy and happiness for the future. Congratulations and best wishes. Vietnam: Human Rights 47 13:49 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein As members of parliament we have a responsibility to stand up against tyranny wherever it exists. Australia is part of an international community that believes in the inherent dignity of the individual, and in people being to able to live their lives with opportunity and enterprise. I bring attention to the human rights abuses that occur in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Only earlier this morning I met with many Vietnamese Australians who said explicitly that they know the legacy and history of communism and socialism and the human impact it has. So many human rights abuses and challenges are faced in Vietnam, particularly for people who want to stand up and exercise their right to free speech, to dissent and disagree, and to defend the type of country they want to it be. Laws have been introduced that restrict freedom of religion unless your religion is registered by the government. It is our job and duty to work with those Australians who want to defend the rights of Vietnamese people to go about their lives lawfully in a way that is acceptable to them. I acknowledge those people from the Vietnamese community in Australia who have come and joined us in the parliament today: Bon Nguyen, Quoc Toan Nguyen, Tien Nguyen, Quang Liu, Phong Nguyen, Kim Loi Hi, Nhung Nguyen, Hoa Phuong Nguyen, Cuc Thi Kim Nguyen, Kien Sinh and Lieu Thi Tran. Thank you for your support, thank you for your work and let's keep going. Workplace Relations 47 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor In August last year I stood in this place to raise the stop-work meeting that was occurring for Dorevitch workers supported by the HWU in Victoria. Last week we heard that they have had a serious win. The Fair Work Commission draft determination has now said that those workers will get a pay rise of up to 20 per cent. These workers have not had a change in their EBA for a decade. When they sat down in August last year, the managing director of the company told them that they could get a zero per cent increase. It is a big win for the HWU and for those workers who have been working for 10 years on $21 an hour. They're also going to have an increase of up to 30 per cent in allowances and—the best news—will be back-paid to July 2017. Those on this side of the chamber will remember Dorevitch Pathology as the company that, after 500 members did a 24-hour protected stop-work meeting, locked out 89 union members. This is a huge win for the HWU. I congratulate all of those involved in fighting for these workers' rights and am proud to say that we on this side of the chamber understand collectivism and we understand equity. Ivory Trade 47 13:52 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I wish to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into trade in elephant ivory and rhinoceros horn. I congratulate the chair, Craig Kelly, for his magnificent work, Senator Lisa Singh for her great work and local resident Donalea Patman from For the Love of Wildlife. Sadly, every 15 minutes an elephant dies and there are only 400,000 left. In 2016 alone 35,000 were killed. Every several hours a rhino is killed and there are only 35,000 left in the world. Australia can play a key role in this. How? We can take on the poachers. The poachers are making money from killing these noble, beautiful creatures. The nation of Australia could take the sophistication and value away from this activity by implementing a complete domestic ban on the trade of elephant ivory and rhino horn. This would do so much to send the message across the world that Australia is doing its bit to protect elephants and rhinos. This is a day for all parliamentarians and all Australians to be very proud of: this report recommends a complete ban on the trade of elephant ivory and rhino horn. Women: Economic Security 48 13:54 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay Older Australian women in this country are the fastest-growing group of people living in poverty and the fastest-growing group of homeless people. Today Labor are announcing our new policy supporting women's superannuation, which will hopefully lead to a decrease in those horrific numbers. Women retire with significantly lower superannuation balances than men—40 per cent are lower than men's. On this side of the House we have a Labor Status of Women Caucus Committee, which I've very proudly been the secretary of for the last two and a bit years. I want to thank all of the members of that committee, in particular the chair, Sharon Claydon, and all of the people who have worked so tirelessly. Whether it was from Perth to Penrith or Alice Springs to Adelaide, we held consultations right across this country, hearing from women about what it is they need from government, and what government needs to do, to act and change the story. I am proud that our leadership team have acted and have made some tough decisions to be able to announce this $400 million package, which is a significant step in making sure that older women in this country are getting a fairer deal—from ensuring that recipients of Commonwealth paid parental leave, including the dads, continue to receive superannuation contributions, to phasing out the $450-minimum monthly income threshold for those who are able to receive superannuation payments. I want to commend the work of the Status of Women Caucus Committee and thank everybody who helped with those consultations. North Sydney Electorate: Lane Cove 12ft Sailing Skiff Club 48 13:55 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney As a harbourside electorate, North Sydney is home to a number of sailing clubs. They play a wonderful role in encouraging residents, particularly young people, to take to our beautiful waterways. Our community was therefore devastated to learn that one of those clubs, the Lane Cove 12ft Sailing Skiff Club, had endured what must have been one of its nightmares. Last Sunday, a devastating fire razed to the ground several of its storage sheds and the boats they housed. Over 60 children and teens are among those whose boats have been lost. These boats are typically handmade and many of them have been handed down from sailor to sailor over the years. I know from the countless hours my own father spent tending to his prized Heron that these boats are labours of love and a real source of joy and bonding for the families who regularly sail. It is a deeply upsetting time for those associated with the club. In these dreadful circumstances, I am proud that our community is rallying to help. The club quickly established a GoFundMe page, and as of this morning 150 people have donated over $25,000. It's a phenomenal start and no doubt this has put some wind in their sails. I hope many more will join the fundraising efforts. On Sunday I spoke to the club commodore, Max Gundy, and the Mayor of Lane Cove, Pam Palmer, to offer my support. We will be exploring whether any federal grant programs can assist the club as they rebuild. In moving forward from these awful events, I know the club will have our entire community behind it. Food Safety 48 13:57 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I rise to condemn the cowardly sabotage of strawberries and fresh produce that has been occurring in recent weeks. It's disgraceful that someone would intentionally injure people, and that they would intentionally injure children. Many of these strawberries come from farms in my community, from areas like Wamuran and Bulimba. I know these farmers. They're parents, they're employers of local people and they're members of their own communities—and, because of these gutless attacks, they're struggling. They are being forced to dump tonnes and tonnes of quality produce, leaving it to rot. This is costing millions of dollars. Deputy Speaker, I call on you and I call on everyone listening to support our strawberry farmers. Don't give the spineless saboteurs any satisfaction. When it comes to your fruit: 'Cut 'em up, don't cut 'em out'. I have been speaking to the Queensland Strawberry Growers Association president, along with the Queensland Labor government minister Mark Furner, and we're working together on developing strategies to help them through this tough time. I must also commend the Queensland Labor government for sticking up for our farmers and promising $1 million to help get our primary producers through this tough time. I know that it will make an absolutely huge difference. I want to acknowledge the Morrison government for finally coming to the table and providing some support—about time. Students from my local school, Grace Lutheran College, are here in parliament today. It's a school with strawberry farmers within their students. Lachlan was here earlier today and asked me to— (Time expired) National Security 49 13:59 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Our Prime Minister has implored us to get aboard and do everything to make our boat go faster. Some time ago our respective leaders met with security officials to work out what to do to counter the threats of terrorism. After a productive discussion, both leaders complimented each other in this House on how they worked together. The Leader of the Opposition concluded by saying that this was too important an issue to play politics with. I'm sure the Australian people would agree that both sides of this House have played politics with too many important issues: housing affordability, congestion, overdevelopment, immigration rates, urban blight and regional stagnation—all issues that the Australian people want sorted out. The member for Cunningham and I, and the other members of the House Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, have worked together in a bipartisan manner addressing these national challenges. Our report, entitled Building up & moving out, was tabled on Monday. This report should provide the opportunity to develop policies, plans and a vision for Australia for both sides. A contest on these issues has the ability to regain support from those whose support we have lost through our political games. The good governing of Australia is too important to play politics with. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Superannuation 49 14:00 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. On average, Australian women retire with 40 per cent less in their superannuation. That's approximately $113,000 less. Many single women retire into poverty. Will the Prime Minister therefore support Labor's plan to invest $400 million to strengthen the Australian superannuation system, boost women's super and help Australian women plan for a secure and independent financial future? 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question, and the government will consider all options in this area. But I do want to point out that, when superannuation reforms were taken through this parliament when I was Treasurer, I was disappointed that the opposition didn't support important measures that would have assisted women with catch-up contributions in their superannuation. That was part of the package where we introduced the low-income superannuation tax offset, and that benefits around 1.9 million women by over $500 million. There was the levelling of the playing field by scrapping restrictions— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will pause for a second. The members for Fenner, Griffith and Hotham are already interjecting loudly, as they've done in recent days. They'll cease interjecting. Members on both sides will listen to the answer. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L There was the levelling of the playing field by scrapping restrictions on those who can make personal deduction contributions. That benefited some 800,000 Australians, including those women working in roles without access to formal salary-sacrificing arrangements. One of the real changes that is occurring across our economy is the start-up of new home-based businesses, which many women, particularly in family roles, are taking on around the country. Our government has ensured that they can get access to the same superannuation tax concessions as anyone else out there working in a normal wage and salary earning job, and we have legislated to do that. These were part of the major changes that we introduced. On top of that, there were the catch-up concessional contributions. They will benefit some 230,000 Australians, and the Labor Party opposed that. Where you had women who had gone out of the workforce for a period of time and they were in a position to try to make catch-up contributions in the future, to catch up when they went back to work, the Labor Party said no. They said, 'We don't want them to do that.' Fortunately, we've been able to pursue that through the parliament. We've got around two million women who hold a low balance, with inactive accounts, and that will be protected from erosion through the excessive fees and inappropriate insurance arrangements that we are getting rid of as a government. They're the measures that we're pursuing, which I announced in this year's budget. Around 1.6 million who are still contributing to low-balance accounts will see hundreds of millions of dollars worth of savings from those measures. And 1.3 million women will have their retirement savings boosted by around $2.5 billion, thanks to being proactively reunited with their lost, low and inactive balances. So, as a government, we've been acting on these issues. That's why we've seen the gender pay gap, for example, on women's issues and women in the workforce, fall from 17.2 per cent when we came to government to 14.5 per cent. Under the previous Labor government, who always talks a big game on this, the gender pay gap went from 15.5 per cent up to 17.2 per cent. Don't listen to what Labor promise you; you can rely on what our government has done and will continue to do. Economy 50 14:04 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House on how the government is standing with Australian families to keep Australians safe and to keep Australians together? 14:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. Our government is standing with the families of Australia to ensure that the essential services that they rely on are guaranteed—not by words, but by running a strong economy—to ensure that the economy continues to grow and Australians are in work and can support and provide the services, whether they're Medicare, whether they're affordable medicine or whether they're record schools and hospitals funding. These are supported by a government that knows how to run a strong economy and knows how to keep the financials of this country under control. We believe that Australians should keep more of what they earn, and we believe that Australian families should keep more of what they earn. That's why we have legislated, opposed by those opposite, personal income tax relief right across the board: $144 billion worth of personal tax relief to Australians right across the board, which the Labor Party wants to cut in half, by $70 billion. We are focused and have legislated that tax relief, which has already commenced. We're backing family businesses, with lower taxes for small and family businesses. We're getting Australians into work, particularly young Australians. More than 100,000 jobs were created in the last financial year for young people getting into work. Australian families celebrate those successes for their young people, and that's been achieved by the hard work of Australian businesses who have been giving young people a go under our policies. Our plans to get electricity prices down will be supporting families across Australia. The Labor Party's plan on electricity prices is to put them up by $1,400 per household by increasing the emissions reduction target from 26 per cent to 45 per cent—and, more than that, they'll make it law. They will legislate for higher electricity prices if they ever come to government. And record schools funding, protecting children online—today we have taken strong action, and I will welcome the strong support from the opposition, which I know will be forthcoming, to take action on the concerns of Australian families about the contamination of food, in particular strawberries, in what is basically an act of absolute idiocy on the Australian people, on Australian families. We're taking action on that by increasing the penalties for those engaged in this food tampering. We're taking action on that by introducing a new provision on recklessness that means that any idiot who wants to go into a grocery store or a fruit and veg store and stick pins in fruit will face penalties of up to 10 years in prison. We want that bill done and out of this parliament before we rise and go from this place, and I thank the opposition for their support for achieving that. We're taking action with $1 million extra, supporting what has been done in Queensland, and I commend the Queensland government for doing that through its support for the industry and food standards. This weekend, support our strawberry farmers: make a pav. The SPEAKER 00APG The Leader of the Opposition, on indulgence. 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong On indulgence, I seek to associate Labor with the last 45 seconds of the Prime Minister's answer with reference to the strawberry situation. Labor hasn't been fully briefed on the complete detail, but I can assure Australians that we will work with the government in supporting farmers and deterring and stopping these despicable acts. The broader message to the Australian community's also important. Strawberry growers in Queensland have already been hard hit. And in Victoria, in the Yarra Valley—the Speaker's area and others—we're coming into the season for strawberries from the beginning of October. I want to quote and echo the comments of the president of Strawberries Australia, John Calle, a grower in the Yarra Valley. He said: 'Strawberries are so easy to eat. Just cut them up before eating. We want to say to Australians that a few isolated cases is no reason to stop buying strawberries. Keep having them with your breakfast. Keep supporting our growers. Just cut the berries up; don't cut the farmers out.' Superannuation 50 14:08 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this government has hit the retirement savings of Australian women by supporting cuts to penalty rates, abolishing the low-income superannuation contribution, before being shamed into bringing it back, and delaying the increase in the superannuation guarantee? Doesn't this just confirm that this government's failure to increase the representation of women in important national institutions has a real and lasting impact on the everyday lives of Australian women? 14:09 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for her question. It is very important to place on the record that there has been no cut to penalty rates by the government. The government has made no decision to cut penalty rates, as she well knows. When the Leader of the Opposition was the minister responsible, he was involved in setting up the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission and all of the architecture around it can be laid at the feet of the Leader of the Opposition. The Fair Work Commission have made decisions regarding penalty rates for five awards. They haven't abolished those penalty rates for the awards, as those opposite would have us believe, but they have made some adjustments. What the Fair Work Commission have done, for instance, for public holidays is change it from double time and a half to double time and a quarter, so it still is there. So it's completely false for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to make that suggestion, and it deserves to be called out in this place. As she should know, it is the people who are sitting on this side of the chamber who have been working hard to ensure the financial security of Australian women. We have been doing that because we have wanted to increase the job opportunities for Australian women, and under our government there are more women in work than ever before. It is very hard to be on the path to financial security if you do not have a job, and it is this side of the House that has been working incredibly hard to put in place important superannuation reforms that would provide flexibility so that women who want to actually catch up on their superannuation contributions can do so under our measures—measures that would be scrapped by those opposite. We've levelled the playing field to make sure that anyone, regardless of their circumstances, can make a personal deduction and have the same concessions with their superannuation. It cost us more than a billion dollars to do that. But the thing that they could really do to actually help the security of Australian women would be to support the government's Protecting Your Super legislation. That legislation would protect Australian workers, hardworking Australian people, from the rorts and rip-offs that have occurred in the superannuation sector. But those opposite are going to stand with high-fee-charging funds and they are going to stand with big insurers, not the Australian people. (Time expired) MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 51 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On indulgence, I should have made this statement to the House earlier: the Treasurer will be absent from question time today, as it is Yom Kippur. I will answer questions on his behalf, and I will also answer questions on behalf of the Special Minister of State. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Food Safety 51 14:12 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher My question is to the Attorney-General. As the Attorney knows, my seat is home to many strawberry growers who have been hit hard by recent events. Will the Attorney update the House on steps our government is taking to strengthen Commonwealth laws guaranteeing Australians' food safety and dealing appropriately with those who seek to sabotage our food supply? 14:13 Mr PORTER 208884 Pearce I thank the member for his question. He and I both have electorates with many market gardeners and fruitgrowers, and I've come to know people in my electorate like Anthony and Lee-Anne at Berry Sweet farms in Bullsbrook. They are a couple who have worked their entire lives to build a great business, employing local people. So to see all their hard work now put in jeopardy by the despicable and senseless criminal acts of a small number of perpetrators across Australia is just heartbreaking, and I know everyone in this parliament agrees that we owe it to these hardworking people in your electorate and mine to do everything in our power to stem the tide of this wanton and shocking behaviour. As part of this response, I can inform the House that, after being tasked by the Prime Minister yesterday to provide advice as to how this parliament may improve and strengthen the offences which criminalise this grotesque behaviour, our government will proceed with urgency to effect two changes to the Commonwealth criminal law. While the drafting is being finalised, I can inform the House as to how that drafting will generally operate. Presently, section 380 of the Criminal Code sets out what are known as contamination offences. The four existing offences relating to contaminating food with the intention to cause public alarm or anxiety or the intention to cause significant economic loss or the intention to cause harm to public health will have their maximums increased from 10 to 15 years, making them serious offences comparable to offences such as sex offences and financing terrorism, because that's what they are—terrible and serious offences. Four new offences will also be created with 10-year maximums and they will be created in a way that will not require proof beyond reasonable doubt of intention but rather proof of recklessness as to outcomes. The point is that anyone who chose to argue that it couldn't be shown they had the intention to cause loss or harm would no longer be able to escape prosecution and penalty. Finally, we are looking to create amendments to the sabotage offences in division 82 of the Criminal Code. This would be achieved by amending what was a relatively new definition of sabotage which was meant to cover sabotage of supply of important goods, such as electricity and water, and to extend that definition to goods intended for human consumption. The point here is that on a larger scale we've recently determined that it's appropriate to include sabotage of electricity and water provision, but what this unprecedented criminal behaviour has shown us is that food supply chains can be just as important to Australians' wellbeing and, so, to our national security as the provision of water and electricity. I conclude by saying that, while there are already serious crimes included under Commonwealth law and in each of the states and territories, this parliament has an opportunity to act in a bipartisan way to help people like Anthony and Leanne by responding even more forcefully to this type of terrible criminality. Superannuation 52 14:16 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, people earning less than $450 a month don't have to be paid superannuation. This means that many women in low-paid or casual jobs can't build up their retirement savings. When will the government stop fighting itself, start governing and match Labor's commitment to help women in low-paid and casual jobs plan for security in retirement by ensuring that superannuation is paid to those Australians earning less than $450 a month? 14:17 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. The government has acted to support people on low incomes with the low income superannuation tax offset. That supported 1.9 million Australian women. That was in the budget I handed down. Ms Butler interjecting— Dr Leigh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The members for Griffith and Fenner will leave under 94(a). The member for Griffith then left the chamber. The member for Fenner then left the chamber. Mr MORRISON E3L Our government has acted to provide catch-up contributions for women in the workforce. Our government has acted for those women who are starting their own businesses, particularly those working from home, so that they can now access the superannuation tax concessions that others can access. I don't understand why the Labor Party opposed those measures. Why would the Labor Party want to oppose someone running their own business from home getting access to the same superannuation tax concessions that are enjoyed by other female workers? These provisions particularly support those in trades and small businesses, but they do include those who run their own home based businesses. What that shows is that those opposite are happy to support the superannuation savings of those who are in the union workforce, but they're not happy to support the superannuation savings of people who run small and medium-sized businesses. The Labor Party have never understood the psychology, the incentive or the mindset of someone who decides to run their own business, who wants the independence and takes the risk and goes out there to ensure that they can provide for their future. That betrayal by the Labor Party is also demonstrated when they talk about retirement savings. If they're so interested in retirement savings, why do they want to put their hands in the pockets of senior Australians who have saved and take around $5 billion out of their savings? Do you know who the biggest burden of that retiree tax will fall on? It's women. Thirty per cent more women will be impacted by the Labor Party's retiree tax— Mr Keogh interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Burt is warned! Mr MORRISON E3L with it sucking $5 billion in hard-earned savings out of the pockets of Australian families. At that time when women are on their own, when their partners may have passed on, what has been left to them as shares in Telstra or whatever Australian company is the money that the shadow Treasurer and the leader of the Labor Party want to get their grubby hands on—and we won't allow it. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:19 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that we have joining us in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you all. I've also been advised that we have the former member for Shortland, Jill Hall, with us in the northern gallery. Welcome to you. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Tasmania: Health Care 53 14:20 Mr WILKIE C2T Denison My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Tasmanians are routinely waiting years to see a specialist and literally dying while waiting for surgery. Congestion at the Royal Hobart Hospital is now so bad that people sleep on the floor of the emergency department waiting area. Inpatients are held for up to five days in the ED until a bed can be found in a ward, including mental health wards. There's even a proposal for patients to be accommodated in alcoves and storerooms. Prime Minister, do you think this is okay, and will you reach out to the uninterested Tasmanian government and help it remedy a public health system beyond its competency to run effectively? 14:21 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I don't think it's okay, but I also believe that the Tasmanian government, led by Premier Will Hodgman, is exactly the right government to deal with the problems that you've been highlighting. The Minister for Health has written to the Tasmanian government seeking an update on the issues that you've raised today. I saw that report on the front page of The Mercury today also. But the member would also be aware that the Commonwealth does provide significant funding support to hospitals, public hospitals in particular; not just in Tasmania but all around the country. When we look at what has been done in terms of Tasmanian and Commonwealth public funding, when we came to office the Commonwealth was investing $294 million in hospitals in Tasmania. That has increased by 42.5 per cent under our government to $419 million this year. And we were pleased that the Hodgman government was one of the first to sign on to the new hospitals agreement which has been negotiated by the Minister for Health, which is delivering record Commonwealth government funding to Tasmanian hospitals out to 2024-25. In the five years from 2020, under the new agreement, Tasmania's public hospitals will receive an additional $373.6 million, growing at 18.4 per cent over that period. In addition to that, you'll be aware of the $730 million to the Tasmanian government to secure the long-term future of the Mersey Community Hospital in Latrobe for a decade. You'll also be aware that the funding means more services, more doctors and more nurses at the Royal Hobart Hospital, in particular. This funding is delivering significant growth in the number of elective surgeries being performed, from 6,740 when our government first came to office, to 7,755 in 2016-17, on the figures we have available. In terms of mental health support for Tasmania, the Commonwealth, through Primary Health Tasmania, has invested $34.58 million to commission mental health and suicide prevention services. We are delivering record funding to hospitals and health services around this country, and we will continue to do that. We will ensure that the support is there for our state governments, who have carriage of delivering those services across all the states. The reason we're going to be able to do that and the reason why Tasmanians can count on that is that we are running a strong economy, which means we can generate the revenue not from higher taxes but from a stronger economy, to deliver what Tasmanians need. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Denison had risen on a point of order. I'm sorry you didn't catch my eye earlier; I apologise for that. Mr Wilkie C2T On relevance: the question goes to much more than just financial funding for the states; it also goes to what other assistance the federal government might be able to give Tasmania. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the member for Denison. The Prime Minister has indicated to me he's concluded his answer. Business 53 14:24 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House how the government is standing with Australian family businesses to keep our economy strong? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for his question. Earlier today I was talking to Gavin Scurr. Gavin Scurr runs a strawberry farm up in Caboolture, which would be known to the member for Longman. We spoke today about the terrible impact happening not just to his business but to about 120 other growers up there in Queensland in particular. They've seen demand for strawberries drop by 50 per cent. Our actions today include working with other agencies, state governments and others; the million dollars we put in to support quality standards and support the industry; and, on top of that, the additional penalties to ensure that we can prevent any further idiotic behaviour by people going in and tampering with the fruit that children eat in this country. The reason we've done this is that we want to protect Australian families and also that we are never slow to act to support Australian family businesses, like Gavin Scurr's. There are many other issues we have to deal with when it comes to this. The Speaker would be very well aware of this issue, having strawberry farmers in his own electorate. Mr Speaker, you would be aware of that. There are the issues that remain of ensuring that we protect the fields themselves. We know that if they can't pick the strawberries, as Gavin was reminding me today, then those entire fields are at risk of being walked away from. I'm hopeful and looking forward to the further initiatives that the state government will take in that area. We're happy to work with them to the extent that those responsibilities fall to the Commonwealth government, but we're very pleased to work, whether it's with the Queensland government or any other government, to protect our farmers—in this case, we're talking about our strawberry farmers—to ensure that their businesses can return to as normal as possible as soon as possible. It is about cutting them up, not cutting them out. It is returning to your normal consumption of strawberries and taking sensible precautions. That's not the only thing we're doing to support small and family businesses around this country as a government. We've been doing it for five years. That support has meant lower taxes, which the Labor Party will increase. It is their stated and published policy that they will increase the legislated tax reductions that we have taken through this parliament from 25 per cent up to 27½ per cent. That's what they will do. That's their policy. If you run a small or medium business, or if you're one of the seven million Australians who work in one of those businesses with a turnover of under $50 million, you are going to be working in a business that will be paying higher taxes if Labor is elected at the next election. I've never understood how Labor thinks that if a taxpayer, or particularly a business, has to pay more tax to the government they can invest more in their business, invest more in their employees or invest more in the business that they've put their whole livelihoods into. The instant asset write-off, the simplification of the BAS and the extension of the definition of a small business from $2 million to $10 million—that's what we've done. We're going to keep doing it. Aged Care 54 14:27 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of a report that, while visiting a nursing home in May, he conceded the government's $1.2 billion cuts to aged care were hurting, saying, and I quote, 'These things are controlled by Treasury.' Can the minister confirm that he now blames the Prime Minister, the then Treasurer, for the $1.2 billion cut to aged care? Is this why the Prime Minister described his own government as a muppet show? 14:28 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck The report in the paper is not accurate and it is not a comment that I would make when I'm in an aged-care facility. Our funding going from $13.7 billion to $18.6 billion to $23.6 billion is an increase, and our budgets are continuing to grow. In terms of the ACFI instrument, the work that's being undertaken at the moment is looking at the RUCS program. We will continue to work with the department on the reforms that are required. Law Enforcement 54 14:28 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on action our government is taking to empower authorities to protect Australian families in our community? What are the alternatives to this approach? 14:29 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for his question. I start by commending the policing agencies, in particular the Queensland police, for the work they've led in relation to this terrible circumstance around strawberries. At this point in time I can report to the House and to the Australian public that there are now over 100 cases. Many of those will be hoaxes or copycat cases, but this is a very serious issue. The Prime Minister moved very swiftly this morning to make an announcement in relation to our government's response—that is, we will improve the laws. I also thank the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Border Force for their involvement with the other policing agencies. This now reaches well beyond Queensland to almost every jurisdiction across the country. My appeal to people who are posting false images to Facebook or on Twitter is: please don't do it. It's a diversion of police resources. They are concentrating on finding the perpetrators of what is a very serious crime, and they don't want their resources diverted to look at each of these cases, which are either copycat cases or hoaxes. It will delay their finding of the person who is truly responsible for the original crime. It has, as the Prime Minister pointed out, a negative impact not just on families but on farmers and their families as well. The government will provide whatever support we can through our law enforcement agencies to bolster the efforts of the national response, which is being led by Queensland. I also take the opportunity today to acknowledge work being done by the Australian Federal Police in concert with the other state policing agencies and in fact all law enforcement agencies across the country in relation to countering child exploitation. This is a serious threat to families. Mums and dads are worried about their kids online and worried about images being uploaded. They're worried not only about predators in the park, next door or down the street but also about the hours their kids are spending online. Last week we announced a $70 million investment into the Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. That is a Commonwealth led effort, but it involves the other policing agencies as well. We know that, shockingly, every seven minutes a webpage shows a child being sexually abused. The Australian Federal Police have received additional funding in the 2018-19 budget. It includes that $70 million I spoke of before. The centre is expected to remove over 200 children from danger in the first year alone. It builds on the work we've done to cancel the visas of people who have been involved in sexual offences against children and women. We will build on that work for every day of this government. Aged Care 55 14:32 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, and I refer to his previous answer where he denied blaming the new Prime Minister for hurting the aged-care sector with a $1.2 billion cut. If it wasn't the now Prime Minister's fault, exactly which person in the government was responsible for cutting $1.2 billion from aged care? 14:33 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her question. I apologise for not acknowledging you in my answer to your previous question, but the question you ask is inaccurate. We have continued to increase funding from $13.1 billion to $18.6 billion, then another $5 billion to $23.6 billion, and we are continuing to undertake work in respect of ACFI. ACFI has served the sector well. The funding instrument was capped at a time in which there were claims that were much higher than the trajectory, and all governments have a responsibility to live within their means and within the budget that's established. We have not cut, because we have continued to grow the ACFI level of funding over the forward estimates and it will continue to grow. The new RUCS program we are working on with the University of Wollongong will provide a better instrument for assessing people. As you heard in the Four Corners program, by their own admission, staff were told to game the instrument. The RUCS will go to aspects of quality of care, complex care conditions, dementia and mental health needs. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 55 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:34 The SPEAKER 00APG Joining us right now on the floor of the House is a delegation from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Infrastructure 55 14:35 Mr O'DOWD 139441 Flynn 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 is supporting regional Australian families and strengthening local communities by investing in critical infrastructure? How would different views affect regional Australia? 14:35 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I do thank the good member for Flynn for his question. Thanks to our good economic management, our good economic plan, we can look after regional families. We can look after regional farmers. We can look after drought affected communities, and we can back small, family owned regional businesses. And that's what we're doing. We're supporting regional families throughout the drought. Unfortunately, it is prolonged, and it is ongoing. We've provided $1.8 billion worth of assistance. We can, we need to and we must do more, and we will. We're supporting local governments in 60 drought affected regions—60 drought affected councils—to speed up local infrastructure works and generate local jobs in those councils. We're also supporting strawberry farmers, and of course that's important. I appreciate the bipartisan support that's been offered; we obviously need to support our strawberry producers during this crisis. We're also supporting places as the Gladstone St Vincent de Paul. St Vinnies do a wonderful job right across the nation, and certainly in Gladstone. We've provided $492,000 through the Building Better Regions Fund, providing air conditioning, better storage and a much-needed face lift for the centre there in Gladstone. We're also providing money for farming families. I was asked about regional farming families. There are family owned and operated trucking transport companies, such as those who operate the road transport link between Gracemere saleyards and the North Rockhampton abattoirs. It's not, as Labor would have it, a measure under the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—that ill-conceived, ill-named tribunal. They would force those sorts of companies that operate that sort of route off the road. They would send them off the road, but we're supporting them through better infrastructure—a $30 million piece of infrastructure that I know the member for Flynn and the member for Capricornia are so supportive of. We're getting on with the job of also fixing Labor's mess that they left behind, such as the independent youth allowance. We're helping country students to get a fair go. There are 17,000 small businesses in the member for Flynn's electorate. We're backing them. We're backing them with lower taxes. We're backing them with lower power prices. But, if those opposite get into government, they'll jack the prices up for power. They'll jack the taxes up. That's what they do. They'll put a wrecking ball through the economy—a wrecking ball! I can just see the member for Maribyrnong on his wrecking ball going right through retirees' savings in the member for Flynn's electorate. The regional funding programs: they'll be gone. There will be higher taxes. And the Queensland land management laws—those ill-conceived, ill-named native vegetation laws—will become national. That's what this man stands for. That's what he stands for: higher taxes, higher power prices. God help those small businesses in Flynn and elsewhere. Aged Care 56 14:38 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin My question is again to the . Minister, has the per resident funding for the complex high-care Aged Care Funding Instrument gone down as a result of the 2016 budget? Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will cease interjecting. 14:39 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Franklin for her question. Based on the latest data in 2017-18, the average Australian government payment subsidy plus supplement for a permanent resident in residential care was $66,000 per resident. This compares to $53,000 in 2012-13, which was Labor's last financial year. This was an increase— Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The minister will resume his seat. Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Franklin on a point of order. Ms Collins HWM To be directly relevant, Speaker, he needs to answer, 'Has it gone down as a result of the 2016 budget?' not compare it to 2012. The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Franklin will resume her seat. I haven't called the minister yet. If the minister can just wait, I'll rule on the point of order. Government members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If members on my right could not interject, I can— Mr Wyatt interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG No, the minister doesn't have the call. I was saying that, if members on my right can cease interjecting, I can actually hear the point of order properly. Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG I can't believe the member for Gorton can't hear me. He's three feet away. We're less than 30 seconds into the minister's answer. He's being relevant to the subject matter. I'm listening to the minister very carefully, and I do point out that it was a very specific question, and the minister is entitled to give some context at the beginning of his answer. Mr WYATT M3A The funding for ACFI expenditure has continued to increase against claims across all three domains. I thank you, Speaker. Superannuation 56 14:41 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Will the minister update the House on measures the government is taking to support Australian families by helping working women enjoy greater financial security in retirement? Is the minister aware of any threats posed by alternative approaches? 14:41 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for her question. She knows, like all of those on this side of the chamber, that the best form of financial security is to be able to get and keep a job, and I'm pleased to say that there are more Australians in work than ever before and, under this government, there are more women in work than ever before, and the gender pay gap is shrinking under our stewardship. It was 17.2 per cent under the Labor Party. It went up under the Labor Party from 15.5, and it has come down under us to 14.5 per cent. It is, in fact, at a record low. We've also introduced crucial flexibility measures to allow women with interrupted work patterns to make catch-up superannuation contributions, something that those opposite would abolish. We've levelled the playing field. We've scrapped the restrictions on personal deductible contributions, helping those women, in particular, who work in roles without access to salary-sacrificing arrangements. Again, those opposite would abolish this. This government has introduced crucial reform legislation that would stop the rorts and the rip-offs that have been occurring in the superannuation sector and provide significant financial security to millions of Australian women. You would think that, if those opposite were actually interested in financial security, if they really wanted better incomes in retirement, they would the fact support that package of reforms. But, sadly, I can inform the House that they do not support it. Those opposite pretend to care about the retirement savings of millions of Australian women, but if they really cared they would stop standing arm in arm with giant insurance companies and protecting high-fee-charging superannuation funds. They would, in fact, back the government's reforms. But why don't they do that? Because they've got a dirty little secret. The dirty little secret is that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the minister responsible, scrapped the protections for low-balance accounts from high fees, and he forced every single Australian, regardless of age or circumstance, to pay insurance premiums. So we hear from them excuse after excuse after excuse as to why it is they can't support it, but they should be clear with the Australian people. In standing in the way of these reforms, the Labor Party are costing millions of Australian women billions of dollars in retirement. So, if they really care, they should stand with us, be bipartisan and support the legislation that we have moved. (Time expired) Morrison Government 57 14:44 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has cancelled the scheduled Council of Australian Governments meeting because his government is too busy fighting itself to finalise vital funding for schools and hospitals. And, the last time this House sat, the government cancelled parliament because it was unwilling and unable to govern. Doesn't this just confirm that the government is too busy fighting itself to govern for Australians? And is this what the Prime Minister meant when he called his own government a muppet show? 14:45 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook What the member's question reveals is that he doesn't have a clue. He absolutely doesn't have a clue. Two COAGs are being held this year. And do you know why we're not having COAG in October? Because we're having a drought summit. That's what we're doing. That's what I announced today. We're having a drought summit in October. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L The jeers that come from the opposition and the Labor Party when I say that we're having a drought summit tell us a bit about where their priorities are. They want to come in here and go on with all this political rubbish day after day after day. Earlier today, I met with the Deputy Prime Minister and with the special envoy, the member for New England. I met with the head of the National Farmers' Federation and I met with Major General Stephen Day. We received an update on the report of the work that has been done by Major General Stephen Day, who is coordinating the government's response to the drought. On 26 October, we will bring together people from around the country. I'll be inviting all the state and territory leaders or their nominees or those within their governments who are directly involved in coordinating the drought response to come and align all our efforts to ensure that we're doing a number of things: firstly, that we're getting the feed to where it needs to go to support the efforts of our farmers to keep their properties going and keep them in business; to support the towns; to support the centres; to make sure not only that the farms keep going— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Mr McCormack interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Prime Minister will not try and conduct a discussion with me. It'll end badly. The Manager of Opposition Business is on his feet and is seeking to raise a point of order, I presume. Mr Burke DYW The point of order is on direct relevance. The question went to a COAG meeting that was scheduled for 4 October, not the drought summit which is scheduled for 26 October. He was asked about a different meeting. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Just before I call the Prime Minister, if members on my left can cease interjecting, the Prime Minister addressed the question in the very first couple of sentences. I believe the Prime Minister is in order. Mr MORRISON E3L The member for Watson must think this is some sort of high school debating chamber when he comes in and makes cheap debating points. The fact is— Honourable members interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG Prime Minister, just pause for a second. The member for Moreton can leave the chamber under 94(a). That will lower the temperature. The member for Moreton then left the chamber. The SPEAKER 00APG I've got to say, with some members, it's sequential every day. They interject. They're told not to interject. They keep interjecting and then they leave. It's pretty straightforward. Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for McEwen will not reflect on me. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L The two items that were going to be addressed at the COAG meeting related to the education funding arrangements which are being pursued by the education ministers' council as well as the Council on Federal Financial Relations, who have advised the premiers, when I spoke to them directly about this, that these issues will be resolved in time for when that meeting would have been held anyway. So those issues do not require a special meeting of COAG in October. What we do require in October is a national drought summit to coordinate the entire national effort of not only the state and territory governments but the Commonwealth, the charitable sector, the farming sector, the meat producers—all of these groups coming together to focus on what is my priority. My priority is not to hold a bunch of meetings; my priority is to get things done. I suspect the now shadow Treasurer, when he was minister for immigration, had plenty of meetings about how he might want to stop the boats. He didn't stop one. He could have as many meetings as he liked and he achieved absolutely nothing. What I'm doing is focusing on the— (Time expired) Business 58 14:49 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on the steps our government is taking to support small and family businesses, creating local jobs and new business opportunities? And is the minister aware of any threats to the livelihoods of Australian family businesses? 14:50 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. He is well known and well regarded as a very strong advocate of small and family businesses. He, like so many people on this side of the chamber, truly understands small and family businesses. We understand how hard it can be as a small and family business, and we want to help them to succeed. We want to help them to grow. We're doing that, firstly, through legislated tax cuts and we're also looking to support them to grow and create new opportunities and create new jobs. In the member for Brisbane's electorate, there is a company that I know that the Prime Minister visited not so long ago. That business is iOrthotics. You visited them about 18 months or so ago, Prime Minister, with the member for Brisbane. iOrthotics is a great local business. They are employing local people and they're taking their business to the world. They're pioneering the next wave of 3D printing and they're already supplying more than 100 clinics across Australia with their products. They have plans to reach out to a number of overseas countries—the United States, the United Kingdom and also Canada. Importantly, they have worked with the government's Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre to digitise and to upscale their manufacturing processes. They are planning and expecting to grow their current exports considerably over the coming years and, as a result of that, they will increase the number of skilled jobs they have. iOrthotics has a forecast to increase their sales revenue from $940,000 in 2018 to $2.82 million in 2019. That's a great Queensland company, one that's becoming even greater, thanks to the opportunities and the new jobs that are being created by this government. Unlike those opposite, we are backing our small and family businesses, because we understand that they're the foundation of the local communities on which this country is built. We are working hard to make sure that we are creating jobs, and that we are creating opportunities for them into the future. Just today, I launched the Small and Medium Enterprises Export Hubs program. This is a $20 million program, which is part of the Taking Local Businesses Global initiative that was announced in the last budget. What this will do is create export hubs. It will create regional centres that will help our local businesses—businesses like iOrthotics—to take on the world. This is just another demonstration of this government's commitment to small and family businesses. Schools 58 14:53 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has cancelled the scheduled Council of Australian Governments meeting, because his government is too busy fighting itself to finalise vital funding for schools. How are principals, teachers and parents in public schools supposed to plan for the coming school year when they have got no funding certainty for 2019? Isn't the division and chaos in this government hurting our schools and hurting our children? Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he described his own government as a 'muppet show'? 14:54 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook When people tell lies and repeat them, it doesn't make them any more true. That is a fundamental principle. Ms Plibersek interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked her question. Mr MORRISON E3L When people think they can tell lies and repeat lies, it doesn't make them any more true the more you repeat them. The Australian people know that. What I made very plain in my answer to the last question was simply this: I don't think you need to have a meeting if you don't need to have meeting. You don't have a meeting just to book a hall and everybody can come and have a cup of tea. The reason we don't have to have that meeting is that the very education funding issues that were referred to by the member will be addressed within that time frame. The Minister for Education and the Treasurer, who is absent from the House today, will ensure that is the case. That is the conversation I had with the premiers when I called each of them and spoke to each of them. None of them raised a concern about the meeting not being held, because they know the progress of those matters of education funding. Previously, as Treasurer, I had been progressing those matters through the Council on Federal Financial Relations, and they will be resolved. On this side of the House, we don't think you have to have meetings just for the sake of it. You just get on and do the job. The shadow Treasurer came up here and got terribly irritated because there is not going to be a meeting. What I know about the shadow Treasurer is this: when he was immigration minister people couldn't trust him on the borders, and you can't trust him on a budget either. The Australian people know about me that they could trust me on the borders and they can trust me on the budget, because that's my record. Aged Care 59 14:56 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey My question is to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how Australians can have their say through the royal commission into quality and safety in aged care? Ms McGowan interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Indi knows the rules on props. 14:56 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck I thank the member for Grey for his ongoing interest in aged care and the way in which we look after senior Australians. The royal commission is an important step forward in looking at the total structure of the reforms that are needed in aged care. There will be numerous avenues available for people to provide feedback to the terms of reference for the royal commission. A dedicated website has been established by the Department of Health at consultations.health.gov.au. I would encourage Australians to think about the broad areas that we want to cover—that is, the quality of care provided to senior Australians and the extent of substandard care; the challenge of providing care to Australians with disabilities living in residential aged care, particularly young people with disabilities; the challenge of supporting the increasing number of Australians suffering dementia and addressing their care as they age; the future challenge and opportunities for delivering aged-care services in the context of changing demographics, including remote, rural and regional Australia; and any other matters that the royal commission wishes to consider. In recognising the diverse needs of the community impacted by the aged-care sector, I am committed to holding and ensuring a round of consultations on the royal commission and to hearing the views of people. Consultation for the terms of reference is now open and will remain open until 25 September. In the next few days we will be working hard to get input on the terms of reference that the commissioners will turn their minds to. I encourage members from both sides of the House to encourage their constituencies to communicate with that website and provide their thoughts. I'll be talking to a range of groups—mainly consumers, families, relatives and providers—in the days ahead. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister and I met with leadership from the Aged Care Sector Committee to seek their views. Those who just want to register their interest for information about the commission can do that by leaving an email address for more information at https://agedcare.govcms.gov.au/announcement-of-royal-commission-into-aged-care-quality-and-safety. We are still committed to the existing reforms, and we will not be stopping the pipeline of work that is continuing and that will remain the focus of this government and our government in ensuring the quality and safety of services provided to people, both in residential care and in home care. I would encourage every member in this chamber to encourage their constituents, organisations, providers, culturally and linguistically diverse groups, and all the diverse groups that we work with on a daily basis to make submissions, because this is a significant path forward to providing aged care to all senior Australians. That is important for both home and residential care. Liberal Party Leadership 59 14:59 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. On 21 separate occasions since he became Prime Minister he's failed to answer why Malcolm Turnbull isn't the Prime Minister of Australia. Given that he's had almost four weeks to work on his answer—and he's now been asked the question 21 times—I ask again: why isn't Malcolm Turnbull the Prime Minister of Australia? Opposition members interjecting— Mr Khalil 101351 Too little too late— The SPEAKER 00APG Members on my left. The member for Wills will cease interjecting. He's looking at me while he interjects. 15:00 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to my earlier answers on this matter. I will simply say that he's had five years and he can't convince anyone that he should be the Prime Minister. Infrastructure 60 15:00 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein My question is to the Minister for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population. Will the minister update the House on how our government's congestion-busting infrastructure agenda will relieve pressure on Australian families? What are the alternatives for addressing congestion in this way? 15:01 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I thank the member for Goldstein for his question. As the member knows, Australia is one of the fastest-growing countries in the world, both economically and population-wise. What that means is that some of our largest centres, such as Melbourne, Sydney and South East Queensland are really feeling the pressure, because most of the growth is in those areas, and often that translates into congestion. What does that mean for everyday families? It means that they're spending more time on the road and less time with their friends and family at home. People in Brighton and Hampton in Goldstein know this, as do people in our congested suburbs right across Australia. The government has a plan to ease this congestion, and one of the most important elements of this plan is a massive investment in congestion-busting infrastructure. Over the next 10 years we are investing $75 billion worth of congestion-busting infrastructure into major roads, into rail and into other public transport infrastructure. In places like Sydney it's projects like WestConnex and NorthConnex. In Queensland it's the Brisbane Metro, the Bruce Highway and the M1. In South Australia it's the North-South Corridor. In Western Australia it's the METRONET. In Tasmania it's the Bridgewater Bridge. In the member for Goldstein's home city of Melbourne we have the Monash Freeway being developed. We have the Monash rail being funded. We have $5 billion toward the airport rail—finally connecting up the Tullamarine Airport and the city by rail. We have a $3 billion commitment to the East West Link, which I know the member for Deakin is very interested in— Mr Hill interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Bruce is warned. Mr TUDGE M2Y I'm asked about alternatives to our congestion-busting plan. In many cases across the nation, I'm sad to inform the House, Labor has failed to commit to many of these large-scale congestion-busting projects. If I look in Victoria and in Melbourne specifically, at the Monash-Rowville rail project, there's no commitment there from the Labor Party. Fifty-five thousands students at the largest university campus in Australia will have to wait decades, should the Leader of the Opposition become Prime Minister. A look at the airport rail: they say they'll commit to it, but how much money have they put towards it? Not a cent. It's going to be built from the Leader of the Opposition's hot air, apparently, rather than from serious dollars. The worst example in Victoria, which we know very well, is the fact that the Labor Party in Victoria spent $1.3 billion to not build a road, by cancelling the East West Link. It's viable piece of infrastructure, which we have committed to. We continue to commit to it as part of our plan— (Time expired) Minister for Home Affairs 60 15:04 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Last Wednesday, in answer to a question, the Prime Minister undertook to come back to the House after making inquiries of his department's secretary as to whether the Minister for Home Affairs excused himself from all discussions on child care. Now that the Prime Minister has had a week to make those inquiries: did the Minister for Home Affairs excuse himself from all discussions on child care? 15:04 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I refer the member to the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs in this chamber on this matter, and I have nothing further to report. Child Care 60 15:04 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on action our government is taking to provide child care to Australian families to help parents get back into the workforce quicker? What are the alternatives to supporting families in this way? 15:05 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for Bowman for his question. As he knows, the best start in life is a good education. I know this is an issue he takes incredibly seriously. The Liberal and National government's new childcare package represents the most significant reforms to the early education and care system in 40 years. When it commenced on 2 July 2018, more than one million families had successfully transitioned to the new arrangements. Ms Rishworth interjecting— Mr TEHAN 210911 For the few families left to transition—and the member for Kingston might want to pay attention here—they have until 23 September, this Sunday, to access their Centrelink online account via MyGov and complete their childcare subsidy assessment. This is very important, and I would ask all members of the House to ensure that this message is made known to all those parents. They will have their subsidy backdated to 2 July 2018. Over 99.9 per cent of all eligible childcare providers have transitioned to the new system. The coalition is committed to quality, affordable child care. The new childcare package is providing more access to subsidised child care to the families who work the most, and more financial support to the families who earn the least. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibilities are benefiting from the package. Families will benefit from the introduction of the activity test, which will provide them with more hours of subsidised care, by increasing their level of recognised activity. For example, if a parent undertook just four hours of volunteering per week, they could receive 18 hours of subsidised care per week. Families who won't benefit are mainly those who don't meet the activity test who are earning high incomes over $350,000. The new package also includes a childcare safety net to help families who need a little extra support, such as grandparent carers, foster carers and parents battling serious illness. As I've said, we wanted to make child care more affordable, more flexible and more accessible. Contrast that to those opposite, who saw a 53 per cent increase in childcare costs when they were in office. Minister for Home Affairs 61 15:08 Mr BURKE DYW Watson My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister fulfil the commitment he made to the House last week and say whether or not the Minister for Home Affairs excused himself from all discussions on child care? 15:08 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Once again I refer the member to the statement by the minister on 13 September where he said: … 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. The Cabinet Handbook is a public document. Here it is. It's a public document. It's quite straightforward. Its wording is quite clear. It does not say whatever the opposition want it to say to suit the political purposes they are trying to pursue in this parliament. The minister has answered the question. I have nothing further to report on that matter. I think it has been absolutely cleared up and I'm happy for the matter to rest there. Drought 61 15:09 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on assistance our government is providing to Australian farming families during this severe and prolonged drought? 15:09 Mr LITTLEPROUD 265585 Maranoa Can I thank the honourable member for his question. Only today I met with one of the farmers from his electorate, a dairy farmer, who is seriously impacted by this drought, and he told me the impact it was having on his family and his community. Our government's responsibility during this drought is looking after farming families and making sure that they can get through this drought with dignity. I'm proud to say that we've increased farm household assistance to $37,626. In fact, we've increased that only recently, by giving supplementary payments of $12,000 to farming families and $7,200 to individuals. I can report to the House that, since the legislation was passed on 23 August, 2,363 applicants have been successful in accessing that supplementary payment. Our departments have worked as quickly as they can to make sure that that money gets to those farming families to enable them to put bread and butter on the table. This is about making sure that we can give farmers the dignity and respect they deserve during this drought, and making sure that they can get their kids playing sport on the weekend. We're not stopping there. On 29 July I asked for a review into farm household assistance to make sure it is still fit for purpose and to ensure that it is having the impact that's needed for those farming families and communities. I'm proud to say that, only this morning, I met with the review team to get the feedback I required and to give them directions to make sure they're looking at every part of this, even the supplementary activity payment, which is putting $4,000 into each individual's hand to give them the opportunity to get new skills, diversify their income streams and look off-farm for new income to make their businesses more resilient. This is despite the fact that, only last year, when we surveyed those who had come off farm household assistance, almost 90 per cent of respondents in that exit survey felt that the FHA had improved their current financial circumstances, and more than 50 per cent expected to stay on-farm with greater income and/or less debt. This is because we've complemented the assistance with rural financial counsellors—the angels of this drought—to give farmers the direction and time to make the right decisions. This is an important step in supporting families in regional communities. They are the core of regional communities. They are the ones who make up the fabric of our regional and rural society. Without them, our regional and rural communities would die—our small and regional communities would no longer be there. So it's important that we wrap our arms around those farming families to ensure that they continue to strengthen regional and rural Australia. Mr Morrison E3L After 23 questions, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Presentation 62 15:12 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. BUSINESS 62 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 62 15:13 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I move: That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Jagajaga on the grounds of public business overseas. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 62 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Superannuation 62 15:13 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's failure to improve the fairness of the retirement income system for women. 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— 15:14 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon It needs to be said: our economy does not treat women equally or fairly. It needs to be said: there is too much gender inequality in Australia, and we are making far too little progress in dealing with it. It needs to be said: our superannuation and retirement income system does not treat women equally or fairly. We know that there's a gender pay gap in Australia. We know that women earn around 19 per cent less than men, across our economy. But we also know that, over a woman's working life, that compounds year on year and is worsened by the fact that women take time out of the workforce to raise their children. It means that the income gap in retirement is even worse, and that women retire, on average, with 40 per cent less than men. If we look at the median account balances of men and women, the story is even worse. The median account balance for a man at retirement is $110,000. The median account balance for a woman at retirement is $36,000. We know that only two in 10 women in Australia in 2018 retire with a level of income high enough to be regarded as retiring in comfort. We know that the biggest single cause of a rise in homelessness between 2011 and 2016 was a 31 per cent rise in homelessness for older women. This is not okay. In Australia in 2018, a country that prides itself on being the land of the fair go, we should be doing better. We can be doing better. Today, with the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Barton, the member for Hotham and I together, Labor announced a concrete plan. It won't fix all the problems, it won't solve all the issues, but it is a serious, concrete plan when it comes to women's retirement income. Our plan to pay the superannuation guarantee during paid parental leave will help 250,000 people a year. It will mean a payment of about $1,200. But of course it unleashes the miracle of compound interest. That $1,200 will be paid early in a woman's working life, almost by definition. It will compound year on year. Taking the example of a woman who has three children, at the ages of 27, 29 and 31—quite a common pattern—that will compound to an increase in that woman's superannuation balance at retirement of $18,590. There's a second element to the plan we announced today. Many Australians perhaps don't realise that when we talk about universal superannuation, it's not actually universal. If you earn less than $450 a month from any one employer, you don't get paid your superannuation; it's not compulsory to be paid superannuation. This was done at a different time, when payrolls were a lot less automated than they are today. It's been that way for a long time. But the increase in casualisation has actually made it worse. Many people, not just women but mainly women, work more than one job, and they have to work more than one job because those jobs pay less than $450 a month. Those people don't get superannuation. There's no requirement to pay superannuation to those people. It's time to end that. It's time to say that superannuation should be truly universal. It's time to say that Australia's lowest-income earners deserve superannuation too. Today we announced a plan to do just that. We'll phase it out, to give business time to adjust, but we'll get rid of it. The $450-a-month threshold should be zero and will be zero under a Shorten Labor government. Sixty thousand people will benefit from this in the first year, and, by the time we've entirely abolished the threshold, 400,000 people will benefit. If you bring these two elements together, the superannuation guarantee and the $450 threshold, and you take a woman who's had three children and spent some time doing a job that pays less than $450 a month, she'll be around $30,000 better off when it comes to her retirement income. We've announced other things today as well. We've announced that, if an employer wants to pay more into a female's superannuation account because they're concerned about the gender imbalance in their workplace, we'll get rid of the red tape. At the moment, if an employer wants to do that, they have to go to the Human Rights Commission and seek permission. The government say they want to get rid of red tape. Let's get rid of that red tape. Let's let an employer do that. Today we've recommitted to a Labor government also releasing—I as Treasurer in a Labor government, when bringing down the budget at the despatch box, will also release—a women's budget statement, because, when I bring down a budget, I will be comfortable with people being able to look at the budget and say, 'What's the impact of this budget on Australia's women?' I want to be held to account for that. When we make policy decisions, I want to be held to account, as Treasurer, for the impact of those decisions on Australia's women. Of course, we would welcome it if the government adopted these plans. We would welcome it if Australians didn't have to wait for a Labor government for these plans to be implemented. I have to say, and I say in all seriousness: we've seen a lack of progress from this government on matters of gender inequality in our economy. There are some areas where they've just done nothing, and areas where they've taken very little action. Superannuation is one. They abolished the low-income superannuation contribution, before bringing it back. As I said: in fairness to the government, you can't bring something back until you've abolished it—that was probably their logic! There has been a lack of action on domestic violence leave. The government will say they've introduced domestic violence leave—five days— Opposition members: Unpaid! Mr BOWEN DZS Five days, unpaid. Well, we think Australian victims of domestic violence—not all women, but mainly women—deserve 10 days paid domestic violence leave. We can afford that in 2018 in Australia. The things that we've announced today don't fix all the problems. There is more to do, and we'll have more to say. Women in Australia earn, on average, around 77c in the dollar compared to men. There's more to do. Women are under-represented in the most senior ranks of our economy—under-represented on boards, under-represented when it comes to senior corporate positions, under-represented in government, under-represented in parliament, and particularly under-represented on one side of parliament. We're one of the very few OECD countries that has not had a female in positions equivalent to Secretary of the Treasury, Governor of the Reserve Bank, Chair of APRA, Chair of ASIC and Chair of the ACCC—all of those positions. Not once in our history has a female filled those roles. We're pretty unique around the world for that. We can do a whole better. Ms O'Dwyer interjecting— Mr BOWEN DZS If there are more women in the senior ranks of decision-making in the economy, women will be at the centre of decision-making more often. More often, the decision-making bodies, whether they be the cabinet room or the Reserve Bank board, will say: 'What are the impacts of our decision on women? What are the impacts of what we do on Australia's women?' Women deserve more than cliches. And this government has not only taken very little action; in many instances, they've taken adverse action. This government has sat by as penalty rates have been cut. We on this side of the House have pointed out that Australians who work on weekends and Sundays deserve to be paid that bit extra. But the majority of those people are women. The majority of people who work on Sundays are women in low-paid jobs; women, predominantly, do those jobs, and younger women do those jobs, to make ends meet. This government has sat by while their wages have been cut—the first non-negotiated, non-traded-off wage cut we've had in Australia since the Great Depression. And the government says: 'That's okay.' 'There's nothing we can do,' they say. Well, there's something they can do—they can legislate, as an incoming Shorten Labor government will do, to correct the error, so that women and all people who work on Sundays get paid what they deserve. Women deserve more than cliches. They don't need to be told that women hold up half the sky. They don't need to be told that women are an important part of our economy and our society and we couldn't do without women. Women actually deserve action. It's Australia, in 2018. That's why: because it's 2018, and Australia can do better when it comes to women in our economy. A lack of females at senior levels makes a difference; a lack of females in the senior levels of government makes a difference. I'm very proud of the fact that I've worked with great colleagues—the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, the member for Barton and others—in getting this policy done. We're men and women working together, men and women who know that women deserve better—men and women who actually think it should be a priority for a Prime Minister and a Treasurer to say: '27 years of uninterrupted economic growth is good, but women deserve a slice of the action.' (Time expired) 15:24 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I welcome the opportunity to be able to contribute to this debate. I welcome it because it's almost like a dorothy dixer for our side, because it allows us the opportunity to talk about our proud record in working hard in this place each day to help the financial security and financial retirement of millions of Australian women. We understand that the best way to achieve financial security and to boost your retirement savings is to be able to get a job. I'm pleased to say that under our government there are more Australians in work than ever before. And there are more Australian women in work than ever before, and they are working full-time. There are more Australian women working full-time than ever before—unlike the statements that those opposite have made. By contrast, when Labor left office, women's full-time employment was going backwards. In fact, on other measurements, like the gender pay gap, under the previous Labor government the gender pay gap increased. It increased from 15.5 per cent to 17.2 per cent. But under our government it's, in fact, come down. It's come down to a record low of 14.5 per cent. But, of course, we're not prepared to accept that pay gap. We will continue to work hard to make sure that it is closed even further. We hear that Labor claim that they are interested in improving women's superannuation. I'm pleased to hear that, and I'm pleased to hear that they are interested in measures that will assist with this. Let me just remind them of the coalition's record. In the 2016-17 budget, the government announced a number of changes that directly improved the flexibility, sustainability and equity of our superannuation system. Most of these changes commenced on 1 July, and they include the low income superannuation tax offset. This supports low-income earners and makes sure they are not paying more in tax on their superannuation than they would otherwise be paying at their marginal tax rate. The LISTO benefits around 1.9 million women by over $500 million. We've levelled the playing field by expanding access to personal deductible superannuation contributions. We've removed the restriction on individuals earning more than 10 per cent of their income through salary and wages. This benefits around 800,000 Australians and is particularly useful for those men and women working in roles without access to formal salary-sacrificing arrangements. From 1 July this year, we're allowing the rollover for five years of unused concessional contribution cap amounts, which means that individuals for the first time will have the capacity to catch up on their superannuation contributions if they are in a financial position to do so. It benefits around 230,000 people—in particular, those people with interrupted work patterns or irregular incomes. We are increasing the number of people who can claim a tax offset of up to $540 for spouse contributions to superannuation by increasing the income test threshold for recipient spouses to $40,000. Previously, the limit was $13,800. These measures complement the government's existing superannuation co-contribution scheme, which matches after-tax contributions of low-income earners at a rate of 50 per cent up to $500. In 2015-16, almost 320,000 low- and middle-income women were paid $100 million of co-contributions as a result of this. We are not resting on our laurels though. We know that there is more to do in protecting people's superannuation. That is why the government has introduced a Protecting Your Superannuation Package, which caps fees on low-balance accounts—those accounts with less than $6,000 in them. This will help around seven million Australians save around $570 million in fees in just the first year. Why is it necessary? It is necessary because the Leader of the Opposition, when he occupied the treasury bench, scrapped the protections for low-balance accounts. He let it be a fee free-for-all. It is not acceptable and not right, which is why it will change under us. We are banning exit fees on all accounts. These exit fees are charged by about a third of the industry and cost people around $52 million in the most recent year. We are going to make insurance opt in rather than opt out for those categories of people who are most at risk of having their superannuation eroded. Those are young people aged under 25, low-balance holders and those with inactive accounts. This will provide around five million Australians with the opportunity to save up to—wait for it—$3 billion in insurance premiums in just one year, whilst still giving them the opportunity to have insurance cover should they wish to do so. For the first time ever, as a result of our bill, we are going to provide the Australian Taxation Office with the power to proactively reunite people with inactive funds that they have scattered about. We know from the Productivity Commission that this multiplicity of accounts is costing people billions of dollars in retirement income. It will mean around $6 billion will be reunited with around three million Australians. This is legislation that those opposite should support, but they're not supporting it. I'll tell you why they should support it. As Minister for Revenue and Financial Services I received letters from so many people right across the country who talked about why it was necessary. Young people wrote to me to say: In year 10 I learned that "money is exchanged for goods and services". In this case I had paid for a service— because they had a part-time job and were putting money into their superannuation— that quickly took what I had and shut me down. I didn't receive any of these elusive 'goods' or 'services'. We also had letters from older Australians who said: I've just spoken to your office regarding superannuation. My problem, and that of many others I know, is that we only work part time now and then— this is from an elderly woman— My position is I am 76 years old and I work at a school supervising exams on a casual basis, I also supervise the HSC at the end of each year. I have been forced to have another super fund for this purpose, but each year it gets eaten up with fees and I have to open another. She goes on to say: I now have a letter to say that it has been closed (again eaten up with fees). This is happening to so many people I know, we are all cross, as it is the employers money and our money going to a superannuation fund for free. I now have to open another fund so that I can work for the HSC this year, and I won't see any of the money going into that fund. I am a self-funded retiree, not costing the Gov a cent as such, pay my own way everywhere and all I want to do is keep my mind busy, enjoy working supervising exams so I'm not a burden on society. These people are crying out for these changes that would make a difference, but those opposite refuse to support them. They like to talk about how people will benefit from their changes, but let's test that. As part of their announcement today they said they had removed the $450 threshold and said that would increase retirement savings by around $30,000 for those impacted. Let me tell you: our bill will benefit Australians by billions of dollars. Let's take the example of Emily, who's 32 years old, earning $40,000 a year and, like many Australians, has more than one superannuation account. She would be, after our bill passes, more than $36,000 better off by retirement. Julie, who started her first job at 25 with an annual income of $24,000, changed jobs, defaulted into another superannuation account, would be better off to the tune of $57,000 if our bill passes. Those opposite, who claim— Mr Bowen interjecting— Ms O'DWYER LKU It has been brought in. It's in the Senate. You can vote on it. Use the opportunity in the chamber today to tell us that you're happy to support it and we will bring it on for a vote. (Time expired) 15:34 Ms O'NEIL 140590 Hotham It really is a great day today for Australian women. I was so proud to be there this morning when I stood behind the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party while they made a really significant announcement that is going to improve the economic security of women. I'm very proud to be in a political party that places this issue right at the front and centre of the political debate. We do that as a Labor Party not because our leaders support it, although they very much do, but because we're part of a movement of people who are trying to ensure that more Australian women retire into comfort. That movement includes incredible women who are part of the trade union movement, and it includes these amazing women who sit behind right me now in the chamber. I have behind me the member for Newcastle, who is the chair of our women's caucus. It was fantastic to be there this morning with the shadow Treasurer to talk to that caucus about the big reforms that Labor is planning to make for Australian women. Labor is incredibly proud of our superannuation system. It is a system that we designed, that we put into practice and that has helped millions of Australians retire into more comfort. But the truth is it's a system that's not working perfectly today for Australian women. We know that Australian women retire on average with 40 per cent lower superannuation accounts than Australian men. In 2015-16, the average retirement balance for a man was $270,710. For a woman it was just over $157,000, a difference of $113,600. That's a very significant difference in the standard of living that you're going be able to achieve in retirement. We also know that women who are at that lower end when they retire are growing in number. The shadow Treasurer spoke earlier about the fact that just two in 10 women in today's Australia are retiring with the level of comfort in retirement that we would expect for them. We know that Australian women who are over the age of 55 are the fastest growing group of Australian people living with homelessness. This is not something that the group of people who sit behind me in the chamber can stand by and watch happening without doing anything to fix. That's why today Labor made this incredibly important announcement about some big changes that we will make to retirement incomes for women if elected in the future. The most important part of the change that we're announcing today, the most significant amount, is that for the first time Australian women will receive superannuation payments when they're taking paid parental leave. That's an 18-week payment that, again, Labor members of parliament brought into Australian law in this parliament. For the first time we're going to pay superannuation on those accounts. Deputy Speaker, you're also probably aware that there's a $450-a-month threshold that has to be met before an employee can be due superannuation. We're going to scrap it. The reason we're doing that is that we acknowledge that, especially in the workforce of today, there are so many people who are working casually and part time who are not reaching that $450 threshold. There are other important changes that Labor has proposed today, but the two that I've talked about are the ones that are going to have the most impact. What is so exciting about these changes is that we talk in the parliament about the different regulations and that sort of thing, but what really matters is what happens at the end of a woman's working life and how much money, essentially, she ends up with in retirement. One of the examples that we've talked about today is that a woman under the age of 30 who has two children, with the combination of the changes that Labor's announced today, would be $24,000 better off. This is a powerful difference. A woman who has three children around that same age bracket might be $30,000 better off in her retirement just because of the changes that Labor is announcing today. Again, can I just say how incredibly proud I am to be in a political party that is willing to accept the centrality of this issue to the Australian people. I have to say I don't think it's an accident that you see two very different political parties that oppose one another in this chamber: one party in which almost half of our members of parliament are female, and one which is having a very significant and deep-seated problem in getting and keeping talented women in this parliament. I take no delight in that problem, because the truth is that, above being a member of parliament and a member of the Labor Party, I'm an Australian woman, and I need governments to make good public policy, and we don't see that on that side of the chamber, because they just can't get the representation they need. Today Labor showed once again that we are there for Australian women when they need us. 15:39 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite It's my great pleasure as a strong Liberal woman to rise and speak in this MPI debate on retirement income, following a wonderful Minister for Women and soon to be followed by the member by Boothby, another wonderful Liberal woman in this parliament. There's one way to keep Liberal women in the parliament, and that's to vote Liberal at the next federal election. So I call on all my constituents in Corangamite to vote Liberal at the next federal election, for a strong Liberal woman. It is quite ironic that the member for Hotham, for whom I have a lot of respect personally, didn't mention the member for Lindsay in her contribution. And where is the member for Canberra? Have we heard from the member for Canberra about what she has endured over her terrible preselection loss? She has been absolutely savaged, kicked out. It is absolutely appalling what we are seeing—and such great hypocrisy. But the most hypocritical part of this whole debate is the $10.7 billion tax slug—which hurts women more than men—because of Labor's retiree tax. That is $10.7 billion, hitting some pensioners and self-funded retirees. Do you know how much this is impacting Australians around this nation? Almost 900,000 Australians will be worse off as a result of this terrible, terrible policy. Women are impacted around 30 per cent more than men. If Labor cared about women in retirement they would reverse this dreadful policy, which is the most inequitable policy for women, hitting those who earn the least and who rely on this for their futures—both women and men who rely on these franking credits for their savings. This has been absolutely ripped away by the Labor Party, and they know it—$10.7 billion. It is savage, and it is a disgrace. We as a government are incredibly proud of our achievements for women. Look what we are doing: looming at 17 per cent under Labor, the gender pay gap now has been reduced to 14.5 per cent. We've got more work to go, but this is a record low. Economic security for women is clearly a critical priority for us, and more than one million jobs have been created since the government's election in 2013, the majority of which have been taken up by women. Women are now employed at record levels. The other very significant change we have introduced is our childcare changes, which are encouraging greater workforce participation, for both women and men who are parents, by improving access to child care by investing an additional $2.5 billion in childcare assistance. Of course, we have a really proud record of introducing tangible measures to help women save for their retirement, including the low-income superannuation tax offset, which benefits around 1.9 million women by over $500 million, levelling the playing field by scrapping restrictions on who can make personal deductible contributions, and the catch-up concessional contributions, which will benefit 230,000 Australians, including women who have interrupted work patterns or irregular income, and including cohorts such as farmers and carers. Shame on Labor for opposing those measures. The government has very proudly introduced a comprehensive Protecting Your Super package, which will stop the rorts and rip-offs in the superannuation sector, providing significant benefits for the financial security of millions of Australian women. And I say, shame on Labor for opposing this package. Ms Claydon 248181 That's all you've got to say—'shame'. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Newcastle is warned. Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Yes, shame—and it is shameful. It is shameful that the package has been opposed by Labor, leaving many thousands of women worse off. We've heard from the Minister for Women how important this is, and I would urge those opposite to pass this package in this Senate. 15:44 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor It's a great day, it's a momentous day, to be a member of this parliament. It's a great day to be a Labor woman. It's a great day to be one of the 29 women who sit on this side of the chamber, representing electorates around this country. It's a great day because Labor created superannuation, and today Labor has committed to making superannuation fairer for Australian women. It is a great day. I'm pleased to follow the member for Corangamite, because the member for Corangamite made some extraordinary statements that need to be corrected for the record. For the record, the member for Lindsay was in this chamber and delivered a 90-second statement. The proud secretary of Labor's caucus for women was in here talking about this very issue on this very day. Also, I think the member for Corangamite cast an aspersion on the member for Canberra, which cannot be left unchallenged. The member for Canberra has made a personal decision to leave politics. There was no preselection battle for the member for Canberra, Member for Corangamite. Ms Henderson interjecting— Ms RYAN 249224 There was no preselection battle for the member for Canberra. It is typical of those opposite to get their facts confused in this place. They have their facts confused not only in this space but in many other parts of the debate today. Ms Henderson interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 The member for Corangamite is warned! Ms RYAN 249224 I have sat with many women in my electorate office, women over 50, who were on the verge of homelessness. I am proud to be a member of the Labor Party that commits today to making that a thing of the past. Those opposite scoff and say, 'What difference will $30,000 make to your retirement income?' As a woman who had three children before she turned 30, I would have appreciated the compound interest on that $30,000 in my retirement income, if this superannuation package had been there then. Like many teachers who took time out of work to have their families, I would have appreciated this policy being in place back then. I'm proud to be part of a party that is making sure that it won't happen to other women in the future. Sitting beside me is the member for Newcastle. She led Labor's Setting the Agenda consultation program across this country. The No. 1 issue that women—not just Labor women but women from business and all walks of life—raised with us around the country was women's superannuation. I am absolutely thrilled today to speak on this MPI to highlight what the government won't do but what Labor will do, and that is make a start down the road to making superannuation fairer for Australian women. I want to give a shout-out to the labour movement. On my desk is a photograph of me with Ingrid Stitt and other members of the ASU, which was taken when they came to talk to me about this very issue. It sits on my desk to remind me every day that my job in this place is to ensure that women are given a fair go from the government of the day. I just want to mention this very important thing. When I joined the caucus, I was shocked on budget night in 2014 to learn that the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, had made himself the Minister for Women and had cut—cut!—the overview of the budget's impact on women, and I am shocked that three Prime Ministers later we still don't have a commitment to bringing that back in. Documents and actions like that highlight the problems in our economy where women are suffering, where this government is failing to look at things through that particular lens. It's not a surprise that they're failing to look at it through that particular lens. We've seen it all this week: 29 women on this side of the chamber; 29 women proudly fighting for things in our policies and helping to take the tough decisions so that we can do things like we've done today. It's not a surprise that those opposite don't understand women's issues or women's place in the economy. It's clear on their benches that they don't understand the importance— (Time expired) 15:49 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I am pleased to speak on this matter today because our government has a very strong record of introducing real measures to help women to ensure that they are financially secure not just in retirement but right throughout their lives. This is an issue that young women are increasingly aware of—the need to be financially secure throughout their lives. More and more young women are thinking about what they need to do to ensure their financial security from the start of their working life right through to when they retire. Young women around Australia are taking responsibility for their financial security and for their financial literacy, and they're informing themselves about how they can best look after themselves and prepare for their future. In fact, I was recently contacted by some thoughtful young women, Georgina Southcott and Miranda Stahl, who are year 9 students studying the issue of equality in the workplace, particularly equality of income. For many industries where there is an award in place or where there is legislated pay, like we're paid here in parliament as members of parliament, women and men are already paid equally. Where a job is not subject to set wages, one of the key things, we know, is to help women gain the skills they need to negotiate and bargain when it comes to their incomes so that they can get the best deal for themselves. Our government is taking a range of steps to improve economic security for women, whether these women are school leavers, jobseekers, new mums returning to the workforce or senior Australians nearing retirement age. Unlike those opposite, we on this side of the House know that no-one gets superannuation if they're unemployed. You need to have a job to earn money to put into your super and to top up your super. So we are supporting women—and, in fact, all Australians—to get a job. So I say to Georgina and Miranda: one of the most important things that we are doing for women in Australia is making sure that they can get a job. Almost one million jobs have been added to the Australian economy since September 2013, when the Liberal-Nationals coalition came to government, and, significantly, 58 per cent of these jobs went to women. In the year 2015-16 alone, around 90,000 more women than men joined the labour force. By contrast, when those opposite left office, when the Labor Party were kicked out of government, women's full-time employment was going backwards. What we're doing on this side is helping women access the job market by providing affordable and accessible child care, because we know this is one of the biggest barriers for a lot of women returning to work. We've started the national rollout of the ParentsNext program, which helps eligible parents prepare for employment, with approximately 96 per cent of participants expected to be women, including around 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. In the May budget we committed $64.3 million to establish a Jobs and Market Fund to grow the National Disability Insurance Scheme workforce and service providers, because we know that women make up almost 80 per cent of employees in the health, social assistance and disability-care industries. We've extended the pension work bonus to allow pensioners to earn more income without reducing their age pension, and mature aged women will benefit from expanded access to the Restart wage subsidy, offering an incentive of up to $10,000 to encourage businesses to hire and retain mature aged employees. Women aged 45 to 70 will benefit from the Skills Checkpoint for Older Workers Program. When it comes time for women to retire, our government has provided a superannuation system with flexibility, sustainability and equity. We introduced the low-income superannuation tax offset to support the accumulation of super for low-income earners. We have levelled the playing field by scrapping restrictions on who can make personal deductable contributions, benefitting 800,000 Australians, including those women working in roles without access to formal salary-sacrificing arrangements. In fact, in 2015-16, almost 320,000 low- and middle-income-earning women were paid $100 million in co-contributions. And we, of course, have the Protecting Your Super Package, which will help many, many women. Also, we are assisting 1.6 million women who are still contributing to low-balance accounts by helping to protect their super as well. We know the biggest risk to some of our senior Australian women is actually those opposite and their retiree tax, which is going to do so much damage to people who've worked hard and saved for their retirement. 15:54 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson I am pleased to speak on today's MPI, as indeed it is a matter of public importance and, I contend, a matter of historic importance. This December marks the 46th year since the arbitration commission ruled that women should be paid the same rates as males for the same jobs. A couple of years later, the basic wage was applied to women as well as men. The idea that male wages, as was contended by the Higgins decision of 1908, should be designed to be family wages and support a wife and children was gone. It was a historic decision, and it was the Whitlam government in that year that sent Mary Gaudron to fight for equal pay for equal work. However, here we are 46 years along, and there is still a full-time gender pay gap of approximately 14.6 per cent, or $244.80 less than men per week on average. We're told it's going to take 150 years to close that gap. I have been joined by the terrific ADF Squadron Leader Dominique Hoffman. When I shared that news with Dominique, she said, 'I hope not.' I thought, 'Indeed.' She is a woman serving her country, wearing the uniform and making an observation. Aside from the real-time earnings, this often has far severer ramifications when women stop earning. On average, women currently retire with superannuation balances that are over 40 per cent lower than men's. The poorest people in our country today—and the numbers are on the rise—are women over 50, many of them trying to survive on Newstart, $590 or thereabouts a fortnight. It is absolutely crippling for them. So this is why today's announcement is another milestone and another step towards a fairer system for Australian women. Interestingly, all of the landmark positive decisions about superannuation have been taken by Labor. In 1983, after the Whitlam years paved the way, the Hawke-Keating government began the Accord process, which really paved the way for the implementation of the superannuation guarantee that was set in place in 1992, where wage rises were given away by workers in lieu of superannuation co-contributions. Of course, in 1992 we saw that increase to nine per cent. An interesting point is that the other seminal moment in superannuation came in 1977, under the Fraser government, when cabinet took the decision—decision 3435 on 20 July 1977—not to establish a contributory national superannuation scheme. Ms Ryan 249224 Shame! Ms SWANSON 264170 It is indeed a shame that that conservative government didn't have the mettle to take that decision. So, in the fashion of Hawke and Keating, a Shorten-Bowen Labor government, should we be given the honour of being elected, will take the higher road. We will set another milestone in this country for superannuation. We will really create a platform that paves the way for future decisions for women, paying the superannuation guarantee on paid parental leave and, I might add, dad and partner payments, because we want everyone to do well. But we know that women have a way to go and need to catch up. We're also going to phase out the $450-per-month minimum income threshold for eligibility for the superannuation guarantee. That is so important to all of those young people, particularly women, who are working two, three or sometimes even four jobs where the monthly income may not rack up to $450. But I tell you what: in the next 50 years they are going to need that superannuation and, more to the point, our tax base and our income generation are going to need that as well. When I was talking about this this morning with an employee here in Parliament House, he said to me, 'Don't tell me that you guys are starting to plan more than three years ahead,' and I said, 'Well, we are, because now, if we start to include more people in the truly universal superannuation system, we will have more money put aside in years to come, and this will add an infinite amount of discretionary spending in the economy, but also it will take the pressure off the tax base in the future.' It's an important decision. (Time expired) 15:59 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I want to say in the House today and to all the people in my electorate that I really encourage people to put away money for their superannuation. As your federal MP, I'm a big believer in superannuation. My father gave me some great advice as a 19-year-old. He said, 'Luke, put away $80 a month,' when I was 18. At the time, I thought: '$80 a month! That's a lot of money!' But, in hindsight, it helped me build a superannuation balance. So I say to all women and all men in my electorate that I would encourage you to put away money into super because you can put your cash away and save a lot of tax. At the moment, most people are on a 32½ per cent tax rate. Under super, they can put in contributions at 15 per cent and save a lot of money, so it's well worth doing. I want to congratulate the coalition's first speaker today, the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, for reducing the gender pay gap since the Labor years. In the Labor years, just five short years ago, the gender pay gap was 17.2 per cent. That's a fact. Now it's down to 14.5 per cent. That's also a fact. If we were to keep that rate up for the next few years, the gender pay gap would be solved very quickly. So congratulations to the minister for women. Congratulations to the government. We've got a lot more work to do, but we'll keep going. Labor, on the other hand—we hear a lot from members opposite. They don't talk about the $200 billion in new taxes that they want to hit the ADF and everyone else who works in this country with—another $200 billion in new taxes because they can't balance the budget or organise spending properly. The fact is that Labor's retirement tax will hurt women the most. For women who might be on a pension, who are being left shares and who are getting a refund, they're going to take that refund from them—fact. They also talk about the Fair Work Commission and penalty rates. They don't talk about the fact that penalty rates are being reduced from double time and a half to double time and a quarter in many rates and that the reason the Fair Work Commission mentioned that was that they thought it would give more women increased hours. Ms Lamb interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 Don't shake your head at me, Member for Longman. You're the one who supports Coles under EBAs that have cut the guts out of penalty rates. You get up there with your Easter card. I'm onto you. The fact is that those opposite—I like the member for Longman; it's all right—voted against the First Home Super Saver Scheme as well. The First Home Super Saver Scheme is a good scheme. It helps women get into their first home, and it helps them keep more of their own cash, taxed at 15 per cent rather than 32½ per cent. Those opposite also voted against the massive income tax cuts that will help members of the ADF, people who work at Coles, teachers and a lot of people in the gallery. Everyone earning up to $200,000 will pay no more than 32½ per cent. Labor have stated that they'll unwind that and they'll reinsert a 37 per cent tax rate, with everything over $180,000 at 45 per cent. Higher taxes—that's what you'll get if you vote for Labor. The fact is that we're helping women into work. We heard the minister for women say there have been a million jobs created in the last five years. Fifty-eight per cent of those new jobs have gone to women. We've also brought in the Protecting Your Superannuation Package. The Protecting Your Superannuation Package will basically stop the rorts and the rip-offs in the superannuation sector, providing significant benefits to the financial security of millions of Australian women. It helps their super not to be eroded. We've also brought in the superannuation policy top-up for women. At the moment, women can put in $25,000 a year maximum, but, if you have a child and you're out of work for three years and you can afford to perhaps put in $55,000 the next year when you're back in the workforce, we're enabling women to do that. Finally, I want to say, on the Labor policy, that I think, as a member of the government, that super on paid parental leave is actually not a bad idea. I actually support that idea, and I'm happy to put that on the record. I would encourage the government, if we can afford it, to implement that. I don't, however, think that the $450 a month is relevant at all. It equates to a $16,200 saving over 30 years and with compound interest might reach $30,000. We do have a strong pension scheme that will help women. 16:04 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I don't think the member for Petrie is a bad bloke. I think he supports bad policy, but I don't think he's a bad bloke. We're both parents of young men and we both know that on average our sons will retire with more money than their friends who are women. I'm a proud member of a party that comprises many different people from many different backgrounds who stand together and represent all Australians. Just this morning at a special meeting of Labor women's caucus I looked around the room and saw a number of very strong, meritorious women who all share a goal—that is, to make our country a better, fairer place for all Australians. This is not a goal that's shared by the LNP—or if it is, and I'm wrong, I think they're doing a pretty atrocious job of showing it. There's a lot to do before women are treated equally and have the same opportunities available to them as men do. This government has made far too little progress in closing that gap. Over these past few weeks we've seen just how vehemently government members have fought against making things a little fairer for the women of their party. How could we ever expect them to do a complete about-face and start making things fairer for the women of this country? There is still a pay gap in this country. Multiple factors have contributed to that, like glass walls, glass ceilings, undervalued work and underappreciated motherhood, which combine over the years, snowballing over a woman's working lifetime before ultimately coming to a head in retirement. On average women currently retire with superannuation balances that are over 40 per cent lower than men's. It's truly shameful. It is very true that super is not super if you're a woman. In 2015-16 the average super balance for a man was $270,710; for women it was only $157,050. This is a huge difference. We're talking $113,000. It's no wonder, then, that we've seen a 31 per cent rise in homelessness amongst older women. This government needs to take action immediately. It is indefensible that they stand idly by while one in three Australian women retire into poverty. I'm not going to hold my breath. We all know that this government doesn't represent the needs of women. This government has no analysis on how their budgets will affect women, ultimately resulting in haphazard policies like their proposed income tax cuts that benefit men twice as much as they benefit women. This government has stood in the way of providing paid domestic violence leave for victims to get their affairs in order and escape abusive relationships. Members of this government argued for a tax cut to the GST on a superyacht but fought tooth and nail against a GST cut for tampons—go figure! Labor pride ourselves on our policies that give a fair go to regular Australians. We pride ourselves in the superannuation policies we have announced today. This is a suite of policies that bring fairness to the superannuation system and will help close the gender gap in super balances. Labor will ensure that the superannuation guarantee is paid on all paid parental leave, and dad and partner pay, from 1 July 2020. This means parents can take time off work to care for their newborn without sacrificing their retirement. Ultimately this will strengthen the superannuation system for 167,000 recipients of paid parental leave and 80,000 recipients of dad and partner pay in the 2020-21 financial year. The other feature of Labor's policy is to phase out the $450-per-month minimum income eligibility threshold for the superannuation guarantee from 2020. We know women are more likely to work in Australia's lowest paid industries, so they are most likely to be affected by this policy. This policy ensures that low-paid workers aren't discriminated against and are able to contribute to their superannuation accounts even when they're on a low income. 16:09 Mr GEE 261393 Calare Those opposite really do have a hide. They really do have a hide bringing to this place this fraudulent proposition, which is critical of the government, and dressing it up as a matter of public importance. The opposition talks of fairness of the retirement income system, but what jaw-dropping hypocrisy— Mr Christensen 230485 Hear, hear! Mr GEE 261393 Yes. As the member for Dawson knows, it is jaw-dropping hypocrisy, especially when you consider the raid that those opposite are perpetrating on the retirement savings of ordinary Australians. They are coming like thieves in the night. Make no mistake about it, they are coming for the money of hardworking Australian retirees, about 900,000 of them. On the weekend I went to the Eugowra Show. On the way to the Eugowra Show I passed a place called the Escort Rock, which in 1862 was the scene of Australia's biggest gold heist, perpetrated by Frank Gardiner and Ben Hall. It still is Australia's greatest gold heist, but that heist has nothing on the heist that those opposite are about to perpetrate on Australia's retirees. They're planning to snatch $56 billion from Australia's hardworking retirees. It's a stick-up job on 900,000 Australians who have saved in good faith, served their country, paid their taxes and are entitled to retire on the incomes that they've planned for. It's not going down very well for them. The retirees are not happy. For example, John Kalkman, who is a former vice-president of the Australian Investors Association—most of whose members are self-funded retirees—said, in The Australian Financial Review, that seniors of modest means would suffer if Labor's changes came to pass, not the rich. Then The Australian Financial Review goes on: "This policy treats some retirees very unfairly it creates perverse incentives for some to give up their self-reliance in retirement and allow the taxpayer to take responsibility for their income, healthcare and age care," he said. Mr Christensen interjecting— Mr GEE 261393 It is shameful. John goes on to say: They are offended at the misrepresentation with the sneering suggestion that all self-funded retirees are multimillionaires who are using a tax rort at the expense of hard-working Australians. It is a sneering suggestion. If you look at the figures though, John, I think you're right. Check out the figures, because who is going to be hit by the $56 billion tax heist? Low-income earners. More than half a million Australians on taxable incomes of less than $18,200. Yes, just over 40 per cent of individuals impacted are 65 years old or older, so big hits there. It overwhelmingly hits low- and middle-income earners. Eighty-five per cent of the individuals impacted are on taxable incomes of less than $37,000— Mr Christensen 230485 That would be mainly women— Mr GEE 261393 Yes. And 96 per cent of the individuals impacted are on taxable incomes below $87,000. Around 40 per cent of all self-managed superfund member accounts will lose their tax refunds— Mr Christensen 230485 Why do they hate grandmas so much? Mr GEE 261393 Here's the kicker, member for Dawson: Labor's retiree tax grab will hit around 30 per cent more women than men. This is what they're doing. What arrant hypocrisy of those opposite! They come to this chamber with platitudes about fairness of retirement income systems for women on the one hand, yet they grab their retirement savings on the other. It's absolutely disgraceful. You're not about helping women in retirement; you're all about taking their hard-earned money. In contrast to the hypocritical opposition, those robbers of Australian retirees, we are helping women and men save for their retirement by giving them jobs. We've got more women working than ever before. We've got more women working full-time than ever before. Employment overall is at a record high of over 12.5 million people. We have the runs on the board, as opposed to the hypocrisy and the bushranger-like behaviour—I'm looking at you, member for Paterson—of those opposite, which is absolutely disgraceful. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 71 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 16:15 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Ms BRODTMANN 30540 I do, most grievously. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 Please proceed. Ms BRODTMANN 30540 In today's matter of public importance the member for Corangamite stated that I had been 'savaged' in a preselection battle and 'kicked out' by men, and this is simply not the case. I put out a media release on 13 August stating my reasons for not contesting the next federal election. In that statement I said that I was not nominating for preselection for the seat of Bean. My decision was made for entirely personal reasons. My mother turned 79 last week. Faye Anderson and my working-class matriarchy are why I am Labor to my bootstraps and why I ran for the seat of Canberra in 2010. My mother is now one of the reasons I am not nominating. By her own admission, Mum has years not decades left, and I want to be there for those years. Also, over the break, as I said in my media release, I spent more time than usual with my sisters and their families, and my friends, and it made me realise that I have missed too many precious and significant moments in their lives, and I want to be there for those moments. Any suggestion that I was kicked out by men completely underestimates me and fails to understand my own preselection. If you actually understood my preselection and if you understood me, you would know that if anyone tried to push me, particularly a man, I would push back much, much harder. BILLS 72 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 72

Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017

Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Returned from Senate 72 COMMITTEES 72 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Committee 72 Report 72 16:17 Mr HILL 86256 Bruce On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee's report entitled Report 473: Defence major projects report (2016-17): inquiry based on Auditor-General's report 26 (2017-18). Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr HILL 86256 by leave—Every year the Department of Defence and the Australian National Audit Office work together to produce a consolidated review of selected major Defence acquisition projects, with the resulting report called the major projects report, or MPR. I pay tribute to the member for Canberra, who just left the chamber, for her work over her time in parliament in getting this reporting process together and her years of strong interest in bringing greater accountability to the enormous sums of taxpayer money that are spent on defence expenditure and sustainment. This year's MPR reviewed risks, challenges and complexities facing major projects in general as well as the status of 27 selected major projects in terms of cost, schedule and forecast capability. The total approved budget for the projects in this year's MPR was approximately $62 billion, covering nearly 59 per cent of the budget within the Approved Major Capital Investment Program of $105.9 billion. The MPR is reviewed annually by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and of course we hold a public hearing into something so significant. The committee's focus on Defence's business management goes to the core of the committee's work on effective public administration. Possible improvements in this area are focused on risk management approaches and the sometimes optimistic assessment of delivery of capability estimates. The committee recommended reform in updating project maturity scores several years ago. However, Defence remains behind the committee's expectations, and changes remain slow and uncertain. Defence indicates that progress will be seen in the 2018-19 major projects report. The committee will continue to monitor developments in this area. A significant continuing issue to the committee and its MPR review was the Auditor-General's second consecutive qualified audit finding on the ARH Tiger helicopters project. The committee supports the Auditor-General's statement that audit standards require a judgement to be made on the substantive nature of an issue. So concerns remain about the status and costs of this project, requiring it to remain on the MPR in the near future. The committee's report makes three recommendations aimed at continuing to drive improvements and transparent reporting of Defence's major project expenditure, recommending that Defence report on (1) progress in updating the project maturity scores three months after the tabling of the committee's report, (2) a methodology which shows how acquisition projects can transition from spreadsheet risk registers to tools with better version control measures and (3) outcomes of the sea trials of the LHD landing craft within three months of the tabling of the committee's report. I commend the report to the House. DELEGATION REPORTS 73 DELEGATION REPORTS Parliamentary Delegation Field Visit (Mental Health) to the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada 73 16:20 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation Field Visit (Mental Health) to the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WALLACE 265967 Senator Siewert, Senator O'Neill and I travelled during October 2017 to the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden and Canada as delegates on the Parliamentary Delegation Field Visit (Mental Health). We met with more than 50 researchers, medical practitioners, policymakers and officials at 35 meetings to examine mental health practices and policy perspectives in each of these four countries. My own focus for the trip was to find out more about the treatment approaches deployed in these countries in the areas of eating disorders and the mental health of veterans and emergency services personnel. My electorate of Fisher is an emerging national leader in Australia in the treatment of eating disorders, with a $3.2 million Commonwealth government treatment trial taking place on the Sunshine Coast and the nation's first residential treatment facility for eating disorders being constructed, with the coalition government's support, in Mooloolah Valley by the local charity EndED in conjunction with the Butterfly Foundation. I would have to say that this trip that I went away on last year was instrumental in me pushing for these two trial projects on the Sunshine Coast. The Sunshine Coast is also a popular location for former members of the ADF to live after their service, with as many as 15,000 veterans calling our community home. As such, these issues are of substantial interest to my constituents. Overall, one especially notable finding from the trip was the perception we encountered among many international experts that in fact Australia is a global leader in the treatment of mental health. The most common question that we were asked as we moved around was, 'Why are you here?' If anything, many overseas experts felt that there were lessons that their systems could learn from us. It is pretty disconcerting when you have been involved in the mental health space, as I have been, to think that many countries are looking towards us as world leaders. I know, as a matter of fact, that we have got a very, very long way to go. However, I want to take a couple of minutes of the House's time to summarise some of the things that we learned about the issues on which I focused. On veterans' mental health, we saw strongly contrasting approaches in each country. Lacking a particular department for veterans' affairs, the United Kingdom has sought to build closer links between the National Health Service and charities which can provide services like housing and drop-in support. They have created a network of British Armed Forces champions within key NHS services and are supporting these new staff with a comprehensive directory of NHS services that can be offered to veterans to encourage a patient-centric approach. In Sweden the focus of their approach is on the proactive and pre-emptive management of service men and women's mental health. Their armed forces engage in extensive predeployment training on mental health to prepare personnel for the experiences that they are likely to encounter and to provide them with coping strategies. During deployments, officers use a structured tool including weekly assessments to manage stress, while following deployment Sweden uses a five-year active assessment process and follow-up reunions to promote normalisation of reactions to veterans' experiences. The Canadian Armed Forces have a very different and very impressive approach, with the Canadian Armed Forces delivering outpatient services directly through its Canadian Forces Health Services arm and purchasing other services from the civilian sector. The Canadian Forces Health Services has its own Directorate of Mental Health, which provides clinical programs, education and training. They have 31 clinics with mental health services across Canada and Europe, and access to a further 1,200 private practitioners. This work is supported by a range of workplace outreach programs, family resources and vocational transition schemes. It is no surprise that the Canadian emergency services are now looking to adopt a similar national strategy. On eating disorders, in London we heard from the renowned research group at King's College who are at the cutting edge of research in this field. They told us about the recent classification of diabulimia as an eating disorder, and about the science they are doing on the role that genetics has to play in eating disorders. Professor Treasure and the team emphasised the importance of involving family members and carers in an understanding of eating disorders and making sure they are part of building resilience in sufferers. King's College's Eating Disorders Research Group as well as Novarum and the Mandometer clinic in Sweden provide training and consultancy for other practitioners around their respective countries to ensure that their successful approaches are adopted nationwide. In Sweden we visited the Mandometer clinic, who claim to have achieved very impressive outcomes through minimising the use of traditional therapies and antidepressants and instead relying on the use of mealtime feedback and counselling to normalise eating behaviours. However, in the Netherlands we met with Novarum who deliver cognitive behavioural therapy enhanced, or CBTE, for the treatment of eating disorders. We were told about how this therapy is more effective and lower cost than other approaches, reducing the average treatment time from nine months to just eight weeks. Novarum avoid group therapy, focusing on treatment which is personalised, and varies according to the individual circumstances. As they say it is 'better to do a few things right than many things badly'. The strong results of cognitive behavioural therapy enhanced were also emphasised by the Karolinska Institutet Centre for Psychiatry Research in Sweden. These are only a tiny selection of the research and approaches we benefited from during the trip, and the report I'm tabling today contains more than 50 pages of information that we gathered. I would encourage all members of the House that have an interest in mental health to review the report and consider how we might incorporate these lessons into our own policy deliberations. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of the many officials, policymakers, and practitioners, and particularly those from our overseas missions, who were very generous with their time and expertise during our visit and, of course, as I said, officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who accompanied us throughout. In particular, on behalf of the delegation I would like to thank High Commissioners their Excellencies then the Hon. Alexander Downer, Dr Brett Mason, Mr Jonathon Keena, and Mr Tony Negus. I'd also like to thank their staff, Matt Anderson and Duncan Hewitt in the United Kingdom, Maaike den Besten in the Netherlands, Antony Lynch and Susanna Fridlund in Sweden and Andrew Clarke and Brittany Noakes in Canada. The professionalism and knowledge of all of these representatives of Australia was absolutely first rate and made a huge difference to the delegation's success. Finally, I'd like to thank my fellow delegates Senators Siewert and O'Neill for a very productive and successful trip, and the Chief Government Whip for choosing me to undertake this trip. BILLS 74 BILLS Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 74

Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017

Second Reading 74 16:30 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak in favour of the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. After I elaborate on the details of this very sensible bill, I want to make some broader comments about Commonwealth procurement policy. The bill establishes jurisdiction for the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, rather than just the Federal Court of Australia, in regard to matters of dispute within the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. It will vest power with the Federal Circuit Court to grant injunctions and to order payment of financial compensation when the procurement rules are contravened. It comes out of a response to the 2014 Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee's assessment and recommendations to create an independent and effective complaints mechanism for people supplying to the Commonwealth government and various entities. It also arises out of the need for us to comply with our obligations under World Trade Organization agreements and our free trade agreements. Australia is also making sure that small and medium enterprises in regional, rural and metropolitan Australia have an avenue through the Federal Circuit Court, which is the only court which has a continuous presence in regional Australia where many of these businesses reside and produce goods which are procured by Commonwealth entities. As I mentioned, the Federal Circuit Court will be able to receive complaints from both local and international suppliers who feel that the Commonwealth Procurement Rules have been breached. And it is that which triggers the ability for them to issue an injunction, correct things or order financial compensation. In introducing this bill, the government doesn't want to generate a so-called lawyerfest. There are many sensible requirements under the bill for the supplier to engage directly with the Commonwealth entity in the first instance in relation to their complaint and to do it in a timely fashion—within 10 days and in writing. The compensation is limited to reasonable costs for the preparation of the tender and/or the costs related to the challenge. The Federal Circuit Court, as I mentioned, will be much more accessible than the higher court because it does sit regularly around regional Australia, and, as I said, many of the people supplying to Commonwealth entities are based in regional Australia. Their raw products and their production are in regional Australia—not exclusively, of course, but it will be a much better fit. It will make it more accessible and more timely, and it will allow much more transparency because of the time constraints that one has to comply with. Evidence of the breach and evidence of the attempts to resolve the matter with the Commonwealth entity must be provided in these disputes. There is facility and a requirement to do this so that the supplier can continue to supply during this dispute resolution. And the remedies and compensations are going to be the solution, rather than just leaving matters in a continual state of litigation. I have to state that, to qualify to go before this dispute resolution mechanism through the Federal Circuit Court, contracts have to be eligible. For the procurement contract to be covered by this legislation, both the first and second divisions of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules must apply. There are many exemptions under the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, including on the basis that the procurement is essential for maintaining international peace and security, for human health, or for protecting essential security facilities or national artistic, historical or archaeological treasures. There are exceptions for specific defence procurements and specific free trade agreement conditions. The accountable authority may issue a public interest certificate where the public interest or safety would be compromised by ceasing the procurement—that is, if something is a really important facility or product, say a bit of equipment that is essential, you don't want to have loss of delivery of that just because you're entering into a dispute resolution. In this case, if a public interest certificate is issued, it will allow for the delivery of the goods to continue whilst the issue in dispute is sorted out. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules set aside 10 per cent of Commonwealth procurement across all entities that must go to small and medium-sized enterprises. I would like to comment on some of these Commonwealth Procurement Rules, because it's hard to separate the rules from this dispute resolution process and the bill that we're discussing today. I think the 10 per cent should be an absolute minimum. I think all Commonwealth entities, whether they're corporate government entities, non-corporate government entities or Commonwealth government departments, should be looking at the value that small and medium-sized enterprises deliver when you look at the holistic value-for-money principle, which is mentioned in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. I also note that there is a propensity among Commonwealth government departments, corporate and non-corporate government entities to take the easy way out and go straight to a prime contractor. The reality, though, is that in many instances the prime contractor isn't the actual builder or supplier of the goods; they just act as a giant middleman. They can organise plenty of other tier 2 suppliers of equipment, goods or services—but really, if we're going to try to deliver on the provisions in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules regarding value for money, I put it to the House that it's much better value to go to the direct supplier of the good or service, rather than doing everything through a prime. There are, obviously, some things that are too big for a small or medium-sized enterprise, or a large mid-level enterprise but, really, if you look below the tier 1 contractors, for all these procurements you will see a lot more capability used than if it is all done through a prime. The other comment I would like to make is that nowhere in the value-for-money principles is there a mention of assessing the value to other Commonwealth, state or local government entities that benefit when a Commonwealth entity makes a decision about value for money. The feature that I want to highlight is that, if Commonwealth entities are procuring goods from local Australian businesses, there will be a return benefit, not necessarily in that particular department but in Treasury, or in Finance. If we procure from Australian providers, we get a GST payment or PAYE tax receipts. State governments receive payroll tax receipts. Local governments—if it's a local provider of services—will have many more businesses paying rates. We who have the responsibility for unemployment services and retraining will have reduced unemployment costs if we consider the value of procuring goods from local Australian companies rather than international suppliers. Think of all the retraining and stimulus packages in various parts of the country—these replace companies that used to rely on government contracts but now have people out of a job and are no longer viable, because they haven't got their base, large, long-term government supply contracts. We also miss out on the multiplier effect. If we purchase goods and services from local or domestically-based companies, we get a local economic multiplier effect. This is particularly the case if the local supplier is in a regional community. Receiving a long-term government contract is, essentially, much more valuable to a local company—whether it's in paper goods, uniforms, boots or high-tech IT services—than giving grants and other stimulus payments. Rather than going to the big primes, we have a burgeoning IT industry with a lot of capability here. I talk about other IT services like cloud computing. We could have that all based here with Australian based companies that pay their taxes here, rather than with multinationals. As we know, we've had a whole tranche of legislation proposed to avoid all the issues of cost shifting—that is, instead of paying tax here in Australia, paying tax in low-taxing jurisdictions. We also need to make allowance for the fact that a lot of the people who are supplying goods and services, including built and processed products, to the Commonwealth are hamstrung in Australia by high energy costs which overseas people and suppliers aren't necessarily subject to. We also have very high environmental standards in this country. When you're producing goods in Australia, in many cases, costs are higher because we do look after the environment. These added costs come from—mainly—federal and state legislation, particularly some of our energy market rules, and our environmental policies that have put up the costs of electricity and energy. If we're putting these extra burdens onto Australian producers and suppliers to the Commonwealth, it seems only fair and reasonable to account for that in the value-for-money equation. Getting back to this bill, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, it will make it a lot easier for suppliers—local, regional and metropolitan suppliers—to make a complaint. It will allow the supply of critical goods and services to continue while the complaint is sorted out. There are exemptions, as I mentioned, with free trade agreements and defence contracts that must be supplied. But, overall, this is a very good piece of legislation. Legislation that makes things easier is what we're all about in the coalition. Our coalition government is trying to make it easier for all companies to do business with the Commonwealth, and this initiative will go a long way towards making that happen. I commend this bill to the House. As I said, Commonwealth procurement in the value-for-money decision matrix must take account of value outside the department or entity that is actually doing the procurement. Entities should look at a whole-of-government return benefit, and at the benefit to the whole of the local, regional and national economy from procuring goods and services from local providers. I commend this bill to the House. 16:44 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I am glad for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, and to speak in support of the amendment moved by the member for Rankin. I acknowledge the work that he has done and continues to do in this space. Government procurement in Australia is very important for a number of reasons. Chiefly, we want to get procurement right. We want procurement to achieve its ends. We want the outcomes of government contracts to be fit for purpose and to be good value. We also want procurement processes to be accessible to Australian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, which face greater difficulties because of their scale when it comes to dealing with bureaucratic processes and when it comes to dealing with Commonwealth Procurement Rules. There are some aspects of this bill that appear beneficial. They give access to the Federal Circuit Court, a magistrates court, rather than the full Federal Court for resolving issues or taking up what seem to be breaches of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules in a way that will be much less time-consuming and much less costly. So, on the face of it, that's good for small and medium enterprises. But it's worth considering where this bill comes from and why we are going into it in this way and at this time. It is related to the comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership. It's part of our obligations under that agreement. So it's important to see that what we really are doing is making some changes to our procurement framework that are balanced by changes that will be made elsewhere. The concept is that not just that small and medium businesses in Australia will benefit from the changes to our own Procurement Rules but Australian companies more broadly will benefit from similar changes elsewhere where Australian companies want to be involved in procurement processes that are conducted by other governments. Whether that is actually achieved or not is an open question. I'll come back to that in the context of some of our other trade agreements. The timing of this bill is interesting, and what it seeks to achieve is interesting, if you look at the context of what's been happening in this space over the last little while. Australia is in the process of acceding to the government procurement agreement framework that exists under the WTO. We have been going through that process for some time. In fact, my understanding is that the Australian government position with respect to our accession to that agreement is going before the relevant committee in October. It is passing strange that we're entering into the framework covered by this bill at the same time that there's an equivalent set of mechanisms and measures covered under the WTO GPA in prospect. Certainly, when the Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement handed down its report, titled Buying into our future: review of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules,a bit more than a year ago, last June, its recommendation was that this kind of arrangement, the framework that this bill introduces, not be advanced until that WTO process has been resolved. There is basic logic in that, I think. But, coming back to what I said before, there are benefits in harmonised procurement arrangements for companies in Australia that want to take advantage of Commonwealth procurement opportunities and for Australian companies in other jurisdictions in other countries. I think, when we look at these things and we balance up those benefits, it's valuable and important to have regard to instances of this kind of effort in the past. I'm mindful that there were some procurement arrangements put in place under the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement that, on the face of it, would have given Australian companies greater opportunities to participate in American procurement processes and, yet, since that time, the evidence is that those opportunities haven't really eventuated. In fact, the Australian Industry Group made a submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's bilateral and regional trade agreements, and, in so doing, cited a survey they'd conducted of Australian exporters to the US five years after that free trade agreement came into effect. The survey found that 87 per cent of Australian exporters to the US took the view that the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement was either of low effectiveness or no effectiveness in assisting their access to US government contracts. As we do these things, we must always keep track of, on the one hand, what they purport to achieve or secure for Australian companies and, on the other hand, what they actually deliver. As is the case with many aspects of trade agreements, they tend to overpromise and underdeliver. I think that's probably a relevant consideration with regard to other aspects of the TPP. I know that's been discussed elsewhere in this place this week. It's important to note, as the previous member did, that when you change procurement rules those changes carry risks. There is very good reason for governments to have control, discretion and flexibility when it comes to government procurement. Government procurement is extraordinarily costly. In any given year, government procurement in Australia is worth something like $50 billion. In the 2016-17 year, Commonwealth procurement involved 64,000 separate contracts with a total value of $47 billion. In the 2014-15 year, the total value was closer to $60 billion. It's an extraordinary amount of money. First and foremost, we have to ensure that those procurement processes deliver the outcomes that we need. Inevitably, because they're being undertaken by government, what we're seeking to procure is of great importance to the wellbeing of Australians. In addition to there being this imperative for procurement to achieve its ends and to do so at good value, there are other aspects of broad national and community wellbeing that governments should think about when they undertake procurement processes. One that has been mentioned here is being able to support small and medium businesses and recognise that, when it comes to Commonwealth procurement in particular, those kinds of enterprises do stand at a disadvantage to large companies—in some cases, large foreign companies. There is also the desire to use government procurement to achieve other ends: to build and sustain local industry and capacity, to address particular kinds of workforce shortcomings and those sorts of things. The changes that this bill puts in place do contain exemptions for defence procurement. Again, that's an area where government wants to retain the ability to make choices with its mind squarely on our security needs. There are also some changes that allow some preferential, or you would say discriminatory, treatment in the interests of small and medium enterprises. In this case, any entity can have access to the changed procedures, the faster and cheaper procedures, but whether they end up being for the benefit of small and medium enterprises or for the greater benefit of larger companies—in some cases, foreign companies—is something we'll have to watch. In a submission on this issue, AFTINET made the following point: There is much evidence to suggest that the main beneficiaries of open procurement markets are large global companies which have the capacity and economies of scale to monitor overseas procurement markets and tender for large government contracts. This means it is not a level playing field for most Australian companies. I take the opportunity to make some general remarks on procurement more broadly. I think there are some process shortcomings with this bill around the timing and the way in which it's not consistent with relevant committee recommendations. I also think that procurement is a space in which the government has been less than active. There are a number of recommendations in the Buying into our future report that are yet to result in any real action, such as recommendation 2: … that the Attorney-General's Department oversee the introduction and application of a procurement connected policy requiring Commonwealth agencies to evaluate suppliers' compliance with human rights regulation. and recommendation 3: … that the Department of Environment oversee the introduction and application of a procurement connected policy requiring Commonwealth agencies to evaluate the whole-of-life environmental sustainability of goods and services to be procured. There are a range of way in which procurement processes can be designed and operated for the broad social welfare of Australia, and I'm not sure that's happening at the moment. I have spoken before about the value of a debarment framework. Other countries make use of that sort of filter when it comes to any company—foreign companies in particular—that has been found to engage in any kind of exploitative, criminal or fraudulent conduct. Canada has such a framework. The OECD has noted this kind of thing on a number of occasions. It's not something we have here in Australia at this stage, and I think it's something we should consider. On defence I would make the broad point that, while you can have exemptions in procurement arrangements that allow government to have a particularly free hand when making defence contracting provisions, the government of the day still has to use that free hand. When the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquired into and reported on the high-level agreement between Australia and France in relation to the Future Submarine program, it set out some high-level principles that should govern specific contracting arrangements in future, and I found it odd that the relevant provisions around achieving maximal Australian industry participation were pretty weak. The obligation put on France was that it require DCNS, the French prime, ensure Australian businesses participated in related work on an equal footing with French companies. I don't understand why, when you're paying $50 billion to a French prime for a massive multidecade project, you wouldn't require the participation of Australian companies to occur on a preferred basis, all other things being equal. If we're going to spend $90 billion on defence ships, at the end of the day we have to make sure a strong, secure, sustainable Australian shipbuilding industry comes out of that, which addresses the current problems we have in relation to how our defence procurement leads to related export opportunities. Most other countries do that much better than we do. I note that Labor is active in this space and has done things. For instance, we talked about the requirement that one in 10 personnel in government contracts be apprentices. That's the kind of thing you can do through government procurement where you get both a good value-for-money, fit-for-purpose outcome and a broader social benefit. I was happy to meet this week with a delegation from AMWU pushing to get more young women involved in male dominated trades. That's another objective that could be met by properly framed procurement arrangements. To conclude, I support the amendment moved by the member for Rankin. It's good to see some procurement changes that have the potential to benefit small and medium-sized Australian enterprises. It could have been done via a better process than we've seen with this bill, and we'll have to watch the results. 16:59 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017 is one of the enabling pieces of legislation supporting the implementation of the TPP agreement. It will amend the Commonwealth Procurement Rules to include an appeals mechanism and ensure that the CPRs are consistent with free trade agreements like the TPP and the WTO's Agreement on Government Procurement. But I would be doing a disservice to the number of Australian small and medium businesses who contract their goods and services to the Australian government if I didn't highlight—and we're talking about very macro international government procurement here, but we do really need to focus on this—what's actually happening here on the domestic front in terms of government procurement. There are significant challenges for Australian small and medium businesses getting a piece of the action when it comes to government procurement here in Australia. Despite the perceptions that they're getting between 20 and 60 per cent of the work, they are not. The Australian National Audit Office's December report on Australian government procurement contracting reporting gave an extremely good read. It was a very good insight into the procurement environment of Australian Commonwealth entities. In the 2016-17 period the overall procurement activity by Commonwealth entities was worth $47.4 billion, which was represented by 64,092 contract notices published on AusTender. The ANAO's report analysed financial years over a five-year period from 2012-13 through to 2016-17 and found the number of contracts to be 290,867 and their overall value to be close to $217 billion. That's a huge amount. Of these contracts, the highest number were, not surprisingly, from the Department of Defence: 123,319 contracts, worth almost $112 billion. The second-highest number of contracts was with the non-reporting agencies: 56,000 contracts, worth $33 billion. Of the identified Commonwealth agencies, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection was the second-highest in the ANAO report, with 13,198 contracts awarded, with a value of $15 billion. This report shows us that procurement accounts for a huge amount of government spending—in the 2016-17 period, $47.4 billion, and over that five-year period, $217 billion, with Defence topping out at $112 billion. They are very significant numbers. As a result of that, Commonwealth procurement should provide a significant opportunity for Australian small and medium businesses. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules set a government commitment to sourcing at least 10 per cent of its procurement by value from SMEs. But this opportunity is balanced against the competition Australian SMEs face, as the Commonwealth Procurement Rules also allow for international businesses to compete on the same playing field. The CPRs outline the government's procurement policy framework and the core objective. They ensure that entities achieve value for money in their procurement activities. But the CPRs provide guidance to ensure accountability and transparency in government contracts by requiring contracts over a certain threshold to be publicly reported by AusTender. Another requirement is for tenders not to be split or divided into separate parts to avoid the relevant procurement threshold. The ANAO's report assessed the level of compliance by government entities with this requirement and found noncompliance to be low, with as little as 1.6 per cent of 290,867 contracts having discrepancies. The ANAO's analysis identified 2,457 pairs of contracts where both contracts were with the same entity, each of the contracts was entered into with the same supplier, the contracts had a start date within the same quarter and the combined value of the two contracts was above the relevant threshold but each of the reported contract values was below the threshold. The ANAO notes that 4,914 of the individual contracts would need to be reviewed to determine whether they were for discrete procurements, whether there were data errors, like duplication, or whether a single procurement had been split to avoid reporting against the procurement threshold. It is interesting that the highest proportion of potentially related contracts, 30 per cent, were for the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science—a Commonwealth entity that accounts for only 2.7 per cent of all contracts entered into between that five-year period of 2012 to 2013 and 2016 to 2017. However, on the other hand, the Department of Defence accounts for 42 per cent of the total number of contracts awarded across the same period, with less than 10 per cent of those contracts having any potential contract discrepancies. The one thing missing from the current CPRs is a complaints mechanism, and that is what this bill puts forward. This bill attempts to create a type of complaints mechanism that was recommended by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2014. While the committee didn't specify a model, this change to Australia's procurement arrangements will let SMEs more easily hold the government to account. It designates the Federal Circuit Court to receive and review local and international supply complaints about breaches of the CPRs, but, aside from that, the government really hasn't explained what this new process will add alongside current review mechanisms. Currently, suppliers can make complaints to the procuring entity, the procurement coordinator within the Department of Finance, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Federal Court. The judicial review process set out in the bill will give small and medium-sized businesses located in regional areas greater access to justice, with local magistrates or circuit courts hearing their complaints rather than having to have the case listed in major or capital cities. While anything that makes undertaking business easier for small and medium-sized businesses is welcome, I have wondered whether this outcome was more by accident than by design. This bill amends the CPRs to include appeal mechanisms to ensure that Australia meets the requirements set out in future FTAs, including the TPP. The changes will also satisfy Australia's obligations as a proposed party to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and will allow Australian businesses access to significant government procurement markets in other countries. Whether this international opportunity can be realised by Australia's small to medium-sized enterprises remains to be seen, but I sincerely hope it does. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit held a public hearing into Australian government procurement contract reporting in August. Representatives of the 'big four'—PwC, EY, KPMG and Deloitte—all commented on the success of Australian SMEs in being awarded contracts through government panel arrangements. They were applauding themselves. EY noted: I understand from a recent report from the Digital Transformation Agency that in July 73 per cent of the contracts awarded through that mechanism— the digital marketplace— were to small and medium enterprises. When specifically asked about the effectiveness of panel arrangements in providing opportunities to the SMEs, it was noted that the panels are effective from a government buying perspective but that it can be very difficult for SMEs when trying to access a panel. Evidence provided at the JCPAA hearing noted: For a larger firm, it wouldn't be unusual for a larger organisation to spend $20,000 or $30,000 just on getting into the panel agreement. That is not an amount that many SMEs are able to withstand, certainly if they need to bid into multiple panel agreements, especially when there is no guarantee of work at the end of it. This is from PWC: … the tendering environment in government is highly competitive, and so I do see that there are challenges for SMEs in respect of panel arrangements. But … we also try to work to put the best team forward so that we can be successful and that includes involving SMEs and other subcontractors. When we think about AusTender, AusTender does only record the prime contractor and so there could be … an improvement that could be made to disclose the other organisations that are … part of that consortium. Before entering politics, I had my own microbusiness. I was mainly contracting to Defence and to government agencies for 10 years, so I know the challenges. I know the challenges of getting on a panel. I know the challenges of getting work once you are on the panel. I know how many highly skilled and experienced microbusinesses and small businesses are being forced to contract to primes and multinationals just to get work. I know that quite often when you're going on a panel, particularly when you are doing that first bid, you basically have to give years and years of financial records, and for a microbusiness that's a challenge—not that we don't have the records. But, really, do we need that much detail? Basically, you have to give half your body in blood and also your firstborn just to get onto a panel. That's been my experience. My experience has also been that, as a micro, to get onto a panel you have to subcontract to a medium or small outfit, and in some cases you have to subcontract to a prime, a multinational. In that process you are completely at the mercy of those primes and those subcontractors. It wasn't me, but when I was contracting in Defence I knew of other consultants who were billing themselves out to the prime or to the subcontractor for $150 an hour, and they were being billed out at $500 an hour. I made a speech in this place just recently about the fact that small and medium businesses, and micros particularly, provide extraordinary opportunities for government agencies. They are agile. They are flexible. They are innovative. They are creative. They can deliver efficiencies that larger outfits, particularly large multinational primes, just cannot deliver. They deliver an agility that those large multinational primes just cannot deliver. Our system, unfortunately, is geared to recognising and encouraging those large multinational primes and those large subcontractors at the expense of small and medium businesses and micros. This is particularly the case in regional and remote Australia. In my shadow defence portfolio, I do a lot of travelling to bases around the country, and I usually take the opportunity to go and speak to the local business chamber. They're tearing their hair out about the fact that they can't get a cut of the work. They can't get a cut of the significant Defence work arising from the base. That work tends to go to primes and subcontractors that are invariably based in the major centres on the eastern seaboard or potentially overseas. So those local businesses—I'm talking here about the local electrician, engineer or ICT person—just cannot get a look in in terms of the work. We really need as a nation to be thinking creatively about how we can maximise the potential of our micros and our small and medium businesses and capture that innovation, agility and creativity that they offer, because at the moment, the way the procurement arrangements are established, they favour being big. They favour low risk, and big is usually low risk. They favour tried and tested solutions that are not necessarily as innovative as they could be. I know this from conversations I've had with some of the cybersecurity outfits that we have here in Canberra, world-class outfits. I'm thinking here about Penten. They're coming out with amazing innovations, particularly for mobile highly secure devices, allowing devices to be mobile and secure. Their mantra when I was leaving was: 'All we ask is that government agencies, particularly Defence, just buy one. Just have a go. Just have faith in us as a creative Australian outfit here in Canberra and as an innovator. Just buy one and just try it.' That's all they ask, particularly those in start-ups, in the innovation sector, in the cybersecurity sector, in virtual reality and in artificial intelligence: 'Just buy one. Take a punt. Develop and manage risk. Mitigate risk. Develop an appetite for risk that is mitigated and managed.' That's all they're asking. So we are talking here about potential opportunities for micros and small and medium businesses. That said, I want opportunities not just internationally but also here domestically for micros and small and medium businesses in Australia. I want us to realise their potential. I want us to unlock their innovation. I want us to unlock their agility, their flexibility and their creativity. 17:14 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This legislation, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, implements commitments that the Australian government is signing up to under the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and possibly the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement whereby, if an entity is aggrieved by the awarding of a government contract, that entity has an ability to appeal that decision through the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, which is an easier process than what currently exists. The appeal would challenge the government's compliance with its own Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which in turn must comply with Australian obligations under free trade agreements, other World Trade Organization obligations and the government procurement agreement which the government is currently negotiating. The comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement has been mainly dealt with via other enabling legislation that was debated in this place a few days ago. In that debate, Labor highlighted several shortfalls with the TPP. Firstly, there is the inclusion of investor-state dispute resolution clauses which give overseas corporations rights that domestic corporations simply don't have. Secondly, there is the recognition of overseas skills that may not meet Australian standards. Thirdly, there is the ability to more easily recruit overseas labour in Australian workplaces. And, fourthly, there is the likelihood that pharmaceutical companies will have longer periods of monopoly over costly medicines. What has not been talked about so much but should be of real concern to all Australians is that under the TPP and the government procurement agreement overseas entities can bid for Australian government work on an even playing field with Australian bidders. That means that, other than where exceptions are provided for within the agreements, Australia cannot give favourable treatment to local entities for government contracts. That may sound like a good idea, but when analysed it not always is. If the government does give preferential treatment, under this legislation the aggrieved entity also has an easier appeal process. The enabling legislation for the TPP is currently before the other place, and the government procurement agreement has already been signed by some 47 countries around the world. Nine other countries, including China and Russia, are currently in accession talks to join the WTO GPA. In June 2018, Australia received support to join the GPA and it is expected that final approval will be granted in October of this year—that is, next month. So, from next month onwards, we may be a full member of the government procurement agreement that currently exists amongst 47 countries, with another nine also in the process of getting approval. At this point in time, Australia is not a signatory to the GPA, but it certainly may well be and, like the TPP, the GPA—that is, the government procurement agreement—has its own risks for Australia. Members of the House would recall that it was only about a year ago that there was a Joint Select Committee on Government Procurement that looked at the issue of government procurement within Australia and how we could ensure that that procurement better benefited local Australian companies. There were recommendations at the end of that inquiry. Recommendation 8 of that committee report said: The Committee recommends that, in negotiating future trade or World Trade Organisation agreements, Australia not enter into any commitments that undermine the Australian government's ability to support Australian businesses. The government's response to the report was pretty weak, if I should say so. Indeed, with respect to recommendation 8, the government's response was: Noted. The Australian Government enters into commitments in trade agreements that are aimed at supporting Australian business, in particular to open up new market access opportunities internationally and to put in place a framework of rules and standards that support transparency and competition on a level playing field. In other words, it didn't support a process that would have ensured that Australian businesses would have got preferential treatment but, rather, the opposite. In 2015-16 Commonwealth agencies reported entering into 70,338 contracts valued at $56.9 billion. My estimate—because accurate figures are simply not available—is that the $56.9 billion figure that the Commonwealth spends would probably be doubled if state and territory government procurement were also included. That means that in this country around $120 billion of government procurement is spent each year. That's $120 billion that could be directed to support Australian businesses and their employees and the economy of this country. Yet all the local benefits of that procurement are increasingly being chipped away by free trade agreements—and now the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and, soon to come, the World Trade Organisation's government procurement agreement. Even with the exclusions and the reservations that are carved out within those agreements, every agreement weakens the Australian government's rights to favour Australian businesses. This legislation weakens those rights even further, because it makes it easier for aggrieved parties—and that includes the foreign entities—to challenge Australian contracts. In the past, there may have been a process—and I know that there is some process where the government does favour local businesses, particularly small and medium ones. But in the future, if the government chooses to do that and it has signed up to the GPA and the TPP, it will be easier for those overseas competitors to challenge the decision to award those contracts. The argument that what Australia may lose by being a signatory to such an agreement is more than offset by what Australia may gain from winning contracts in other countries is wishful thinking at best. The figures on the trade agreements that Australia has signed to date simply do not show a net gain to Australia, or there are no figures on which we can make accurate comparisons. The fact that there are no figures is of itself concerning, because it indicates that the claims about the benefits to Australia about these agreements are simply not met. But the risk if Australia joins the government procurement agreement is even greater for this reason. Most of the agreements we have entered into to date rely heavily on the export of agricultural products and minerals in order to justify the benefits that are to come to Australia. However, with the GPA, no minerals and no agricultural products are to be exported to offset the possibility of overseas companies bidding for government contracts, which are in most cases services or the building of infrastructure. Additionally, whereas Australia acts ethically and complies with the spirit of trade agreements, that can't be said of all the countries we have signed agreements with. Indeed, I refer to the 47 countries from earlier on, with another nine to join the GPA in the future—possibly the near future. Governments in other places have been known to use what we call 'behind the border' barriers to make it much harder for overseas jurisdictions to continue doing business with them than it is for their local companies. A good example of that is that it was only a couple of years ago that it was brought out that the Reserve Bank of Australia's subsidiary, Securency, had got caught up in a note-printing scandal. The reason it did was that we had a product that was wanted overseas—that is, the printing of banknotes—and we could do so better than anybody else. But the reality was that, in order to win the contracts, bribes had to be paid. That's what happened with the Securency scandal. That just highlights that, whilst Australia signs agreements and then ethically goes about complying with them, it's not always the case with overseas jurisdictions, which can use all sorts of tactics to continue to favour their local businesses. That is a concern with this legislation and, indeed, with all of the trade agreements that Australia has to date been a signatory to. If Australians cannot rely on the Australian government to give preferential treatment to Australian businesses in the issuing of government contracts then they cannot expect any support whatsoever with respect to the trade agreements that the government is prepared to sign up to. With government contracts, the government is in total control of who gets the work and how it is awarded. So, if we can't rely on the Australian government for the $120-odd billion dollars of work that governments give out every year, then what hope do Australian businesses have of being supported by the government in respect to overseas contracts and in respect to the conditions within these trade agreements? The government could easily fix the problem it has, where it says that it cannot give preferential treatment to Australian businesses, simply by broadening the meaning of the words 'value for money' in respect of the criteria used when it comes to the awarding of Australian government contracts. The definition of 'value for money' should include whole-of-life benefits that accrue when a contract is awarded here within Australia and that should also include the additional revenue that the government gets back in taxes both by the sale of the product and from the workers who work there and pay pay-as-you-go income tax and the like. It should be a whole-of-product cost and not simply the bottom-line price as to how the product can be delivered. Unfortunately, that is not the case and that is why, in my view, Australia doesn't always get the best deal with respect to these contracts. Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would be fully aware of this with respect to the Rossi Boots factory that was in your electorate. It lost a contract simply because it was undercut by an overseas supplier. But if you had factored in all of the benefits to the local economy and put a dollar value to those factors, it would have been the case that Rossi Boots would have got the contract. It is not unreasonable and it is not unethical to include the whole-of-life costs of the product when a contract is awarded, whether it is a product or whether it is a service, and all of the income that accrues to the government should be factored into the final decision as to who gets it. I haven't seen, and none of us have seen, the actual text of the government procurement agreement that the current government is negotiating. As with all of these agreements, we only ever see the text once it has been agreed to. But I would have thought that, at the very least, if we're going to enter into new agreements, we should—with that agreement—also carve out protections with respect to national treasures of artistic, historical and archaeological value and we should also carve out any measures for the economic advancement, health, welfare and social advancement of our Indigenous Australians. If that can be done in the GPA then I believe it ought to be done and we should be doing our best to ensure that it is done. I finish with this comment, and it relates to a submission made by Dr Elizabeth Thurbon, who contacted the inquiry committee with respect to government procurement: … World Trade Organization (WTO) membership requires governments to curtail the use of local content requirements, direct export subsidies and preferential government procurement policies (which involve using government purchasing to support local firms). That quote, where Dr Thurbon makes it clear that we cannot give preferential treatment to Australian businesses, is concerning. I hope the government ensures that that is not the case with respect to new agreements that we enter into. 17:30 Mr BANDT M3C Melbourne This bill, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, will make it easier for multinational corporations to take the Australian government to court over how the Australian government spends its money, and Labor and Liberal are about to join together with the Nationals to vote for it. The trickle-down troika of Labor, Liberal and big business is trucking on and saying, 'How can we change the rules to make it easier for big multinational companies to come and restrict how this government wants to spend its money?' Why are we here debating this bill? We're debating this bill, in the words of the government—which have been echoed by the opposition—because Australia has recently signed up to the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a blueprint for giving corporations greater rights over everyday people, and also because the government wants to go off and negotiate another deal with the World Trade Organization that will make it easier for overseas companies to take the Australian government to court. The previous speaker has just said that he hasn't even seen the text of that, yet Labor and Liberal are about to pass this bill through this place. This bill deals with what's called government procurement, which is about how government spends its money. We know that the government has some very deep pockets and can drive significant change and influence what Australia looks like by how it spends its money. The government can decide, when it awards contracts, that it is going to do so in a way that it thinks is of benefit to the local population. For example, it could say, 'We have a youth unemployment crisis in this country,' which we do, because under this government one in three young people either hasn't got a job or doesn't have enough hours of work, and it's at crisis levels that have not got better since the GFC, when we, together with the mining boom, effectively destroyed a huge number of manufacturing and entry-level jobs in this country. The government could, for example, if it wanted to—this government won't, but a good government could—say: 'We're going to spend our tax revenue to help young people get jobs and increase apprentices, and we're going to give priority to local businesses in doing that. We want to give some preferential treatment to local businesses, because we know that it's going to be better for the long run in this country if everyone has a sustainable, meaningful job.' You implement those things through your procurement policy. You set some rules about how government spends its money. When you do that, you can make the judgement calls about saying: 'Well, on paper, a bid from somewhere else might appear to be a couple of hundred thousand dollars cheaper, but by the time we factor in the people who will get a job if we give it to a local business and the avoided welfare costs of that, and the additional environmental benefits of doing it here locally and the ability to regulate local companies, perhaps on balance it's better.' That's why you have local procurement rules that can have preferential treatment built into them. Big multinational companies don't like this, because they look at governments and they just see dollar signs. They see bank accounts and cheques being written for them. They want the right to come to countries, including Australia, and say: 'Well, hang on. We can sell you the product much more cheaply—perhaps because we're getting it made by someone in a country where we don't have to pay Australian wages—and we want the right to do that. We don't want to have our hands tied by you deciding that you might want to give preference to local businesses in some way.' So these big multinationals have got together and written a blueprint for a set of rules that will make it much more difficult for the Australian government to spend its money in a way that looks after its population. Those rules are found in things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and also in things like this procurement agreement being negotiated by the World Trade Organization. What this bill does—and the reason that this gives us an entry ticket into the very bad TPP and the very bad WTO agreement—is allow a multinational company, when it hears about how the Australian government has decided to award a tender, to go to court to get an injunction to stop the government from proceeding. Why does it want to get an injunction, get compensation, run a claim against the government or take it to court? Because, if it can put a brake on the Australian government doing it, it can then go and lodge a complaint with the World Trade Organization or with some other body under the TPP, and have it resolved in an international forum behind closed doors where they apply the rule of trickle-down economics and don't care about governments looking after their own population. Who is that going to work to the benefit of? I've heard the government and even the opposition saying: 'Actually, this is all right, because it works the other way around. Australian companies will be able to do the same overseas.' Do you really think that an Australian small or medium-sized business is going to have the capacity to go to the WTO and lodge complaints against overseas governments? No. This isn't going to benefit local businesses accessing overseas markets. This is designed to give a leg-up to multinational corporations against Australian small and medium-sized businesses. When a company has won the tender, looks like it's going to win the tender or has rules that appear to give preference to local companies for some very, very good reasons, all of a sudden it's going to find itself in court—not against another Australian company, but against an overseas company with much deeper pockets—facing an injunction, facing a compensation order and facing a complaint through a different authority before they go to the court. These new rights that companies will have are only going to work to the disadvantage of local companies. This is why, in part, when the Senate looked at this, many senators, including government senators, said: 'Don't pass this. At the very least, don't pass it until we know what the final rules are that we're signing up to as part of this WTO agreement. Don't pass it until we know whether the TPP contains protections.' Well, now we know that it doesn't contain adequate protections. We now know that the senators who looked at it and said, 'Look, hang on for a moment,' were right to say that. Now we've got the TPP in front of us. We know that under the TPP the government did not remove the so-called ISDS provisions, the ability for companies to take the Australian government to court. Jacinda Ardern, over in New Zealand, had the good sense to negotiate some get-out clauses for New Zealand, but the Australian government did not. The Australian government doesn't care, so it signed up to these awful deals. It doesn't care that it's going to give corporations much more significant rights. We now know that these deals have some huge traps in them. That's why the Greens think we shouldn't be signing up to them. That's why half of the Labor Party thinks that we shouldn't be signing up to them. That's why civil society thinks we shouldn't be signing up to them. That's why the ACTU—and the member for Batman when she was the head of the ACTU—put in a submission to the Senate inquiry to say, 'Don't rush ahead with this, because we can only see that this is going to disadvantage local businesses.' And they were right. We've got an opportunity now to say: 'Let's park this bill until the opposition and everyone else gets to see the full text of this agreement.' They're coming in here, complaining they haven't. 'Let's park it until we've gone back and renegotiated the TPP to include some better protections for labour and the environment, and to remove the ability for corporations to sue governments.' That is the opposition's policy, so it should be unobjectionable to say: 'We're not going to rush this bill through until we've gone back and negotiated a better deal.' So, as an amendment to the amendment moved by the opposition, I move the following: That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "the House appreciates the significance of this measure, the House defers further consideration of the bill until the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement contain: (1) better protections for labour rights, the environment, and local business; and (2) no investor-state dispute settlement provisions". I'm moving that amendment, which the member for Denison is going to second, because it is no good to sit in your party room and say, 'We don't agree with the TPP,' or, 'We don't agree with these deals that the government is negotiating secretly,' but then, when you have the opportunity on the floor of parliament to do something about it, when you've got the most precious thing that the Australian people trusted you with when they elected you—which is your vote in this place—go and vote with the government to fast-track this bill through. We should not be pushing this bill through when we absolutely do not need to. This bill has been sitting around for a while. It could very reasonably sit and wait until the TPP has gone back and been renegotiated. I'm very sceptical of the Labor Party's view that it somehow is going to be in this magical position where it can renegotiate the TPP, if and when it gets elected—and I do hope there's a change of government at this election. But the idea that Labor's putting out there, that we can go back and renegotiate it, is fanciful. That's why we've separately moved to park the TPP agreement as well. We should not be signing up to that. But it's crystal clear that, even if you think that's right, even if you think that the new Prime Minister is going to be a negotiator who's going to be able to go back and take all these terrible clauses out of the TPP, then we should not pass this bill now. Wait until all of that has happened. So I'm moving what is a very simple, reasonable and unobjectionable amendment to park consideration of this until we have that opportunity. I must say, by way of comparison, that I personally wish that the government were willing to allow people the freedom of movement to the same extent that they're allowing it for multinational corporations. If you're some person who has suffered torture, war or famine and you decide that you want to come to this country to make a better life here and to contribute, this government locks you up. Even if you are an 11-year-old child, this government, with the support of the Labor Party, will lock you behind wire until you no longer have the will to live. As we've heard this week, 11- and 12-year-olds are now saying that they no longer have the will to live, and a 12-year-old girl has reportedly set herself on fire in a camp under our watch. So, if you're a person who wants nothing more than to come here and seek a better life, you get locked up until you die or you kill yourself. But if you're a multinational company wanting to come here, Labor and the Liberals roll out the red carpet and say: 'What protections would you like us to remove? You're welcome here. The door is open. Don't worry; if you think there are any pesky rules that we've set up that might give benefits to the local Australian population, feel free to take us to court.' What the government and the opposition don't seem to understand is that we keep playing by rules that no-one else plays by, in the hope that somehow it's going to result in the economy magically growing. Yet speaker after speaker from the Labor Party comes in here and says, correctly, that there's no evidence that these deals deliver any meaningful benefit for the Australian population at all. It's not often that the Greens and the Productivity Commission are on the same page, but they are on this one. They've said that the tangible benefits of these deals are overstated and that we should know about them before we sign up. So let's find out first, before we sign up. Before we give a blank cheque, let's park this bill. I am going to oppose it, but I imagine others might support it. At the very least, everyone should agree to park it until we have gone back and put some things in those multinational agreements that reflect what the Australian people want and, probably, what the majority of this parliament want as well. It is time to stand up, use the vote and support this amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Wilkie C2T I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 260805 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to the proposed amendment that all words after 'Whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment to the proposed amendment be agreed to. 17:45 Mr KATTER HX4 Kennedy I rise to speak to the original bill, the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017, but, obviously, that has gone sideways. I have risen again and again on this issue. I have a unique position in this place, because I have been a member of parliament for longer than anyone else in Australian history, with the exception of Billy Hughes—not good company to be in, Mr Deputy Speaker, I can tell you. I have seen the complete destruction of manufacturing in my country, and, if you go back to my speeches from 35 years ago, I was probably advocating a movement towards free trade, but you have to judge policy upon its outcomes. I wrote a book, and some would argue it was based, to a very large extent, around the views of Edward Theodore, who Malcolm Fraser said was one of his two heroes and who Paul Keating said was one of his two heroes. I have a picture of Jack McEwen and Ted Theodore on my wall. I am not an important person. I'm not the Prime Minister of Australia; I am a relative nobody, but I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you couldn't find three more unalike people on the planet as those three people. But they agree on one thing. The whole existence of the Labor Party was to get arbitration, which has been removed by free markets, undermined for the worker and completely removed for the farmers. So we have been left to the tender mercies of Woolworths and Coles and the foreign marketplace, where every farmer on earth gets 40 per cent of his income from the government—and we get none of our income from the government. So that is real fun. But, you have to be judged on your outcomes. You have completely closed down the motor vehicle industry. You have completely closed down the whitegoods industry. Every single thing that you use in your house, from an air conditioner to a washing machine to a fridge, is now produced overseas. I remember vividly when Keating said: 'We are going to be the most free market economy on earth.' That was one promise that he did keep! It was six o'clock in the morning. I picked up a boot and threw it at the wall. I thought, 'From now on, I have to look after the workers in this country. What does this imbecile think? Do we go down to slave labour wage levels, give massive subsidies like our competitors, or close down industry in Australia?' They were the alternatives. Clearly, we were never going to go to subsidies. So we had two alternatives, not three, and one was to close down the industries here. So we closed down the industries. Were you surprised? That morning I knew that, if he were fair dinkum, every industry in this country was going to be closed down. Your motor vehicle industry has gone. Your whitegoods industry has gone. Your glass industry has gone. Your textile, footwear and clothing industry has gone. Your steel industry is about 60 per cent gone, and soon it will be gone completely. Your cement industry has gone—well, 40 per cent gone, but soon it will be gone completely. I was referred to by Keating as the 'last socialist' left in this place. I don't know. What the hell. When QCL, Queensland Cement and Lime, was in a bit of trouble—we could see that it would be mopped up by a foreign corporation, and the entire cement market in Queensland would not be buying cement produced in Queensland but would be buying cement being produced overseas—we went in and bought the company. If you said to Bjelke-Petersen that you were going the pay $1,000 million to a foreign corporation to build a rail line into the Galilee he would have had you put in a lunatic asylum. But now we're the people being put in a lunatic asylum. Where is the benefit? I have waited for a single speaker from that side, or from this side, to point out a single benefit. They all got up and said 'rural industries'. If there is one person in this place that represents rural industries it is me. There is no doubt about that one. I don't think anyone would contest that one. I represent the biggest agricultural industry in Australia. I represent about a sixth of the Australian beef industry. No-one represents more beef cattle than I do, and we are down 23 per cent. After this drought we are going to be down even further in our numbers. The beef industry has to help the sugar industry—one of the four giants of the Australian agricultural economy. We're now 17 per cent. In fact, we're closing a sugar mill every three or four years in Australia. Soon we will have no sugar industry at all. It didn't help the sugar industry. Did it help the dairy industry, which is one of the big four? Their production is down 31 per cent, so it most certainly didn't help the dairy industry. The next one is the wool industry. This industry had carried the Australian economy for 160 years. In the year that Keating chose to deregulate it, it was bigger than coal. It was the biggest export commodity this country had. It was the biggest and greatest asset this nation had, and Keating destroyed it. These people participated in the destruction. Seventy-two per cent of our sheep industry has gone. There are your big four in agriculture. It didn't help them. Who did it help? Please, stand up and tell me who it helped. When I walk into this place I walk past a magnificent portrait of the first member for Kennedy, Charles McDonald. If you ever watch me walk past I never walk past without saying, 'Good on you, Charlie.' When we got arbitration, what the government did was allow blackbirding, indentured labour in the sugar industry, and they allowed coolies, indentured labour in the mining industry. They said, 'Take that one, Mr Trade Union Movement, Mr Theodore and all your mignons. Take that one between the eyeballs.' A bloke on a bicycle in a place called Chillagoe north of Cairns had a dream that we weren't going to live like slaves any longer. He lived not far away from Mount Mulligan, where 72 human beings were blown to pieces in the Kennedy electorate. Seventy-two human beings were blown to pieces in one explosion. In my hometown, Charters Towers, 23 people were blown to pieces in a matter of seconds. This is what was going on. We fought the fight. He had this dream this he could actually make it better. Do you know what he did? Within seven years he had taken over control of Queensland and said: 'Righto. You blokes did that, so what we are going to do is take all your plantations off you and hand them over to the cane cutters, the people who actually work it and actually live here in North Queensland. We are going to take all your pastoral runs off you, you big foreign corporations, and we are going to hand it over to Queenslanders.' There is a political message here. Do you know that the people that lived outside of Brisbane loved that bloke so much so that for 56 straight years the labour movement won every single seat outside of Brisbane in almost every single election. When you do the right thing, people see that you are doing the right thing. With Bjelke-Petersen, every single election we increased our majority. That was because we strained every muscle and nerve and sinew to see that the people of Queensland owned the assets. We owned the electricity industry. We owned the railways. We owned the ports. And—it would be unthinkable—we owned the cement and lime company that was producing cement in Queensland. I don't know how many things we owned, but the people of Queensland owned them, and we produced from them and, yes, we enabled foreign corporations to come in and use those facilities, but we charged like a wounded bull. They said that sometimes our rail charges were a bit high. Well, I didn't notice. The famous Sir Leo Hielscher is the greatest Treasurer and financier the country has ever seen by a long way. Two of the three biggest bridges in Australia are named the Sir Leo Hielscher Bridges, and quite rightly so. I think at his address last weekend he had five ex-treasurers, one or two ex-premiers and about seven or eight ex-cabinet ministers. He's one of the most famous men in Australian history and he is the architect of the economic miracle which was Queensland. It was wonderful to hear that man speak. He took a state where we had chooks in the backyard—he had chooks in the backyard; my family had chooks in the backyard. We were poor people; everyone in Queensland was poor. But we suddenly became rich because we owned the assets; we put government money into developing those assets. We didn't build pleasure domes on the South Bank of the Brisbane River. We built railway lines where the men with the hard hats and the hard hands could go and earn a big quid. If they got off their backside in the city and were prepared to go out there and work hard, they made big money. And I'm proud to say that the workers in the state of Queensland were the most highly paid workers in the world when the government fell in 1990. And they could only bring us down by backdoor, backstabbing methods. I have written a best-selling history book. It was published by Murdoch Books, and it was launched by Kevin Rudd no less, with over 1,000 people in Sydney. We turned away 200. In Melbourne we had 750 people when it was launched by Barrie Cassidy. That was not my choice; that was Murdoch Books' choice. I'm proud to be associated with both those men. When they write a history book of this period, they will spit upon all you people sitting over on that side and all you people sitting over on the other side. When you read my history book and you read about those people who reduced us by 72 human beings who were blown to death at Mount Mulligan and 23 who were blown to death at Mount Leyshon—and my own son worked at Mount Leyshon—you spit upon those people. When people listened to Sir Niemeyer from the Bank of England instead of listening to our own people and we had the worst depression of any country on Earth, they spit upon those people. If you read that book and that history of Australia, you'll say there were great men and there were little pissants. God help the people in this place when the history books are written, because this period has presided over the most disastrous destruction of the Australian economy. This country now has only two things left that we can export from two quarries, an iron ore quarry and a coal quarry. Let me be very specific: more than 50 per cent of our income comes from two quarries. That's all we've got left. And quarries run out. I'm a mining man; I've been in mining all my life. Eventually your mine runs out. What have you got when the mine runs out? You've got nothing. Let me just say that they're at about $120 billion to $130 billion a year. The next item down is maybe gold or aluminium or beef, which is at $11 billion. You've got nothing left. All you've got is two quarries. That's all you've got left. And who did it? And what are you doing today? Are you apologising? Are you reversing it? No, you're doing just the opposite. I said it again and again about the car industry. I hope that somewhere in my country will rise up in righteous anger and destroy the people who are in this place. My brothers in North Queensland, where the last explosion came from, have a look at the figures; have a look at the One Nation and KAP figures. We're ready for the explosion up there, I can tell you. And we'll lead the same as we did last time. But, when that explosion occurs, one of the first things to do is to restore the motor vehicle industry, which is as far away from me as the South Pole. But I love my country. One of the greatest stories in the history of Australia is the story of Laurence Hartnett and Ben Chifley, who created the car industry. It is so easy to do that, because all you've got to do is say, 'All motor vehicles purchased under a government contract will be Australian made.' That's all you've got to do. But the right to do that—that little piece of sovereignty—is being removed, to their eternal shame, by the ALP and the Liberal Party. So that right is being removed by those people. And I promise you, you will be recorded in the history books. 18:00 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer Firstly, I'd like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017. The bill implements recommendation 11 of the July 2014 report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee into Commonwealth procurement procedures that the Department of Finance establish an independent and effective complaints mechanism for procurement processes. The bill ensures that regional suppliers and small and medium enterprises have timely access to justice to raise complaints about procurement processes. The bill also complies with international trade obligations to maintain an impartial and independent body where suppliers can raise complaints about government procurement processes and be awarded remedies and compensations. It will give Australia the opportunity to access the government procurement benefits of the World Trade Organization Agreement on Government Procurement and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP-11. By designating the Federal Circuit Court with concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Court, the courts can decide which is the most appropriate court to deal with the matter. This will allow complaints to be heard in a timely manner. The bill specifies a 10-day time frame for suppliers to make an application to the courts to encourage timely efforts to resolve any concerns about a procurement process. However, the bill also provides a flexibility for the courts to allow a longer period for applications if there are genuine reasons for the delay. The courts may order remedies to preserve a supplier's opportunity to participate in the procurement, but will not be able to overturn awarded contracts. Where a procurement cannot be delayed, the courts will be able to order compensation limited to the costs or damages which occurred in the preparation of the tender or in bringing the complaint or both. Before a complaint reaches the court, the supplier must first complain to the Commonwealth entity responsible for conducting the procurement. The entity will investigate and attempt to resolve the complaint with the supplier. Suppliers must provide evidence of their complaint, including attempting to resolve the complaint with the procuring entity in the first instance. Regional suppliers and small and medium enterprises will now have timely access to justice to raise complaints about procurement processes and seek remedies. The Federal Circuit Court is the only court at the federal level with a continuous presence outside major capital cities. Suppliers in rural and regional Australia will have easier access to have their complaints heard without the need to attend major cities. I will briefly correct some errors made by speakers during the second reading debate. First, I note that the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement is already publicly available. It has, in fact, been in the public domain since 2014 on the WTO website. We're not negotiating a new text. Indeed, 47 countries are already members. If some members have not seen the agreement, it is because they haven't looked. Second, in relation to value-for-money assessments under the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, the procuring official must consider relevant financial and non-financial costs, which include whole-of-life costs. I also note that, in 2017, the Procurement Rules were changed to take into account economic benefit of a tender to the Australian economy. The government does not support the second reading amendment proposed by the opposition criticising the level of opportunity for participation by Australian business in the Commonwealth procurement. I inform the House that Australian suppliers are already well represented in government procurement, with over 95 per cent, by number, of contracts being awarded to suppliers in Australia in 2016-17. As much as $40.8 billion of the $47.3 billion contracts were with suppliers operating from an Australian address. The government also does not support the amendment proposed by Mr Bandt, the member for Melbourne. There is an important advantage to Australia being an early entrant to the TPP. Once again, I thank all members for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House, and I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. The SPEAKER 00APG The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Melbourne has moved as an amendment to the proposed amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. So the immediate question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting aye. The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Rankin be agreed to.

The House divided. [18:15]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)

 66 AYES Albanese, AN Aly, A Bandt, AP Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AS Burney, LJ Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Dick, MD Elliot, MJ Fitzgibbon, JA Freelander, MR Georganas, S Giles, AJ Gorman, P Gosling, LJ Hart, RA Hayes, CP Hill, JC Husar, E Husic, EN Katter, RC Kearney, GM Keay, JT Kelly, MJ Keogh, MJ Khalil, P King, CF King, MMH Lamb, S Leigh, AK Marles, RD McBride, EM Mitchell, BK Mitchell, RG Neumann, SK O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE O'Toole, C Owens, JA Perrett, GD (teller) Plibersek, TJ Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Snowdon, WE Stanley, AM Swanson, MJ Templeman, SR Thistlethwaite, MJ Vamvakinou, M Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Wilson, JH Zappia, A 70 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KL Banks, J Bishop, JI Broad, AJ Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Coleman, DB Coulton, M Crewther, CJ Drum, DK (teller) Dutton, PC Evans, TM Falinski, J Fletcher, PW Flint, NJ Gee, AR Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Hartsuyker, L Hastie, AW Henderson, SM Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Irons, SJ Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Laming, A Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Littleproud, D Marino, NB McCormack, MF McGowan, C McVeigh, JJ Morrison, SJ Morton, B O'Brien, LS O'Brien, T O'Dowd, KD O'Dwyer, KM Pasin, A Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE (teller) Robert, SR Sharkie, RCC Sudmalis, AE Sukkar, MS Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Vasta, RX Wallace, AB Wicks, LE Wilson, RJ Wilson, TR Wood, JP Wyatt, KG Zimmerman, T 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:19 The SPEAKER 00APG The question is that this bill be now read a second time. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— The SPEAKER 00APG As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. Question agreed to, Mr Bandt, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 89 18:20 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018 89

Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018

Consideration of Senate Message 89 Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 93

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018

Second Reading 93 18:23 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on these two bills. the government's Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. Labor supports these bills; however, in saying that, we want to raise a number of concerns about not just this legislation but also the way the government has handled the quality and safety of aged care in Australia. As we heard over the weekend, the government has now called a royal commission into aged care and the safety not just of older Australians in residential care but of all of those receiving aged care services across Australia. More than one million Australians are currently receiving aged-care services across the country. I also acknowledge and thank the minister for facilitating a departmental briefing for me on this bill. That was very useful and I'm very pleased that we were able to do that. These bills, as many of you would know, are a consequence of the Carnell-Paterson review that was handed to government in October last year. That review recommended bringing together the functions of the current Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. This was one of the 10 recommendations included in the Carnell-Paterson review. The purpose of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill is to establish the new commission, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, from 1 January 2019. As we heard from the government, the new commission will be tasked with helping to restore the confidence of aged-care consumers in the delivery of aged-care services, given the context of recent public concern. We all know the context in which this review occurred and some of the terrible things that happened. With this new commission we want to provide a single contact point for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to the quality of care and regulation. The commission will be responsible for accreditation, assessment, monitoring, and complaints handling in relation to aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care services. These aged-care services include all four areas of aged-care services, including residential aged care, home care, flexible care services, the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. The new commission will be led by a statutorily appointed Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, who'll be advised by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. The commissioner will be appointed for a term of five years. The bill also establishes that the commissioner may seek and consider clinical advice. This would take the form of an expert clinical panel that would support the work of the commission. The second bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations for the existing authorities into this new commission and provides for the continuation of appointments to the Aged Care Quality Advisory Council until the expiration of their current terms as new members of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. As I said, we do support what this bill is trying to do. We absolutely do. In fact, we have been calling on the government to act on the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review and to act on the recommendations of a whole range of other reports that are currently before the government. We are really concerned that while the government has had this recommendation it's taken almost a year for this legislation to reach this place—October through to September. Really, in light of the concerns for the safety of older Australians, that's pretty unacceptable. I wanted to know why there'd been a hold-up and why this has been taking so long. I also understand that the Greens in the other place want to have an inquiry into this bill. I am concerned that that inquiry might hold up what is really important critical reform that needs to happen. I want to make the point that Labor has not at any stage tried to impede the passage of this legislation or to delay it or to not cooperate with the government on trying to get these bills through or deal with this situation, because we understand how important it is for older Australians, their loved ones, their families and their carers to have some certainty and some confidence in the accreditation and safety of older Australians receiving aged care. We know that these bills are so important in restoring that confidence. We need to make sure that people have confidence in our system. Clearly, from the royal commission, from the Four Corners program, we know how bad some of those issues are. The royal commission will continue to deal with some of them, and I'm sure we'll see even more-harrowing sights than we saw on Four Corners last week over the next week and indeed throughout the royal commission. We want to make sure, and we'll cooperate in terms of the Senate committee, that that process is undertaken as quickly as possible and that there will be no further delays. We also think that these bills are a missed opportunity for the government to give the commission stronger arbitrary powers, given the level of public concern in relation to some of the disputes people have with service providers. We don't want to see this become a toothless tiger. We think it is a shortfall that government didn't consider giving the new commissioner greater arbitrary powers to resolve disputes between consumers and providers in the aged-care system. We also want to put the government on notice that there must not be any changes to the current cost-recovery process and/or fees and charges to ensure the ongoing support for smaller providers. I did raise this in the briefing. I am concerned that some rural and regional providers are unable to pay the cost recoveries that are required for some of this process for accreditation and investigating complaints. We need to ensure that those providers are able to be sustainable, particularly in regional areas where options for consumers are limited. Although the advisory council is set to continue, I would also like to point out that the government has yet to fill three vacancies on this advisory council. I assume that as soon as the new commission is established they will do that as quickly as possible. I also want to take this opportunity to put on record some comments about the Four Corners program that we saw last week, knowing that there is another one to come next Monday night. I want to say this to the staff who were brave enough to speak out: thank you. We understand how difficult it must be and that they don't want to put older Australians in jeopardy by speaking out. We also thank the brave family members who spoke out. We know how difficult it is. We also know that the majority of aged-care workers treat older Australians with dignity and try to deliver the highest possible care. But that is not always possible because there are simply not enough of those workers caring for older Australians. I want it put on the record: our thanks to the nurses, careers, doctors and allied health professionals who work hard to deliver for older Australians each and every day. It is not an easy task. We recognise that every day around the country the majority of older Australians are treated with care and respect at residential aged-care facilities and in other aged-care services, but what we saw on the Four Corners program was totally unacceptable. Since that time, I have been inundated with reports from other concerned family members who are also telling me their stories of unacceptable standards of quality of care. I hope that this new commission, and the existing commission in the meantime, are able to deal with the influx of complaints that they are about to get and that they have the resources to be able to deal with that, because it is a very serious issue. We are absolutely appalled by the images and stories that we saw on Four Corners. Like every other Australian watching, I was really actually quite sad and quite tearful when hearing these stories and seeing this crisis in our national aged-care system, particularly when seeing the standard of care that was delivered in some of the homes that we saw. We have always said we should judge ourselves as a nation by how we treat our most vulnerable. That includes older Australians. We cannot call ourselves a fair and generous country until we can ensure that older Australians have the love, care, respect, autonomy and control over their own lives to make choices about how they want to live. It is clear this standard is not being met in some homes and in some services around the country. As I said, government has announced this royal commission since the introduction of these bills and since knowing about the Four Cornersreport. Indeed, they announced it the day before the Four Corners report went to air. I am concerned that the announcement of a royal commission, whilst we absolutely support it, might slow down progress. That is why we want to progress these bills and deal with them as quickly as we can, although without denying anybody the opportunity to speak and have their say. The terms of reference for the royal commission need to be considered really carefully by the government. If you are talking about quality and safety in aged care, they do need to be broad. They need to be broadened—more than the public statements to date might suggest. In particular, they need to look at the long-term sustainability of the sector, the funding and the staffing. I don't see how you can have a discussion about quality and safety for older Australians in aged care if you don't have appropriately qualified staff in the sector who are paid well and who are trained well. Of course, we then need to have a discussion about how we fund that. The royal commission should also examine, in our view, the impact of the 2015 and 2016 ACFI changes. You don't fixed aged care by cutting the money available per resident. We think that that was a mistake. We on our side of politics have been saying that the aged-care system is in a state of national crisis. Bill Shorten said that in May of this year. In the parliament we heard the minister actually have a go at us about that and have a go at our leader. The minister was, in fact, almost comparing it to elder abuse, which was quite disappointing. I know that the minister has since apologised for that. What is curious is how much the government knew about how bad the system was—yet they were willing to defend it and say, 'We don't need a royal commission. Labor was wrong to say there was a crisis.' This has suddenly changed in the last week. Of course, we're glad it changed and we're glad that these issues are finally coming to light, but it is disheartening when, for well over a year, we have been raising these issues about what a crisis the aged-care system is in. We weren't listened to and we were dismissed when we tried to raise these issues. As I've said, there are more than a dozen reports with a whole range of recommendations currently sitting on the minister's desk. The government is claiming that it has acted on these. The government has cherrypicked some of these recommendations. It has not responded, for instance, to all of the recommendations in the Tune legislated review. Even by its own best admissions and the best, I suppose, long bows that it might draw, the government has only dealt with 18 of the 38 recommendations from David Tune's report. It has not implemented all of the Carnell-Paterson recommendations. This is obviously one of those that's still yet to be fully implemented. There have been three ministers for aged care in five years. When you have three ministers and billions of dollars in cuts, and you have ignored a whole range of reports, reviews and inquiries into the system for years, it does make one wonder about how much accountability the government is going to have for what the royal commission does expose. Quite frankly, if these kinds of instances do come to light—like what we saw on FourCorners—it does raise the question of who was in charge of the system. We know the issues with accreditation failures from previous inquiries. Clearly, there is a lot wrong in the aged-care system. There are systematic failures that people should have been aware of long before this royal commission was called. I think it has been totally unacceptable, and I think that those on the other side need to reflect on how we have got to the point where the government has called a royal commission into, essentially, how it has dealt with aged care over the last five years. I think there needs to be some accountability and some acceptance from the government of its failures in this regard. We do not intend to hold up this bill, but I am going to be moving a second reading amendment in relation to this bill at the end of my speech. I want to talk about when we have tried to hold the government to account and force some people in the government, whoever they might be, to accept some responsibility for where we are today after five years in government. There has been a bit of debate about the billions of dollars in cuts to the aged-care system. It's not just Labor saying this; the government's budget papers say that this occurred. The minister wouldn't answer my question today. He obfuscated and, in my view, deliberately didn't answer the question in the way that it was asked and was not directly relevant to my final question. There is no doubt that the ACFI complex healthcare domain funding per resident in a residential aged-care facility has been cut as a result of the 2015 MYEFO and the 2016-17 budget. There is no doubt it is lower than it should be or would have been without those cuts. As I said, it's not just Labor saying this; if you talk to the aged-care peaks and providers, they agree. Their assessments and analyses done on this say that there is an ongoing cut that adds up to almost $1 billion a year by the end of this year. They are saying there has been $3 billion cut from the system. Sadly, when you're talking about $3 billion out of a $17 billion or $18 billion budget for aged care, it is a substantial percentage and it impacts directly on staffing and quality of care. There's no way you can have a discussion about quality of care without acknowledging that it has an impact. We've had discussions, questions, leaks and debates in this place this week, but it is really quite disturbing that nobody on that side appears to understand that they have been in government for five years. They have essentially called a royal commission into aged care because they have mucked it up so badly that they need a royal commission to fix it. There is absolutely no other explanation for the royal commission being called. When Labor introduced the Living Longer Living Better reforms in 2012-13 the changes were bipartisan. They locked in substantial growth in aged-care budgets for quite some time, but they also had a workforce supplement of $1.5 billion to go directly towards improving workers' salaries and training in the aged-care system to keep more people working in aged care and to attract people into aged care. That supplement was axed by the government and that money was absorbed elsewhere within the aged-care budget. That means we haven't done anything about workforce for some time. You cannot, as I said, have a discussion about quality and safety without talking about the workforce. The sector spoke to the minister, and eventually a workforce task force was established with John Pollaers as chair. He completed this work and handed the strategy to the minister in June this year, but it took until last week, and a further media release from me, for this document to be released publicly. The minister eventually said it should have been released publicly and apologised for the delay, but quite frankly how are we going to implement the recommendations of this task force now in light of the royal commission? I have not heard or seen anything from the government about an implementation strategy or funding for that. We have called on the government to implement the recommendations and thanked John Pollaers for some excellent work. We may not agree with every single tiny thing in it, but it is a good start and has been done with consultation. The government needs to work with workers in the sector and their representatives in the unions to implement the strategy that is going to be required to meet the growing demand for workers. We know that programs like we saw on Four Corners are not going to encourage more people to work in the sector unless people can be confident that there is some impetus from government and officials to fix the system. We are talking about increasing a workforce of 340,000 people to over a million in the next 30 years. That is a very a significant number of people that need to be trained for, attracted to and kept in the aged-care workforce, and I just don't think that the government has focused enough on ensuring these workers are available and have the skills necessary to provide the quality and safety of care that is required for older Australians. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of staff, particularly nurses and personal care workers. As I said earlier in my opening remarks, I think we need to look at the important role of allied health professionals in the aged-care setting, whether they be GPs, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, dietitians, podiatrists or others. A whole range of allied health professionals are important to how we ensure the safety and quality of services that are provided to older Australians. We all know the demographics. We know the number of people over 85 is rapidly increasing compared with younger age groups. It is projected to double by 2032. We know that will have a massive impact, as I said, on the number of workers available but also on how we fund the system going forward, which is why the future sustainability of funding needs to be seriously considered by the royal commission. We don't want to see the government not act, due to the royal commission, on the other things that need to be dealt with. I have talked about the task force report, I have talked about the Carnell-Paterson report and I have talked about the David Tune report. It was good to hear the minister refer today to the Wollongong report on ACFI. Labor has been up-front. We think the Aged Care Funding Instrument that makes the assessment for residents in aged care is broken. I have said that for more than a year. The Wollongong report, again, has been sitting around for a very long time. I know more work is being done on it, but we need to progress these things much faster than is happening, because older Australians cannot wait until the end of a royal commission for some of these issues to be dealt with. The home care waitlist is another issue that cannot wait until the government's royal commission ends. We now have 108,000 people, as at the March quarter, sitting on a waiting list. Some of those have no services at all and over 50,000 have no home care package at all. There are people currently today waiting on that waitlist for more than a year for a home care package. Indeed, sadly, I get reports all the time of people who die waiting. That's not unusual in aged care. I absolutely get that, but the stories from some family members are that they are just desperate to get their loved one a package; they just want to get their loved one some care. The government needs to act on this waitlist. It cannot wait for the recommendations of a royal commission; it needs to do something about it today. In fact, it needed to do something about it six months ago, as I have said so many times in this place. So many of my colleagues on this side of the parliament have repeatedly called on the government to fix this waitlist, to do something about it. We have seen the government do a little bit. We got an extra 6,000 packages released, I think, in September-October of last year. In the budget, the government moved some money out of residential care and put it into home care to fund another 16,000 packages. There has been no evidence or suggestion from the government of when those 16,000 packages are going to be released. I have heard various reports that 3,500 were going to be released each year, and then I heard 8,000 in the first year. Quite frankly, the Australian public deserves to know how many of those 16,000 packages have been released. The June quarter data is now overdue. We still don't know what that looks like. I just think the government needs to be much more transparent with people. Surely, if you are having a royal commission, you want transparency and honesty about what is going on in the system. So why delay a waitlist? Why not tell people where they are on the waitlist? Why not tell people how long they are going to have to wait for a package, rather than saying '12 months plus'? Twelve months plus doesn't help people plan. I know that the waitlist changes all the time and that people are exiting packages. They're going into residential care, to hospital or are becoming deceased, but people need a better idea of what '12 months plus' is, what the current wait time is. Surely, the IT systems with My Aged Care are at the point where people can get a better idea of how long they have to wait so that they can plan. Some people have been waiting for two years—12 months plus up to two years. That makes it really difficult for people to plan. With this new commission and the safety standards, I am concerned about the services that people are receiving in their homes. Whilst we have seen some terrible things in residential aged care—we have seen the footage of some of the things that are happening in residential aged care—I am also worried about vulnerable, older Australians who are in their own homes. I am worried about what might be going on in those homes without proper oversight. I have had assurances from the minister that the new quality standards that were introduced applied to home care and that at the moment the commission is able to deal with complaints but that the new commission will deal with them in a much stronger way. When I hear stories about the increased number of accreditations for home-care providers—people who want to access essentially government money to provide services to vulnerable old people—I do become concerned about what their motivations are, how quickly accreditations are being registered and what might happen. I'm putting the government on notice: we will be keeping an eye on this, because we don't want to see a whole range of new providers, who are substandard providers, being accredited in a hurry and putting older people at risk in their homes with their services. We need to make sure that that process is extraordinarily robust and that the current systems in place are able to deal with that until the new commission comes on board. As I said, I will be moving a second reading amendment. We support the bills and remain committed to working with the government and the sector to ensure that older Australians can age safely, happily and with dignity, but it does not mean that we will not call out the government when it is doing the wrong thing and it does not mean that we will not call out the government when it is slow to act. On that, I move: That all words after "'That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's mismanagement of aged care reform". The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 Is the amendment seconded? Mr Champion HW9 I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 18:49 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I'm delighted to rise today in support of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and its companion, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. While these bills are relatively straightforward and their provisions far from complex, the issues they will help to address and manage into the future are immense and, in time, will touch the lives of most Australians. The purpose of these bills, considered together, is simple enough: to bring existing aged-care agencies together into a new, consolidated agency and to make the necessary provisions to accommodate that agency. This bill has a special significance for me as the member for the Sunshine Coast seat of Fairfax. The Sunshine Coast region has one of the highest concentrations of older Australians anywhere in the country, with 20.9 per cent over 65 years of age at the last census. That compares to 15.2 per cent for Queensland and 15.8 per cent nationally. The feedback I get from older Australians and their families across my electorate, from our annual Fairfax seniors forums and from regular meetings of the Fairfax Seniors Advisory Committee, is that more needs to be done to improve the quality of care; to provide better access to care, especially for those suffering dementia; and to weed out abuse and substandard care, wherever it is found. It is for these reasons that I stand here today in strong support of this bill. Older Australians have no better friend than the Liberal-National coalition. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister and, in particular, the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, we are resolutely committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity. In so doing, we recognise the great contribution they have made to our society and to building the Australia that we all enjoy. To that end, the first bill seeks to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and, in so doing, marks a significant reform in the regulation of aged-care providers. While the aims and achievement of the bill should not be understated, it must be said at the outset that this is but a part of the government's broader agenda to strengthen and enhance aged-care regulation to provide the highest-quality care for older Australians. This newly created commission will by its existence consolidate existing accreditation, assessment, monitoring and complaints-handling agencies and platforms into a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers. The commission will be led by a statutory appointed Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, who will in turn be supported by an advisory body, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. Aside from directly establishing the commission as a prescribed agency, the bill also details the functions of the commission, the commissioner and the advisory council. The bill further describes various appointment processes, together with protocols for the sharing of personal information, including the protection and disclosure of such information. Operational matters are also treated by the bill in some detail, including right of entry to aged-care facilities, search powers, reporting and also disclosure requirements, all of which, together with other aspects of the bill, were the subject of an extensive public consultation with a range of stakeholders to comprehensively inform the recommendations of last year's Review of National Aged Care Regulatory Processes. This review, undertaken by Kate Carnell and Ron Paterson, was requested by the minister following revelations of the tragic circumstances surrounding the Oakden aged-care facility in South Australia. The second bill, which deals with consequential amendments and transitional provisions, will repeal the original enacting legislation for the former Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and amend the Aged Care Act 1997 to replace references to previous agencies with references to the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. This bill also facilitates an efficient transfer of functions and operations from the former agency and complaints commissioner to the newly established Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Importantly, the bill provides for a continuation of current appointments from the former advisory council to the newly constituted Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This provision will allow for the new advisory council to start work immediately, with no service gaps, while also ensuring stability, a continuity of experience and expert advice. That covers the broad strokes of the bill and the proposed legislation. Essentially, it's about bringing together all the relevant agencies, with no silos, to focus sharply on providing the highest-quality aged care within both residential care and home care streams. While these reforms make sense and align with key recommendations to government, we must never forget that they are really about people. They are about all aged-care consumers, both those in care and their families and friends. The challenges that impact on the provision of quality aged-care services in Australia are not only very personal when it comes to quality of life of older Australians and peace of mind for their families but also immense in scope. I commenced my contribution to this debate with an indication of the high number of older Australians living in my electorate and across the Sunshine Coast. Of course, it's not just the Sunshine Coast that's witnessing an ageing population. The average Australian is getting older—in fact, much older. Over the 20 years from 1996 to 2016, the proportion of Australians aged 65 years or over increased from 12 per cent to 15.3 per cent. This group is projected to increase even more rapidly over the next decade, as the bulk of the baby boomer generation reaches 65 years of age. However, the critical pressure building on our aged-care system becomes even more obvious—and, worryingly, more immediate—when you consider the rapid increase in those aged over 85 years, a time of life when care becomes a reality for many Australians. Over that same 20-year period up to 2016, the number of Australians aged 85 years and over increased by 141 per cent, compared with a total population growth, including immigration, of just 32 per cent over that same period. Even on today's population numbers, we face a significant challenge. But come 2060, Australians aged 65 and over will, on current projections, account for one-quarter of the population, while two million Australians will be over the age of 85. There are many reasons for Australia's ageing population, including sustained low fertility and increasing life expectancy. The significance of life expectancy was starkly illustrated by the Productivity Commission in a 2013 report entitled An ageing Australia: preparing for the future, in which it was claimed that for every Australian reaching 100 years of age there are 100 babies in their first year of life. However—and this is where the rubber really hits the road—by 2060 there'll be 25 centenarians for every 100 babies. The reality of an increasing life expectancy will effectively mean that, instead of living for an additional 19 years beyond the age of 65, a child born today can expect, on reaching 65, to live a further 29 years. This is a prospect that raises powerful issues around optimal retirement issues, superannuation and, of course, aged care. While funding for aged care is at record levels under this government, we simply can't ignore the pressure that will be placed on the system in the decades to come. We must nail the issues that guarantee high-quality aged care, not just because we face a demographic challenge on a scale never seen before in Australia, but because we're talking about our mums and our dads, our uncles and our aunts, and our brothers and our sisters. We all deserve the peace of mind that comes from knowing that when time catches up with us, and those we love, there will be dignified, quality and affordable aged-care solutions available. Last Sunday the Prime Minister and minister announced a royal commission into the aged-care sector. I welcome this announcement, because it reinforces the determination of this government to comprehensively address reported abuse and critical noncompliance in the aged-care sector, including the care of younger Australians with disabilities living in residential aged-care facilities. Damning new data suggests an alarming spike in assaults, including rape, and other serious risks to residents' health and safety that if proven demonstrate a clear abrogation of the duty of care at some aged-care facilities. While the vast majority of aged-care facilities and their staff consistently provide the highest level of professional care, the nature and extent of these claims are clearly shocking. They have shocked Australians and, I believe, every member of this House. While the reported abuses are in themselves confronting, it's the sheer number and dramatic escalation in reported incidents that is especially appalling. I don't want to dwell on this, frankly, but to ensure this House is clear on how grave this situation really is, let me raise some disturbing statistics. New data recently released by the Department of Health shows that reportable assaults in residential aged-care facilities have increased by 32 per cent in the last financial year to a record 3,773 reported cases. That's one for every 55 aged-care residents nationally. There was a 177 per cent increase in the number of residential aged-care facilities deemed to be a serious risk to residents' health and safety. There were 61 locations identified in the serious risk category by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency in 2017-18, while at the same time reported incidents of significant noncompliance in aged-care services has skyrocketed by 292 per cent. Despite the shocking nature of a growing number of seemingly isolated incidents, incidents that should not be and will not be tolerated, the overwhelming evidence from government agencies is that the vast majority of aged-care workers and associated professionals are committed to supporting older Australians in a respectful and caring way. This, too, has been my experience as I have engaged with aged-care providers and their staff across my electorate of Fairfax and the Sunshine Coast. We must, therefore, be careful not to draw conclusions that unfairly tarnish the reputation of so many wonderful care providers. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to leave a single stone unturned as we fine-tune Australia's residential care and home care system. As a community we rightly expect the highest standards for the quality and safety of aged-care services. The Australian government shares these expectations. And whether it be by the reforms enacted by this bill, or indeed by the rigour of a royal commission, this government stands by the rights and upholds the dignity of older Australians. It is for these reasons that I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House. 19:04 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I rise today to support the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Franklin. But I must say, to quote that great Rugby League broadcaster and master of tautology of my adolescence, Rex Mossop, this is like deja vu all over again. Those on the other side can talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. With anything to do with health care, they talk about it, but they do very, very little. They do not understand public health policy. It's taken five years and three Liberal Prime Ministers, but aged care has finally got to somewhere near the top of this government's priorities. It's taken a lot of heartache, a lot of impassioned advocacy and lobbying, countless warnings of a national aged-care crisis, 10 or more independent studies and parliamentary reviews and reports in the last decade, an exponential increase in the number of breaches of aged-care standards reported to the government in the last 12 months, a petition of 240,000 signatures to parliament this week, and the looming spectre of a two-part Four Corners program, but they've finally got there. It's all come in a shambolic and clumsy rush, leaving the minister comprehensively hung out to dry. Just how long aged care will stay a priority for this government, of course, is another matter. The track record to date is far from encouraging. Until last Sunday, this government had consistently rejected and rubbished previous calls for a royal commission, including from this side of the House. It had accused those calling for urgent reform of fearmongering, all the while siding with those opposed to the most basic guarantees and protections for our most vulnerable. The bill before us today was tabled before the balloon went up on the slow and dilatory efforts of the last five years. It's a telling fact that the bill takes up only one of 10 recommendations of the government's own Carnell-Paterson review. What a week ago, however, might have been sold as a substantial reform now looks anything but that. Most of us will have now seen part 1 of the Four Corners two-part program on aged care. Those who haven't seen it should. It's not easy viewing. It is, by degrees, incisive, troubling, heart-rending and anger-inducing. Over the best part of 40 years, I've come across some pretty disturbing and very nauseating things in our health and aged-care systems, and you wonder if you still have the capacity to be shocked and revulsed. Sometimes you think you've seen it all, and, at times on Monday night, I half-wished I had. Others will feel the same. You don't need to be a doctor or a lapsed health professional to feel that way. All you need is the barest skerrick of humanity. What Four Corners depicted was human misery and suffering, stretched out on a rack built by a combination of government stupidity and private greed and indifference—the logical playing out of a sort of business model that is beneath contempt and beyond satire. If you felt nothing else, you felt an acute sense of shared failure. How could we as a society be so blind and so uncaring? How is it that we did not take notice of the scale of patient neglect and really basic human needs, such as nutrition? How did we miss so many good employees and carers being consumed or crushed by the system? How is it that the aged-care system and the taxpayer are being so routinely gamed for profit on such a massive scale? Aged care, rightly, ought to be at the top of the national priorities in any caring society, especially one as rich as ours. Older people already make up a considerable proportion of Australia's population—in 2017, over one in seven people were aged 65 and over—and we can expect that the proportion will rise steeply in the next 20 years. Treasury's fourth Intergenerational report in 2015 noted: A significant change over the past 40 years has been the increase in the number of people accessing aged care services. The Australian Government provides aged care funding for residential aged care and a range of community care services, including care in the home. Australian Government expenditure on aged care has nearly quadrupled since 1975. Expenditure is projected to nearly double again … by 2055, as a result of the increase in the number of people aged over 70. Added calls on the federal budget for aged and health care were also a function of special factors like declining rates of home ownership, high levels of private debt and inadequate levels of superannuation. The full impacts of accelerating demographic change are only now starting to be felt and coming home to roost. As Professor Simon Eckermann of the University of Wollongong explains, the large increase in life expectancy over the last 40 years has generally pushed back the inevitable costs associated with the last five years of life—the years when the health expenditure on an individual peaks. For the last 30 or 40 years, ageing effects have only explained about five per cent of the increase in health expenditure. That will change. As a country, we need to get moving on this issue—indeed, we should have been taking action years ago. Any more years of government inaction like the five we've just had are a recipe for disaster, so these bills are welcome. They create what COTA has referred to as 'a one-stop cop' to monitor and enforce aged-care standards nationally. They aim to provide for better outcomes for those in care, and come with a $106 million support package in the budget. Of course, they are to be welcomed, as we welcome all sensible reforms, such as the introduction of unannounced reaccreditation audits of residential aged-care facilities. But these reforms alone represent only the beginning. And they need to be made to work. As the Aged Care Guild has noted: … the establishment of An Aged Care Quality Commission is a positive step … but it is important that it doesn't just become another layer of bureaucracy. As Bill Shorten noted, adequate pay and having enough qualified people are essential to getting things right. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation, representing one of Australia's most respected callings, agrees. The government has an enormous task ahead of it, if confidence is to be rebuilt and aged-care standards are to keep pace with community expectations. Over a quarter of a million people were using residential aged care, home care or transition care in June 2017. In addition, almost 723,000 people were assisted in their homes under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. Already, governments spend around $17 billion on aged care, with the majority—about 69 per cent—going towards residential aged care. The expenditure on residential care was 2.7 times the amount spent on home care and support. The Australian government provides around 96 per cent of the government funding for aged-care services. Worryingly, a sizeable proportion of that money appears to be being skimmed off for private gain and not finding its way to those whom it is our duty to care for and protect. Regrettably, most policymaking under the coalition is a bit like oranges at half-time in the footy; it's something they squeeze in between bouts of internecine warfare. On Sunday the Prime Minister announced a royal commission into aged-care services, but did not announce the terms of reference, the time frame for reporting or the name of the commissioner. At this point, the public haven't even been advised precisely what aspects of aged care will be examined. In May, when the Leader of the Opposition called on the government to act on a spike in complaints and concerns about aged-care services, he was accused of fearmongering and conduct verging on elder abuse. A few weeks ago, when interviewed by Four Corners for a program that went to air this Monday, the minister said a royal commission would be a waste of two years and $200 million. What a shambles! And now the government wants us to proceed in a bipartisan manner. They want Labor support for the royal commission and they want our support for these bills. If they get their act together and stop name-calling—and accusing the opposition leader of elder abuse, for example, which was really way over the top—they will have our support. And they'll have it even though they've rushed this bill upon us today, knowing full well that it has been referred to a Senate committee for consideration and that they are still awaiting the report of the House of Representatives standing committee on aged care. They have not allowed any real window for public comment. This bill really ought to have been brought forward sooner, and treated with greater urgency and greater respect. That way, this debate could have proceeded after the public carers and health professionals had had their chance to be heard. On Sunday, even before the government had made official its leaked announcement on a royal commission, Bill Shorten was on the Insiders program, ready to offer our in-principle support and encouragement. He could do that because Labor knows what it's doing. We know about health care and community health, and we know what needs to be done to lift the quality of aged care and public confidence in the provision of aged-care services. No one wants older Australians and their families and friends to be living in fear. No-one wants to see health professionals, like those we saw on Four Corners, being driven out of their jobs or pushed to the point where they just cannot face it anymore. It is a human tragedy. The government needs to do better and governments of all colours need to own their mistakes and oversights, particularly in aged care. People want us to explain ourselves. They want us to take responsibility. They want us to fix problems and not pretend those problems will go away. This minister and this Prime Minister's problem is not that they don't mean well; it is that they are playing catch-up and trying to do it while their party is still focused on itself and on political damage control. It is damage, incidentally, that it has inflicted upon itself. The government has taken four years to come to its senses and realise its budget cuts to aged care and welfare generally in 2014 and after were an unmitigated disaster. They were never going to be accepted by this parliament or by the Australian people, nor was the government ever going to solve the so-called debt and deficit crisis that the Liberal spin doctors manufactured as a rallying call for their 2013 election campaign. Labor has supported more funding, better planning, better systems and the coordination and delivery of aged-care services every step of the way for years. Like others on this side, I spoke in June this year in support of the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018, arguing that the coalition needs to get over its pathological mistrust of the public sector and its view that government support is only for those whom it considers deserving. As I said back then, and I quote: Aged care is heavily regulated because it is heavily funded by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer wants, deserves and has a right to know that they're getting value for money. …   …   … The government is in the field because people need to know that adequate regulation is in place, and they want it to be there. The government is there to make sure that the myriad rational decisions that work for the majority of individuals don't oppress the minority, or aggregate the poor or the disadvantaged into a collective decision that is against their best interests. I'm also keen to have this bill go forward as soon as practicable, because we are running out of time to get changes made as our population ages. If you want a parallel to other policies, just think about climate change and energy policy. This government won't be helping if it turns aged-care policy in an ideological battleground. That should not happen. That would be a real pity, because over the last decade we've fallen significantly behind in our provisions for aged care. We need to admit it. We only have to look at the waiting lists to see this. Politics has the potential to derail good aged-care policy and both of the major parties need to work together to get the best results for older Australians. I'm pleased to see that the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform 2018 was passed by the parliament this month. It is a start, as are these other bills. To conclude, the government and this Prime Minister might further promote a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship if the Prime Minister could divest himself of some of the judgemental rhetorical flourishes he has employed in talking about measures such as those that we have before us today. In Sunday's media release, the Prime Minister observed: We are committed to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to society. This immediately reminded me of the Prime Minister's comment on assuming office that: We believe in a fair go for those who have a go. We on this side believe in a fair and equitable system for all. Support for the aged and the infirm should not rest on the moralising or value judgements that this government and this Prime Minister are prone to. You doesn't desert the poor or the starving because, to be blunt, you think they have either underachieved or stuffed up. It is easier to help the 'deserving', but we need to be helping everyone. Where is the charity in what the government is suggesting if they only help the 'deserving'? Government and government ministers have wide powers and responsibilities, but playing God isn't one of them. This bill has the potential to improve a service that is damaging, is inadequate and does not care for the most vulnerable in our society. We need to protect the most vulnerable in a non-judgemental way. The poorest in our community, those who can't fight for themselves, need to be supported by the government in a practical and bipartisan manner. I commend this bill and the amendment moved by the member for Franklin to the House. 19:19 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler ( I rise to speak in support of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the related bill. One of the reasons that this first bill is so important to the people I represent is that my electorate of Hinkler has one of the largest percentages of elderly people in Australia. As at March 2018, there were 27,738 on the age pension in my electorate and 47,506 had a pensioner concession card. At the end of the day we are here talking about regulation and oversight, but, more importantly, we are talking about people. And I want to speak briefly about the people who do need this level of care and what it is that they've done for our nation. These are the most resilient and stoic people I have ever met. If we look back to what it is that they have done for us, many of them were teenagers or young adults through World War II. Their parents lived through the World War I era. They've lived through the Korean War and the Vietnam War. They've seen technology move so rapidly: from the original meat safe to a refrigerator; from the development of television, and men landing on the moon in 1969, all the way through to now, with social media and expansion. It has been such an incredible change for them. And what have they done? They have been hardworking. They have been out building our nation—our roads, our farms, our industries, our businesses—and providing opportunities for their children and their children's children over, literally, decades. The reason this debate is so important is that they deserve the dignity and the respect and the care that they have earned over the many years of building our nation, and I think we should be focused on them. That is the absolute reality: we should be focused on them. I look back to the things that they would have seen—the donkey hot water systems and the outhouses—they know what 'night soil' means. Many of them never had the opportunity to go to university as many of the people in this building did. In fact, it has extended enormously compared to what they used to do. They knew what hard labour was. It was hard labour—pick and axe and shovel. They have cleared our agricultural production areas. They have done everything that we need to make sure that our economy and our nation goes forward. So we need to look after them at their time of need. Locally, what we are doing is providing more services. In my electorate in 2014 we provided an additional $8.6 million to an additional to 126 residential care places and 57 home-care packages. In 2016, it was an additional 278 residential care places. In 2017, it was an additional 174 residential care places. There are about 28 aged-care facilities in my electorate, with two new ones opening in Hervey Bay—The Waterford and Ozcare's new centre. These are two fantastic aged-care facilities. In fact, I'd describe The Waterford as a cruise ship. It has cruise-ship-like facilities. There are theatres. There are workshops and a Men's Shed. There are all sorts of local assets for people in that facility to utilise. But aged care is a changing business, so we continue to invest in new and expanded facilities throughout the aged-care approval rounds. Once again, the people who've worked hard, who've raised us, who've raised their children and who've raised their grandchildren deserve that respect and that dignity and the highest standard of care. I'm very pleased the minister for aged care is here in the chamber tonight. Mr Wyatt and I have met a number of times with local constituents and with local providers, particularly over issues which have been raised with me in my electorate. As a result of those meetings, we had one of the first unannounced audits of an aged-care facility in this country. We've had the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner visit the electorate to meet with concerned residents and aged-care providers. Those aged-care needs continue to be met, but we must ensure that the standard is of the level that is required, so roundtable discussions with aged-care providers and families were a valuable opportunity for them to raise their concerns with the minister. The reason people bring these challenges to us is because they want action, and we took that action at the time. But what I don't want to do is to disparage those operators who are doing a very, very good job—to disparage those people who work in aged care every single day, in trying circumstances, doing their utmost. It is on them that I want to reflect, because they are doing a great job, and we shouldn't be out there making their time more difficult. That is why the Department of Health and the Office of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner held two aged-care forums in Bundaberg just last month. Our first session was for consumers, seniors, their family and carers, and anyone else who might have been looking for information about how to access aged-care services. The second session was for aged-care services and health professionals. We had around 100 attend each session, and the feedback from the first session was very positive. We need to provide those opportunities to those individuals who are concerned, because, at the end of the day, one day it may well be us needing these services. In my own personal life, that opportunity was of no avail for my grandparents, apart from one; they simply did not live long enough to need that care. So I think we should celebrate the fact that Australians are living longer and continuing to contribute. While aged-care services are there, fundamentally, to provide services to people in need, they are also such a massive driver of our local economy. They provide employment. They provide the supply of services and goods. They are a huge driver of our local economy. For us, in an electorate where this is one of our biggest challenges, they are providing local jobs and strengthening our local regional economy. They are a massive driver of our economy, and the more we have, the better. Obviously we continue to need more facilities locally. So I'd say to all those providers out there: we have the numbers, but there are more people coming into care, and certainly the Hinkler electorate—Bundaberg to Hervey Bay—is an opportunity for you as a provider to deliver more beds and more services in our local region. I've spoken a number of times about ACAT assessments and the fact that the wait time has once again become too long in regional Australia. I would say again to the state Labor government: you need to fix this. Just because someone does not live in the city does not mean they don't deserve the same standards. Many of our constituents look to these services, particularly in regional areas such as Childers, because regional centres become the catch-all for the smaller communities inland. As a coastal community, we pick up service provision to those people who have resided in Mundubbera, Gayndah and Eidsvold and in other electorates and who move to the major centres when they need these services. But, like all Australians who've lived somewhere for a long time, they would like to be able to stay home for longer, and we are providing those services. So, for those out there looking for that opportunity, I say again: move to the Hinkler electorate; that opportunity is there for you. There is affordable housing, it's a great place to live and it is a wonderful place to retire. And we are debating, of course, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will become a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to the quality of care and regulation. The commission will continue to regulate residential aged-care services, home care services, flexible care services and the Commonwealth funded aged-care program. The commission replaces the existing Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner from 1 January 2019 by bringing together these functions into the commission. This will result in the commission being responsible for accreditation, assessment, monitoring and complaints handling in relation to Commonwealth funded aged-care services. While I'm on my feet and have the opportunity, I say to those individuals out there who have concerns about aged care that you should raise them. I've spoken to a number of people, and not only people who provide health services, or employees. If you have an issue, raise it with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, once it is established, because that is its job as a regulator. As part of the reform agenda, it is intended that the commission will be responsible for the approval of providers of aged-care compliance and compulsory reports of assault from 1 January 2020. The commission will be led by a statutorily appointed Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner, who'll be supported by an advisory body. I've also written to the aged-care minister—he might not have seen it on his desk quite yet—about the actual terms of reference of the royal commission, asking for the minister to consider the total transparency of costs and funding to show just how federal government funds are expended per patient for what services and how much per provider. I've asked the minister to consider greater transparency relating to profits and losses and how aged-care providers, both not-for-profit and for-profit providers, re-invest any of those potential profits into the facilities where the profits are generated to ensure that no profits are siphoned into a provider's general operating costs over a number of facilities, as well as the ability to make compliance reporting measures mandatory, not voluntary, in relation to adverse incidents, and the assessment of staffing needs with the focus on the number of staff, the qualifications mix required, staff training and competencies, and wages across the sector. I've also asked about a review of the need for access to registered nurses, whether on call, per shift or through other means, and also an assessment of the needs of regional and rural facilities to investigate their specific needs to maintain viable services and ensure that any recommendations do not lead to closures and job losses in towns. If you live in a regional area, you are linked to that community, and it is important that those communities are provided with the opportunity that services provide in the capital cities. You should not have to move to a capital city simply to be provided with aged-care services. So I commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Environmental Conservation 104 19:29 Mr BURKE DYW Watson When people talk about environmental protection, too often we only think about the more distant and remote parts of our country. Those more remote areas often are very well deserving of protection and, from time to time, I have been involved in campaigns for exactly that protection. But we have often missed the importance of conservation projects in areas where many people live. If I go through the Nepean, the Parramatta, the Cooks, the Maribyrnong, the Yarra, Darebin Creek, Merri Creek, the Brisbane, Scrubby Creek, Karrawirra Parri, the Tamar and the Swan, I'm talking about waterways in our urban areas. These are waterways which, to varying extents, have historically been treated with almost environmental disdain. When heavy industry first arrived in Australia, it found its way lining the creeks for the very simple reason that all the waste products could be deposited immediately there. Heavy metals still lie at the bottom of a number of these waterways. Since that time, we have managed to match what is at the bottom with plastics at the top, and our waterways in our urban areas have become one of the great environmental challenges about which we are yet in a comprehensive way to say, 'We need to fix that.' The need to fix it is incredibly important. Think about the nutrients, chemicals and heavy metals that are at the bottom of the waterways and you think about the plastics that are at the top. It's a direct pathway from when those plastics are first littered from the gutter to the drain to the river and then to the ocean and each piece of marine life and seabird on the way through. The environmental protection of remote areas is contingent on us looking after the areas where a whole lot of people live, but that's not the only reason it's important. The most degraded of the urban rivers are always in the poorest and most working class areas, and they should not be. Whether a river looks like a river or like a stormwater drain should not be connected to the average income of a postcode, but in many cities in our country it is exactly like that. This is something that can be fixed. Years ago, the idea was you could fix every river that was already a problem and the way to fix them was to line them with concrete. Increasingly, as those concrete banks require replacing, the opportunity is there to make sure that the banks are properly remediated. There are also increasingly opportunities to treat not just the river but the entire catchment, to intercept the waste products before they reach our rivers, whether that interception is through gross pollutant traps that just make sure the material never gets there or by diverting the water through natural processes by adding new wetlands. When new wetlands are added it is the ultimate example of 'build it and they will come' because what comes isn't just the plants and water that are put there; in so doing, habitats are created there. We have in the Cooks River an area that was completely degraded, but now the native birds have shown up again. I'm not sure where they came from. The pelicans are along the river again now. It is still too degraded, but we need to see that this can be fixed and we need to understand that the parts of our environment where we have tended to place our cities have historically been sites where large numbers of people have been living since the first sunrise on this continent. There are stories that live on these rivers that if we allow them to continue to be degraded will have nowhere to go. We have an Indigenous rangers program that has focused on the remote areas and played a magnificent role, but I think it will also have a role to play in preserving and restoring the stories and ecology of our urban rivers. It should not be the case that simply because a whole lot of people live somewhere and they're not as wealthy as others they are somehow less entitled to go for a walk where they can hear Australian native birds or walk past habitats with trees and shrubs that have always lived there or look at a river that looks like a river and not a stormwater drain. Association of Southeast Asian Nations 105 19:34 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Australia's engagement with the ten member nations of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, is of strategic importance, as these nations are being transformed by strong economic development and share a strong commitment to regional cooperation, diplomacy and security. Australia was ably represented at the World Economic Forum on ASEAN in Hanoi last week by our Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash. Collectively, the population of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam numbers 643.5 million, making the alliance an important emerging market for trade in Australian goods and services. As a region, strong growth prospects exist, with real gross domestic product growth of five per cent year on year and inflation relatively low at three per cent per annum. In terms of standard of living, there is an emerging middle class of consumers across the region, with GDP per capita purchasing-power parity of $13,118 in international terms. Currently, Australia's total merchandise trade with ASEAN countries is worth $75.5 billion annually, with exports worth $31 billion and imports amounting to $44.1 billion. Major Australian exports include wheat, crude petroleum, liquefied and natural gas, alumina, nickel, coal and gold, while our major imports include refined petroleum, goods vehicles, crude petroleum and passenger motor vehicles. In terms of services, Australian firms supplied $13.5 billion worth of services to ASEAN countries last year and imported $15.5 billion of services, with education-related travel, personal travel and transport being major categories. Australia's trade with ASEAN places us in the top 10 trading partners with the regional alliance. In July, I participated in the Australian parliamentary delegation to ASEAN member nations, which visited Vietnam, Thailand and Brunei to foster diplomatic security, training and investment relations between our nations. The delegation visited the legislatures of each of the respective countries, meeting with government representatives and officials as well as a number of business leaders from the local chambers of commerce and industry. I'm pleased to be part of the government team working with the private sector on improving trade relations with our geographically close ASEAN regional alliance and working with a network of business contacts and personal relationships formed over two decades to open doors and create new opportunities. Developing export markets for Australian goods and services will provide economic development and create Australian jobs in a range of diversified industries, placing less reliance on the mining industry for our economic prosperity. Local businesses in my electorate stand to benefit from greater economic engagement with ASEAN, particularly in the international education, tourism, agricultural, fisheries, engineering and professional services sectors. Educational scholarships under the New Colombo Plan have fostered a high level of international cooperation. In terms of national security, cooperation between our law enforcement agencies serves to combat transnational organised crime, including the illegal trafficking of drugs, prohibited weapons and persons, and money-laundering. Joint military exercises between our defence forces promote greater regional security and help combat the threat of terrorism. Australia has a proud record of providing foreign aid to developing ASEAN nations, and this has resulted in infrastructure projects being constructed to improve living standards and alleviate poverty. I support maintaining a reasonable level of foreign aid to promote the economic and social development of our neighbouring ASEAN nations, fostering good diplomatic relations and cooperation. It has been personally rewarding to be part of the Australian government team which has been actively fostering strategic economic partnerships with the member states which form the ASEAN regional alliance, paving the way for the private sector to take up opportunities and develop a common market with our closest trading partners in the region. My network of business contacts and personal relationships in the South-East Asian region has enabled me to make a contribution. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 106 19:40 Mr BUTLER HWK Port Adelaide The banking royal commission has so far uncovered truly outrageous tales of corruption and appalling behaviour, including charging the dead, preying on the elderly and the disabled, and defrauding Indigenous Australians. This Prime Minister, as Treasurer, voted against establishing a royal commission into his mates at the big banks 26 times. He derided the notion as a populist whinge and as recklessness, and he tried to frame the calls for a royal commission as a mere political ploy from Labor. Indeed, when finally setting up the royal commission, the now Prime Minister said it was only because politics was doing damage to our banking system that he had done so. In reality, it has been our banking system which has been doing damage—damage to thousands of ordinary Australians, destroying lives, homes and families. Di and Max Lock from my electorate used to run the Naracoorte Hotel in the south-east of South Australia. They're small business people who have always run small businesses and are justifiably proud of their record. In 2008 the Commonwealth Bank purchased Bankwest, which financed the Locks, and they were assured at the time that there would be no changes to the loan or their operations. Just a few weeks later, though, their accountant started receiving calls and emails saying that the bank did not want to refinance the Locks' successful business because the value of the Naracoorte Hotel wasn't high enough, all through an internal decision around revaluation by the bank. Once their loan facility expired, they would have to pay out the entire amount. They'd never missed a mortgage payment, yet the bank took their home and business. The bank wasn't interested in the consistent, reliable mortgage payments by the Locks; it just wanted to get rid of the old customers. The Locks lost everything. Their story was never heard by the royal commission, nor were the stories of thousands of others whose Bankwest loans were quickly disposed of despite no failings on the part of the borrower. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, in her December 2016 report into the treatment of small business owners, found that the banks had used clauses that gave them extraordinary powers against borrowers, even where the borrower had acted within the terms of the loan at all times. These clauses allowed what happened to the Locks and thousands of others. They allowed the bank to revalue their properties and change the loan based on that unilateral revaluation. They allowed the banks to call in the entirety of the loan without cause. They allowed the banks to act to create non-monetary defaults. The banks claim they didn't do this, of course, but the ombudsman found that they did. She found not only that they did so but that they did so in almost 66 per cent of cases that she examined. In her view, one-third of claims against the banks had no fault on the banks' part, one-third involved fault on both the borrowers' and the banks' part, and in fully one-third of cases the fault was entirely due to the conduct of the banks and not at all due to the conduct of the borrowers. When this conduct came before the royal commission, non-monetary defaults were skimmed over because there was, in their words, 'no financial motive', yet that is not what the ombudsman found and it is not the experience of thousands of victims. Even where borrowers have been able to secure loans with other banks, they were thwarted by the practices of the Commonwealth Bank, which had taken over Bankwest. The Prime Minister has encouraged people unhappy with their banks to switch, and that's exactly what some victims tried to do. In one case, a business owner, told that his loan facility would not be continued with Bankwest, sought refinancing through Westpac, and it was granted, but, two days before the finance went through, Bankwest placed his business into receivership. He had never missed a payment. This banking royal commission has been too rushed. This government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it in the first place, and now it has pushed it to a time line that means that thousands of stories, thousands of victims, and thousands of wrongs are not being told. The royal commission must be extended so that it can hear all of the victims' voices. The Locks thought that they would have their day to tell their story, and instead they have been silenced again. Canning Electorate: Peel Health Campus 106 19:44 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning The City of Mandurah is home to over 80,000 people. It is the heart of Canning. Its population has more than doubled in the last 20 years to become one of the biggest cities in Western Australia, but local services have not kept up with that population growth, and a perfect example is the Peel Health Campus. The Peel Health Campus is the only major hospital in Mandurah and the broader Peel region. It was built in the 1990s and has not changed. It no longer has the capacity to properly service the needs of our community. Our emergency waiting times are too long, the services are inefficient and elderly Australians can't get access to important treatments. I have spoken with some residents who prefer to travel up to Perth rather than rely on their local hospital, even in emergency situations. I recently met with the family of a World War II veteran who passed away very recently. When he presented at the Peel Health Campus, it was 27 hours before he was admitted from the emergency department to the actual hospital. It had no link to his passing and the family had nothing but praise for the staff at the hospital, but our veterans and our seniors deserve better, and that's why we need more investment in that hospital. That's what Zak Kirkup, the state member for Dawesville, has been fighting for. On 1 May this year, Zac and I held the Peel health rally opposite the hospital. Over 400 members of the community turned out, many of them seniors, on a cold autumn night to call on the WA government to act. Despite our advocacy, we have heard nothing, so Zac and I decided to increase the pressure. We have campaigned to hold the state government to account, reminding them of how many days have been passed and how long we've been waiting. It's been 140 days and counting. Today the state government has come to the table and acknowledged community concerns. Under the weight of community pressure, the state Minister for Health, Roger Cook, visited Mandurah to announce $5 million for the Peel Health Campus. This is a good start. The minister has said the money will be spent to upgrade the Peel Health Campus's emergency department, adding eight new short-stay beds and a refurbished waiting room. I welcome that announcement and I'm pleased to see the state government has decided to start listening to the community. However, this announcement should not be given more credit than it deserves. All Labor has committed to is eight new beds in two years time, which is nowhere near enough to address the serious shortage we face in a city of over 80,000 people, especially when 29 per cent of them are over the age of 60, nor does that kind of funding reflect the sort of investment the state government has made elsewhere. I have spoken before of the additional $189 million invested by the federal government into WA hospitals earlier this year. Of that, $158 million dollars went to the Joondalup Health Campus, $10.6 million went to the Osborne Park Hospital and $23.3 million went to the Royal Perth Hospital. But there nothing for the Peel Health Campus; there was nothing for the Peel region. This money was distributed according to the state government's priorities, and they made it clear that in the Peel region we are not a priority. But there is more. In their last budget the state government also saw fit to commit $73.3 million to the Geraldton health campus and $46.4 million to the Newman health service. The most they are offering the Mandurah community, after more than 140 days of campaigning, is $5 million for eight beds in two years time. This is a start, but Mandurah's silence can't be bought so easily. My silence won't be bought so easily. The silence of Zak Kirkup, the Liberal member for Dawesville, won't be bought so easily. Along with the community, we won't rest until the Peel Health Campus is properly funded by Western Australian state Labor. Aged Care 107 19:48 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I had a great seniors forum in my electorate recently and I was very pleased to see such a strong turnout of people to the Cannon Hill bowls club to talk about issues of concern to them on the south side. It was wonderful to have some of the service providers come along to be guest speakers as well. I want to thank Mark from Aged and Disability Advocacy Australia, which is a not-for-profit, independent, community based advocacy and education service. Mark came along to speak about their services for the wellbeing of older Australians and people with disability. I also want to thank the Department of Human Services Financial Information Service. Representatives from the DHS Financial Information Service came along and talked with people about dealing with Centrelink and other issues in relation to the age pension and some of the other matters that are relevant to DHS. Anglicare also came along. Thanks to Anglicare for bringing a provider's perspective to our seniors forum. Paula from the Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union came along to talk about their campaign for ratios for staff in aged care. The Brisbane South Primary Health Network came along as well—at quite short notice, actually. I was concerned, as you would have been, Deputy Speaker Vasta, by some of the alarm amongst seniors in the electorate about the My Health Record. As you know, Labor has initiated a Senate inquiry in relation to some of the implementation aspects of My Health Record. But I also wanted to have the department represented, and to have the Primary Health Network come along to talk to people and provide an opportunity for people to ask questions about the My Health Record service and what it might involve. Thanks to Silvia and her team for being involved in that. I must say thanks also, of course, to the Cannon Hill Bowls Club. It's an excellent club, just a wonderful part of our local community, and it's a really important part of the lives of a lot of people. I want to thank them for having us along. I want to take the opportunity to raise one of the many issues that came out in the seniors forum that we held. There is a lot of concern in the community about aged care at the moment, and I share that concern. I have a grandmother presently in aged care, and last year my grandfather passed away. He was in aged care and he had dementia. So I have recent and current experience with family in aged care. Like most Australians, I am concerned about aged care. Most people my age or older would either have family members in aged care or be looking at it for their own future. So I share the concerns of Australians in relation to aged care. The Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care is here at the table, and I acknowledge the work he is doing to bring some scrutiny to what's happening in aged care in Australia through the proposal for a royal commission. And, like everyone else in this place, I don't want to see any delay caused in relation to a royal commission. I know the minister has previously said he wanted to see an immediate focus on frontline services, rather than the possible delay that might arise from a royal commission. I don't want to see any delay in relation to reform, because we are all united in this place in being concerned about the standards and access to support within aged care in this country, and that's particularly the case in the wake of recent Four Corners exposes in relation to some of the really appalling and shocking stories coming out of aged care. So I encourage the minister to maintain his stance of not wanting to see any delay in reform and improvements in aged care. Royal commissions are, of course, very good tools to shine a spotlight on things that require public attention and the devotion of public resources, but they are not action in and of themselves. We also need to see action in relation to aged care. Some of that action must be dealing with some of the cuts to aged care. The current Prime Minister, in his first budget as Treasurer, made a cut of $1.2 billion to aged care, and he cut residential aged-care places by 26,000 in this year's budget. These cuts must be addressed. In our nation, a nation with a strong economy and a healthy population, it's not good enough that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities should be in a situation where they are not getting the care that they deserve. If it were us or our family members—our parents, our grandparents—we would not want them to be at risk, as so often is the case, and we would not want them to be to be treated in a way that we wouldn't want to be treated ourselves. It is important to recognise that Labor does support the royal commission, but there also has to be action now in relation to aged care, and the same goes for home care packages: it's important that we have a focus on home care packages as well. Infrastructure 108 19:54 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I rise to ask a question. It is such a shame that within this nation we have become so timid. We have become so timid and we lack what was once there, what was once the vision of those such as Curtin, Chifley and Lachlan Macquarie. We've become timid because we don't wish to grasp the opportunities that are before us. A CSIRO report that came out the other day proposed that we have the capacity to irrigate another 400,000 hectares of land. It requires the building of dams. But so often with these things we get back to revelling in the primacy of the bureaucracy and the god of inertia and not wishing to ever upset the status quo. Why we believe the status quo of where our nation resides at the moment is so superior, I don't know. I don't know why we haven't built Nathan Dam. I don't know why we haven't Aspley Dam. I don't know why we don't further develop the Fitzroy and the Margaret rivers in the Kimberley. I don't know why we believe that where we are is as good as it gets. I don't know why we have not taken the next step. The next step is there before us. We have a drought happening at the moment, and we could better manage this now if, in the past, we had built the infrastructure to allow us to take that next step. But, right now, when we try to take a step towards a more effective and better outcome in the produce of our nation, in the GDP of our nation, our biggest problem is not the money, because we can get the money; it's not the engineering capacity, because it is there—our biggest impediment is always the internal bureaucracy which has built up over so many years and which puts the primacy on environmental issues over social issues and over the further economic development of our nation. We have to—not at some point in time but right now—say: 'Enough is enough.' The pendulum has to swing back in the other direction. The pendulum has to start going towards the path of common sense. We have to have a debate in this chamber that is not on the minutiae of policy, the tricky games and the tricky words but rather on something that has a grander vision—a grander vision on which we can debate back and forth about how we are going to build the dams of the North, about how we are going to generate more baseload power and about how we as a nation have a vision for sealing, maybe, our third road across this continent. After close to 230 years of settlement post-1788, and noting that we have an incredible Aboriginal heritage, which reaches way back, over all the time that humankind has been on this continent, we have managed to have two sealed roads that go across this nation, one through Camooweal and one across the Nullarbor—and that's it. I reckon that is a little bit of an indictment. I reckon we are bigger than that. I reckon there is much more that we can do. So why don't we step out now and start driving for the new vision, for the new capacity to take us to the next step? We heard the discussion recently about what would be happening here if La Perouse and the French rather than the English had colonised Australia. I put it to the chamber that, if other countries had colonised us, the things that we are discussing and finding so difficult to do now would have already happened, whether we liked it or not. But now we have to take the next step. Our population is growing more quickly than we ever suspected. We are now up to 25 million people. We didn't think we were going to get there until 2032, I believe. It is not going to slow down. It is going to keep on growing. Yet we seem to be sitting on the same infrastructure stock as before, thinking that it will do. So I say to this chamber that, in the midst of this drought, we have the capacity right now to not only deal with the drought but also start laying down the firm foundation blocks of what we are going to do next. It means that we have to have the epiphany: that the further and greater future of the Australian people resides not in our capacity to revel in the bureaucratic but in our ability to drive the vision for the dams, the inland rail, the Outback Way and those things that will deliver real wealth. And by so delivering real wealth to our nation, our nation will once more become a beacon that can shine in our part of the world, delivering our values to all those who wish to see them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The House stands adjourned until 9.30 am tomorrow. House adjourned at 20 : 00   The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 took the chair at 10:00.

Wednesday, 19 September 2018

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

 

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 110 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Moreton Electorate: Australian Reading Hour 110 10:00 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton This week I was proud to host, along with Senator Linda Reynolds, the launch of Australian Reading Hour 2018. Senator Reynolds and I are the co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Australian Books and Writers, a group formed only one year ago. But over the last 12 months we've held some wonderful events and, more importantly, have promoted Australian books and Australian writers to the parliament and beyond. The purpose of the event was to launch this year's Australian Reading Hour. On Thursday, 20 September, we want all Australians to stop what they're doing for an hour and to pick up a book. I love books. I've always enjoyed reading, just for the sheer wonder and pleasure that it brings. There's nothing better than being so totally engrossed in a book that you are transported away from your own reality to the other world created by an author. But there are actually other more tangible benefits that come from reading. In adults, reading has been shown to reduce stress by 68 per cent—that's more than listening to music and more than going for a walk or having a cup of tea. The more leisure books that people read the more literate they become and the more prosperous and equitable the society they inhabit. Reading a gripping novel causes positive biological changes in the brain that can actually last for days. And even more lasting changes occur: readers of narrative fiction, when tested for empathy, achieved significantly higher than other groups. Reading helps us to understand our own identity. For those of us with children, the benefits of reading to them are also significant. Reading to children six to seven days a week puts them almost a year ahead of those kids who are not being read to. So it was a pleasure this week to hear Australian Children's Laureate and 2018 Australian Reading Hour Ambassador Morris Gleitzman talk about the importance of stories for young people to equip them to embrace their futures in a sometimes dark and uncertain world. Author and actress Judy Nunn is also an Australian Reading Hour Ambassador for 2018. She shared how one book had transformed her life when she was nine years old. Last year, I went to many schools in my electorate to read the Mem Fox book I'm Australian Too to some of the students. Then I donated that book to many of my schools' libraries. It was a wonderful experience. So I'm very excited about Australian Reading Hour 2018. This year I'm going to invite book clubs in my electorate to share with me the history of their book club: how they started, how long they've been going and what special things they do to celebrate books—and perhaps if there is any alcohol involved. I have heard of book clubs that do involve alcohol; I've been a member of a few of those, in fact!—and also what books they're reading so that I can recommend those books to other book clubs in Moreton. So, everybody, happy Australian Reading Hour! Find one hour on Thursday, 20 September to read your book. Leichhardt Electorate: Infrastructure 110 10:03 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt I rose in this chamber on two occasions last week to call out the Queensland government for its blatant neglect of Far North Queensland. They are starving Far North Queensland of much-needed investment, and for one reason only: to help their federal colleagues. They are not only starving Far North Queensland of investment but their actions are also putting in jeopardy millions, if not billions, of dollars of third-party investment. Traffic congestion, especially in and out of the northern beaches, has been a major issue for many years. Granted, the Queensland government finally came to the party and funded the Smithfield bypass—but only at the eleventh hour and only to help the local MPs during last year's state election. However, the first step in fixing the entire issue is to ensure that the current road from the CBD to Smithfield is redesignated as an A1 national highway. This can only occur with the Queensland government's assistance. I have written personally to the Queensland main roads minister, Mark Bailey, requesting that he make a submission to have this stretch of state owned road redesignated as a national highway. Mr Bailey hasn't bothered to reply to my letter but suggested in the local media that a letter from a backbencher wasn't worth much. How arrogant is that? But, again, Mr Bailey has also ignored similar letters from the Cairns mayor and Advance Cairns— Mr Dick interjecting— Mr ENTSCH 7K6 If you want a repeat of last time, old fellow, just keep screaming out. If I was a union boss and asked for Mr Bailey's private email account I'm sure I would have much better luck. The Queensland government's agenda is very simple: remain quiet about the issue, blame the federal government for the lack of funding and let Bill Shorten roll into town with half-cooked, half-baked funding announcements so that he looks like the hero. However, in this instance it has made Bill Shorten look like a dunce. His grandiose announcement of $40 million towards a $157 million section of the project is well short of any type of traditional funding split. I said at the time that he hadn't done enough homework, and I was right. The cost of the entire project from Ray Jones Drive to the Smithfield bypass is about $370 million. I spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, only last week and stressed to him the importance of this project. In fact I told Mr McCormack that we needed to call out the Queensland government for this and make it put its money where its mouth is. Once we do that the onus will be on the Queensland government to explain why it couldn't be bothered funding this project. Only this week, the state member for Barron River and minister, Craig Crawford, was able to hide and tell the Far North Queensland community that it would be near impossible to get infrastructure money out of the Queensland government unless it was—wait for it—the Cross River Rail in Brisbane. What a slap in the face that is for each and every Far North Queenslander. (Time expired) Aged Care 111 10:06 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta Labor has been saying for a long time that the aged-care system is in a state of crisis. The government accused us of scaremongering. In fact, it accused us of elder abuse by raising the crisis in aged care, such was its disdain for any criticism of a system clearly in crisis. At least the government has listened now, albeit on the eve of a Four Corners expose, and will establish a royal commission, but it hasn't rolled back years of funding cuts. Billions of dollars has been cut from aged care in the last five years by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, and it's no wonder that the system is in crisis. It is a full-blown crisis, as Four Corners demonstrated. Australians are rightly appalled by the shocking stories we've seen and the crisis in our nation's aged-care system, particularly in the standard of care being delivered in some nursing homes. Labor supports a royal commission into the abuse and the cover-ups in the aged-care sector, but older Australians cannot wait one to two years for the royal commission to report before the government acts. Prime Minister Morrison, as Treasurer, cut $1.2 billion from aged care in his first budget, and he cut residential aged-care places in this year's budget. What was that called in the budget papers? It was called 'efficiencies'. Prime Minister Morrison characterised his $1.2 billion cut to aged care as a 'little fact' in question time this week, an insult to every older Australian who relies on care. The Prime Minister continues to say that it isn't a cut, even though the budget papers state in black and white that it is. The result of the cut is that the funding per resident has been cut by 11 per cent. These so-called efficiencies have caused ridiculous time pressures on staff, rationing of incontinence pads and real cutbacks in the quality and quantity of food and care. And that isn't just with nursing homes: waiting times for home care packages have blown out under this government. There are 108,000 people waiting for a home care package—which keeps people at home and out of residential care—including 88,000 people with high needs, many of whom are living with dementia. The so-called extra money that the government announced in the budget to bring down the waiting times came from residential aged care. It was cut from residential aged care. To make matters worse, the Liberals have also cut the dementia supplement funding that was meant to go to older Australians who need help the most. The quality standards and reporting system isn't working. There aren't enough aged-care workers, and they aren't given enough pay, respect or support. Pension waiting times also have increased. Senate estimates tell us that the age pension median processing times have blown out from 36 days in 2016-17 to 49 days in 2017-18. I have one constituent who came to my office who submitted an application in February and in August still had not heard anything back from Centrelink—that's six months. We must ensure vulnerable older Australians get the support they need, and we need to give elderly Australians the care and respect that they deserve. This cannot wait. Corangamite Electorate: Rail Infrastructure 111 10:09 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise today to urge all Corangamite residents to sign a petition, 'Labor's rail fail', on my website, because that's what we are seeing in the Geelong and Corangamite regions. In contrast to the very significant amount of Commonwealth money that we have announced for both the Geelong rail duplication project and upgrades on the Warrnambool to Geelong line, which is so important for commuters travelling to Melbourne, we've seen a paltry commitment from state Labor and of course no interest in this issue from the member for Corio or any of the Labor MPs in the western part of Melbourne. This is underpinned by one of the worst infrastructure projects that we have seen, because it was so botched by Labor—the Regional Rail Link. This link was meant to provide fast and efficient services between Geelong and Melbourne. It has now principally become a service for areas like Wyndham and Tarneit because of the massive amount of growth. We have slower train services from Geelong to Melbourne than in the 1950s. Some $4 billion—most of it Commonwealth money, driven by state Labor and the federal Labor government when it was in power—has largely been wasted because the project is so botched. Now we have seen Daniel Andrews make a $147 million commitment to the Geelong rail duplication project only. That is just not good enough. We have $150 million on the table. We have announced this money to spend on upgrading Geelong and Corangamite rail, but we cannot spend it because state Labor has put no money into this project and has decided that it's only worthy of an election commitment. That's not good enough. In four years we have received such a small amount of money from state Labor—$20 million—of the total $254 million that we have provided. It is simply not good enough. This is a very important project to deliver more services, more efficient services and faster rail services. We need fast rail. We have seen the Labor Party focus all of its efforts in metropolitan Melbourne and very little in regional Victoria. It is an absolute Labor rail fail, and that's why I'm urging all of my constituents to go to my website—sarahhenderson.com.au—and sign my petition to show Daniel Andrews that this is simply not good enough. Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme 112 10:12 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, in 2016 two constituents came to my office—Herb Ellerbock and Jim Hislop—to brief me about their concerns about the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme, which is fondly known as DFRDB. These two men have been tireless in advocating on behalf of Defence Force retirees on what they believe is the detrimental impact on DFRDB payments. In February 2017 they made a submission 'The gross reduction of benefits' to the then veterans' affairs minister, Dan Tehan. Having made an assessment of individual case studies, these two men estimate that, if nothing is done, some $10 billion to $15 billion will have been stripped from recipient benefits over the life of the DFRDB Scheme. They believe this to be irrefutable evidence of a gross denial of superannuation benefits owed to former service personnel. Their research formed the basis of a petition to the House of Representatives earlier this year. That petition was signed by thousands of former service personnel from around the country. My constituents have continued to make representations to ex-service organisations as well as to the government. They have presented to the Ex-Service Organisations Round Table, ESORT, and been in contact with the new veterans' affairs minister, Darren Chester. Mr Ellerbock and Mr Hislop have been disappointed with what they believe to be a lack of response to their petition and their other representations. They have continued to seek my support to get their evidence into the parliamentary forum and they have asked me personally to bring this issue to the floor of Parliament House. Gentlemen, I'm here today on your behalf. As an Independent member of parliament it is my privilege to represent the interests of everyone in my electorate, regardless of policy or background. In closing, I am now calling on Minister Chester to consider this evidence and to provide a definitive response to the questions of my constituents that have been raised in research. This is a matter that has gone on for far too long. We need an answer. My constituents are asking me to be the messenger between the minister and my defence community, and it gives me great pleasure to bring this matter to the House. Also in closing, I'd like to acknowledge the presence of members of the Australian Defence Force who are currently doing a secondment in our office. It's lovely to have you here. Please know that we respect you and we are grateful for your service. It's fantastic for us to have you learning about our job, and we look forward in the future to learning about your job as we come out and share our time with you. Thank you. Rae, Ms Helen, Two Tails Wines 112 10:15 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page Today, I would like to acknowledge Helen Rae, who is a wonderful woman who has done much for many students and families in my community. For 19 years Helen has been the principal of Wilson Park School, which caters for students with disabilities and special needs. She was a teacher at the school for many years before that. The school caters for students from preschool to year 12. All the students have disabilities, ranging from intellectual to physical. Helen is known for her dedication and professionalism towards her students, their education and, equally importantly, their families. Her greatest moments of joy are watching her students graduate from year 12. Helen's assistant principle, Lisa McInerney, who has worked with her for the past 18 years, summed up Helen's professionalism and dedication by saying: 'Helen is an inspiration to students, parents and staff. She has been instrumental in the education of students with disabilities and seeing beyond the disability to educate them in key learning areas.' During Helen's 19-plus years, many hundreds of students have passed through the front gate of Wilson Park School, and each of them have a brighter and more secure future because of Helen Rae. We are lucky to have her in our community. I know personally students and families whom she has touched with her care. Helen, thank you. Your students are special, and we are blessed that you have been part of their lives. I would like to congratulate Two Tails Wines, which was named the business of the year at the recent Mid North Coast Regional Business Awards. The winery is also a bed and breakfast, and is located in the beautiful Orara Valley. Karen and I also recently attended celebrations there for the Orara Valley Axemen's end-of-year presentation night. It was a great night. I want to congratulate Barry and Madonna Bannerman on winning the 2018 business of the year award. Congratulations. Trans-Pacific Partnership 113 10:17 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand here today to put on record my strong scepticism about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or the TPP, as it is commonly referred to. Labor has tried to make a number of amendments to protect workers and to protect future Australian governments, all of which LNP members have voted down. So I am in a situation where either I have to agree with trade or not agree with trade, so allow me to make my point very clearly. I 100 per cent do not trust an LNP government with trade deals. Time and time again, the LNP have proven that they cannot be trusted to protect Australian workers or to put Australian workers first. The current LNP TPP waives labour market testing and includes clauses that allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government. These clauses are known as ISDS provisions. To waive labour market testing does not put Australian workers first and, quite frankly, is absolutely nonsensical. It should be mandatory that before a company brings in an electrician, or a carpenter, or a mechanic or a metal worker from another country that the company should first check whether or not there is an Australian citizen who can do to job. This is just common sense, especially in electorates like Herbert, where unemployment is hovering around nine per cent and youth unemployment is anywhere in-between 18 per cent and 20 per cent. To engage in an agreement that allows foreign companies to sue the government because a change in our legislation may impact on the company just clearly demonstrates where the interests of the LNP government are—seemingly with foreign companies. Australia's economic growth is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas, but Australia cannot prosper if our workers are not protected. Australia cannot prosper if our legislation cannot be passed without fear of foreign retribution. That is why, now more than ever, if this TPP goes through the parliament we need a Labor government. Labor will permanently fix the way we do trade deals, to put Australian workers first and to stop future governments from signing up to trade deals that include clauses that allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government. A Labor government will introduce laws that prohibit governments from signing trade deals that waive labour market testing or include ISDS provisions. We are a clever country. As such, we can have trade and protect our workers. It is just that we can't have both under an out-of-touch LNP government. Small Business 113 10:20 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne Backing small business, which is the engine room of our economy, particularly in regional Australia, is part of our coalition government's plan for a stronger economy and yet more jobs, on top of the million jobs that the economy's created since we've been in government. Small business across Australia is set to benefit from additional opportunities because of the changes to the instant asset write-off tax changes, which are continuing, and, similarly, in the drought situation, tax changes to allow write-off in one year for fodder storage and water reticulation. The legislation delivers on the coalition government's recent budget announcement to continue these instant write-offs for various assets to 30 June 2019. In my electorate of Lyne we have 15,000 small businesses, and we must deliver policies that make it easier for them to flourish and grow. We need to get rid of legislation and policies that inhibit small business from creating more jobs. Governments don't create jobs; businesses do. So we have to set the framework that lets them flourish. One of the limiters of employment in the current situation is none other than state-levied payroll taxes, which are a perverse tax that limit growth of or penalise companies that employ more people. Raising the threshold is not a structural reform; it's just kicking the problem up the road a bit. The other is the fear of the very complex and cumbersome industrial relations system that they have to work under. You almost need to have a full-time professional consultant on hand to deal with the complexities of the Fair Work legislation for small businesses. That's a cost they can't carry. As a result, many of them are afraid to put on full-time new employees unless they're absolutely sure they're going to work for the company and be 'a fit'. So what we need is simplicity and flexibility. The modern economy is changing. We have to adapt to competitors and disruptors and have a cost base that delivers productivity. We all support a high-wage economy in Australia, but we need to have a highly productive industrial relations system that doesn't add unnecessary complexity, limit employment or increase costs for employers, because it's your boss that gives you your job. We need to support employers, particularly in the small-business area. Dobell Electorate: Broadband 114 10:23 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell The NBN should be supporting businesses and boosting jobs on the Central Coast and across Australia, but in too many cases it's letting them down. I have heard too many stories of blame-shifting and breakdowns in communication between the NBN service providers, and for small businesses this is costing them. I have been working with a holiday park in my electorate that is around $50,000 out of pocket because of an NBN fault. The business has experienced multiple ongoing outages since a lightning strike earlier this year. During the first outage it was 16 days before lines were restored. Fortunately, to calculate the compensation, their insurer covered the significant financial losses using a method based on lost bookings, the opportunity for future bookings, reputational damage and time invested in coordinating the reconnection of services. How did the NBN fix this fault? By moving the damaged service lines to other lines that worked. That's all they did—at least until an NBN technician, without authorisation from the customer, disconnected the line several months later. This led to an outage that lasted 42 days. The business's losses were significant. They had just invested in a school holiday advertising campaign, but nobody could get through to make a booking. Bookings were down 60 per cent. The difference in takings compared to the previous year was around $50,000. Insurance won't cover the loss, because the outage was not caused directly by a weather event. Their service provider has offered $3,000 compensation. This won't even cover the accountant's fees to prepare the documents to claim the refund. The business owners believe the insurance model is more reasonable. They tell me that using this method their compensation would be at least around $20,000. An appeal to the ombudsperson is unlikely to help. They have been told the service provider's compensation model is generally accepted. It is clear this business has suffered as a result of this outage. Why did it take the NBN 42 days to fix it? The arrangement between NBN and service providers is failing customers. This business owner made over 100 individual phone calls to their provider but never once could they speak to the organisation that caused and could fix the outage: NBN. This is not an isolated example. There are many other examples in my electorate alone. My office has handled almost 500 individual NBN complaints in the last two years. This government is failing businesses on the Central Coast with the NBN rollout, with redundant technology, their lack of oversight of service providers and their failure to make NBN accountable for fixing, maintaining and upgrading their network in a timely way. The NBN should have been a game-changer. It should have turned things around for small businesses in regional communities like mine. It hasn't. The NBN is broken. It must be fixed. Moore Electorate: Aged Care 114 10:26 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore The provision of federal government funding for an increased number of aged-care places offering a range of accommodation options to suit a range of residents' needs and choices is an important priority within my electorate as our population ages. There are currently two new aged-care facilities proposed, one by Southern Cross Care, in Currambine, and the other by Mercy Care, in Edgewater. However, these developments alone will not be sufficient to meet the future growth in demand for places. I am pleased to inform the parliament of a proposed development at lot 701, Collier Pass, Joondalup, on the former Wanneroo Wolves basketball stadium site, which will increase the availability of aged-care places in our local community. The 1.7 hectare site, recently sold by LandCorp, will be subdivided into three lots to facilitate an integrated development linked by shared public open space. The first lot will include a five-storey aged-care centre with 140 suites, to be owned and managed by Aegis Aged Care Group, with respite care facilities. The second lot will cater for more-independent retirement living, with Carmel Group developing 74 independent living units in a six-storey building, to be managed by a specialist provider. There are also plans to develop on the third adjoining lot, with frontage to Collier Pass, a mixed-use eight-storey tower comprising 72 family apartments, 46 serviced apartments, a medical centre, hospitality and retail outlets, childcare facilities and office space. The development will be located practically 100 metres from Lakeside Joondalup Shopping City and the Joondalup train station and will be close to the medical facilities at Joondalup Health Campus. The $100 million development is scheduled to commence in 2020 and to be completed by 2024. This project will create construction jobs and ongoing employment for carers and support staff. Recurrent federal funding will need to be in place to fund the aged-care places, so it's important that our future needs are being planned for in advance. Many constituents have responded to my community survey by highlighting the availability of aged-care places as an issue of high concern for their families. Our seniors are looking for choice in living independently in their own homes for as long as they can before transitioning into low-level care, followed by progressively higher levels of care as their physical needs change. I am pleased to be part of a federal government team that is working cooperatively with the private sector aged-care providers in addressing the future needs of our local community— (Time expired) Morrison Government 115 10:29 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is increasingly obvious to all of us, I'm sure, in our local electorate offices that the dysfunction and the disunity that have been the hallmark of this government over recent times are having a direct impact on their ability to do their day job and deliver the services that our local constituents need. This level of dysfunction is having real impacts across a number of portfolio areas, and we are seeing it in our offices. In this section of the parliament, where we get to talk about the issues that our constituents are raising, I want to highlight just four of those issues, where my constituents are, quite honestly, at their wits' end with the incompetence of the government in their programs. First of all, there has been this constant round of cuts to Public Service jobs. The result of that is being seen in major problems for local constituents. We first had the whole range of robo-debt errors. I'm sure many colleagues would have had people in tears in their offices after getting these debt notices, when a significant proportion of them were actually wrong. They were very distressing to local people. This was exacerbated by the fact that the Public Service has been cut and it's much more difficult for people to talk to someone directly to get the matter resolved. In fact, in my own area the government have closed an entire office, at Warrawong, in the middle of some of the most disadvantaged suburbs. They've closed the Centrelink and Medicare office. That sort of decision just exacerbates the stress and problems for very vulnerable people. There has also been the loss of around 30 jobs from the debt recovery unit that operates out of Wollongong, removing more expertise and creating more of a problem. The second area I want to touch on in the short amount of time I have is the government's incompetent management of citizenship applications. I am increasingly dealing with people, every week, who have been waiting over a year to get their citizenship approved and to be able to take up citizenship. One would think, when people are committed and dedicated to our local communities, to our nation, and want to take on citizenship, that we should be facilitating and supporting that. But no; we're making it all so difficult that some of them are waiting over a year. The third issue is the mismanagement of home care packages. I continue to have people who have been assessed as needing a level 4 package—over 1,200 in my region—who cannot get the funding and access to the package that they need. Finally is the constant number of constituents I've had to assist because of the mismanagement of the NDIS rollout. This is something that people had looked forward to for a long time. It is very important to those families. The cuts to the staffing, the lack of support and the mismanagement are affecting their daily lives. Mining 115 10:32 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I'd like to proudly place on record my support for the Carmichael coal project in Central and North Queensland. I support this project because it will create thousands of local jobs. I support this project because it will create local business opportunities—in Mackay, Bowen, Townsville and everywhere in between—at a time when those local business opportunities and jobs are desperately needed. Townsville's unemployment rate in July was 9½ per cent, and youth unemployment is running above 17 per cent. The Carmichael coal project already has more than 200 workers in Townsville alone, and there are workers also employed in Bowen. These are not 'fake' jobs, as they were called by the Labor Party. They are real jobs, employing real North Queenslanders and injecting real money into local communities. So it has been great news in North and Central Queensland to hear that the Carmichael coal project rail line has been redesigned to make construction of that rail line quicker and cheaper and to hear that workers are gearing up to start construction on that rail line. It's bad news for Labor, because they need to oppose that project to attract Green votes and preferences at the next election. So it was excruciating to watch the Leader of the Opposition in the media on Sunday trying to come up with the right weasel words for the greenies in Melbourne to know he will shut down this project, while letting Queenslanders think he continues to support jobs and mining. He said: If and when we are elected … I'll sit down with my Cabinet colleagues, we will work on the best science available, there will be no taxpayer money subsidising this coal project and we will see from there. The Courier-Mail's Renee Viellaris provided an interpretation of that doublespeak, writing: In a nutshell, Adani has to start construction by the next election because, if Shorten wins, the mine will be toast. She went on to say: His other telling line was about talking to his Cabinet colleagues and working on the best science available. Most of his influential frontbenchers do not support the mine. She's right. Labor's climate change and energy spokesperson, Mark Butler, made a startling admission on a video being used by the Mackay Conservation Group to promote a petition calling for Labor to stop the Carmichael coal project and other mines in Central and North Queensland. He said: I do not support opening new mines in the Galilee Basin, whether it's by Adani, Clive Palmer or anyone else for that matter. He doesn't want to stop one mining project; he wants to stop them all. The Carmichael project is the first of several mines in the pipeline and is now poised to go ahead. The only things standing in the way of the local jobs and local business opportunities that will be delivered by the Carmichael coal project are the Labor Party threatening to tear up the approvals for this mine and the rabid green movement that the Labor Party is trying to appease. Shame on them. I'm going to stand up for local jobs. Cabramatta Moon Festival 116 10:35 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler This weekend I'll be attending the Cabramatta Moon Festival, an event which is held and celebrated annually in my community of Fowler. The event is hosted by Fairfield City Council and provides a wonderful showcase of multicultural Australia, bringing together the community for a day and night of fantastic food, music and cultural events for young and old. I'm honoured to represent one of the most multicultural communities in the whole of Australia. It makes me proud to know that multiculturalism—our diversity and ability to live in harmony—works best in communities such as mine. I'm also privileged to represent one of the largest Asian communities outside of Asia itself. This privilege has given me the opportunity to learn much about both the Vietnamese and Chinese cultures. Traditionally, the moon festival is a harvest festival. It brings together families and friends to celebrate the end of the season or a bountiful harvest. The moon festival is widely celebrated in China, Vietnam and many other Asian countries. It is traditionally celebrated when the moon is at its brightest at the height of mid-autumn in that part of the world. The moon festival will be celebrated in my community this year with an array of cultural performances, traditional lion and dragon dances and moon cake eating, and a wonderful display of fireworks will conclude the night. Multiculturalism in Australia is all about a shared sense of nationhood forged through mutual respect, common values and a commitment to fairness and decency. Events like the moon festival will help forge cross-cultural understanding in our communities and certainly break down negative stereotypes. I'd like to acknowledge the hard work of Cheryl Bosler, at Fairfield City Council, and of the organising committee, who do an excellent job every year to ensure that the moon festival is a key event in my community. I'd like also to thank all of the volunteers and sponsors. Without their assistance the festival wouldn't take place at all. The moon festival is one of Australia's largest cultural events. We will attract upwards of about 100,000 people over the weekend in Cabramatta. This year's celebration is particularly important because it marks the 20th moon festival that we've hosted in my community. I take the opportunity to commend Fairfield City Council for their efforts in promoting the spirit of multiculturalism throughout our community. Well done, and I look forward to my participation this weekend. Boothby Electorate: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation 116 10:38 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby Last month I was delighted to host Ethan and Kylie Greenfield and Hayden and Andrew Supple here in Parliament House as part of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's Kids in the House event. This event brings awareness of the 120,000 Australians and their families who live with type 1 diabetes, with more than 100 JDRF advocates of all ages and backgrounds coming to Canberra to meet with their local member of parliament and spread the message that research is the key to a cure. Seven-year-old Ethan and 15-year-old Hayden are regular visitors to my office, so that they can let me know what life is like for them and the 743 members of our community living with type 1 diabetes and what policy changes they would like to see in this area. Hayden and Ethan told me they would like to see continued support for the wonderful work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and a $50 million commitment for the clinical research network to help find a cure for this devastating disease, and they supported our already considerable investments in this area. Those investments include $54 million in funding for free continuous glucose monitoring for people under the age of 21, $125 million to accelerate research into diabetes and cardiac disease, $6.2 million for insulin pumps for kids with type 1 diabetes and the $6 million we announced on 4 September our government will invest for a school support program to help train teachers in how to support the 6,000 or so schoolkids with type 1 diabetes. It was really wonderful to hear from Ethan and Hayden and to have them visit me, and I'd just like to thank them so much for their bravery in sharing their stories with me. I received a wonderful surprise visit from Hayden and his dad Andrew at my electorate office when we got home following the Kids in the House event. Hayden had put together a photo book of his trip to Canberra and his history of interacting with my predecessor, Dr Andrew Southcott, and with me. It had lots of wonderful photos, and it also had some really important messages about type 1 diabetes and what it's like to live with it. I was also delighted to see Westminster School, around the corner from my electorate office, get behind Ethan by hosting a term 3 Casual Day fundraiser in support of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation last Friday. It's truly wonderful to see our community get behind these fantastic young people to help raise awareness and funding for more research. I would also like to recognise the commitment and support provided by Ethan and Hayden's parents, Kylie and Andrew, and their families. Chronic conditions like diabetes have an impact not just on the person with diabetes but on their entire family. I'm so grateful to have had the opportunity to get to know Ethan and Kylie and Hayden and Andrew, and I cannot thank them enough for their hard work and advocacy for everyone with type 1 diabetes. Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, Automotive Industry, National Week of Deaf People 117 10:41 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Today I rise and acknowledge that in the chamber today we have Captain Alexandra Seagar, a proud member of the ADF and part of the ADF Parliamentary Program exchange program. I, as the son of a World War II veteran, am really pleased to have a deep connection with the ADF and to make sure that we keep supporting the brave men and women serving our nation. I welcome Alex to the chamber. I am also pleased to be able to learn of the great work that she does in the ADF. I'd also like to take this opportunity to update the House on Labor's recent announcement that, under a future Shorten Labor government, if elected, we would implement an industry-specific code governing the relationship between automotive dealers and car manufacturers. I was proud to work with Labor's shadow minister for competition and productivity, the member for Fenner, on this policy announcement. I also wish to thank the AADA for their help and guidance on this important issue. In particular, CEO David Blackhall and James Voortman were crucial in leading the charge to make sure we could deliver a level playing field for car dealers and manufacturers. When I sat down with them earlier this year, we spoke about the power imbalance in the automotive industry between car manufacturers and franchised new car dealers, and how this disadvantages both dealerships and consumers. The power imbalance between multinational manufacturers and our Aussie car dealers, many of whom are small businesses and family-owned firms, has gotten out of control. We need to make sure that our automotive dealers get a fair deal and that they can operate as family businesses, as small businesses. New car dealers make a huge contribution in my electorate of Oxley alone, including almost $400 million in sales, 420 direct employees and a further $100 million contribution to the local economy alone. These figures are all the more astounding when you consider that 85 per cent of new car dealers are private or family-owned business who are valued members of the local community and who often sponsor community organisations and sporting events. Labor is proud to be working with the AADA and new car dealers to provide a level playing field. I look forward to working alongside them to make sure that they get the future they deserve. As we head towards National Week of Deaf People in 2018, I want to acknowledge some great Oxley locals. A captain called Mark Smith will be heading towards Poland as part of the first representative team from Australia to the World Deaf Sailing Championships. I had the privilege of presenting a flag to the team on Saturday, and I'd like to wish them all the very best as they represent our nation. They're an outstanding crew of people, and I know they're going to do our nation exceptionally proud. Today I have a message for them that I'd like to share with the chamber and the parliament, and for all our Deaf community, which I will sign: good luck to the team! Illicit Drugs 117 10:44 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman After the tragedy of Defqon on the weekend, with the death of two revellers and three others seriously ill in hospital, with hundreds of cases from that festival, there's been an outbreak of disagreement on how we deal with the difficult issue of illicit drugs in music festivals. I've spoken regularly on this topic as a registered medical specialist, making it utterly clear that this is not a case of harm minimisation versus absolute supply reduction. There is a middle ground here. So far, we have had comments that have been regrettable, starting this debate about in-festival pill testing at a time when we should be pausing to remember the families that are going through such an incredible loss. We don't yet even have toxicology results, so it's just the wrong time to be engaging in this debate. But, unfortunately, it has started again. I appreciate that there are many in my profession who love the idea of taking a spectrophotometer to a music festival, popping up a tent and giving drug-taking advice. I appreciate that there are people who want to do that. But it is not the view of the profession that this is the right way to go. I want to emphasise absolutely and clearly that, just because we have an unforeseeable, tragic circumstance like we saw on the weekend, it does not prove that one approach is failing and therefore we must—no, we are obliged to—take on every solo flight of policy that someone can dream up. I will tell you what is not acceptable. What is not acceptable is surrendering to the concept that a music festival is a place where you openly take, sell and distribute drugs and encourage drug taking, and, if you'd like to go to a tent to check the purity and the safety of a drug, we wave the welcome flag, and the police stand back and allow it to happen. We're not going to accept that at all. My view is that, if a private individual runs a public event where drug taking is happening, they are absolutely liable for the safety of their patrons, just as licensed premises are if you're assaulted by an intoxicated person. I'm telling you that there is a big, big lawsuit just around the corner. We must say that drug testing can occur somewhere safely for people over the age of 18 who are not drug affected or intoxicated but can be given professional advice, well away from the place where they're buying the drugs. The whole point is that, if you purchase drugs and you're told they're not clean, the first thing you're going to do is seek out the person who sold them, and there will be assaults and even mistaken identity at music festivals. We don't want that. Nobody wants deaths at music festivals. What you need is high-performance liquid chromatography that tests a tablet absolutely, not spectrophotometry, which simply scans the surface of a tablet, because 95 per cent of the active ingredient can be in one half. We know now that there were high concentrations of MDMA in what was circulating on the weekend, and there are people in body bags every year from taking pure, 'clean' MDMA. Telling a young person that a drug is 'clean' suggests that it is safe and changes their consumption. That is so very, very dangerous, and I urge those proponents to step away from the proposal. Facing North 118 10:47 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Facing North is an initiative of the Territory Leadership Network, which is a collaborative arrangement between the Darwin Major Business Group and the Northern Territory government and is hosted by me and the other NT federal parliamentarians: Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, and the two NT senators, Nigel Scullion and Malarndirri McCarthy. It's an inaugural event that was first held last year. Following the success of the event, we're again, tonight, showcasing Darwin and the Northern Territory as the sophisticated, professional, modern and diverse economy that we are, with real opportunities. We have brought down a whole range of industry captains and local Northern Territory government members to mix with members of this parliament, the decision-makers here in Canberra. Industry associations, along with many captains of industry, have also descended. There are about 150 Territorians descending on Parliament House today for the event tonight. We've got the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Michael Gunner MLA, here having a range of meetings. Tonight, we will be showcasing some of the best Territory cuisine and beverages. As well as senior members from the federal and Territory governments, there will be the mayors. The Administrator of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Vicki O'Halloran, will also be here. There will be senior business and industry leaders, as I said; former chief ministers Paul Henderson and Shane Stone; key Defence personnel; high-level banking and airline representatives; and many other boards—Kakadu Tourism, the NAIF, Menzies, Seafarms, the Australian Logistics Council and the APA, to name but a few. I've made sure that groups like NAILSMA, the Larrakia Nation and the Larrakia Development Corporation are able to take part as well. We look forward to welcoming members and senators tonight to the Mural Hall. It's a fantastic group of Territorians that have come together. In particular, I want to thank the Larrakia Nation and the mayor of the City of Darwin for the recent changing of the name of a major road in Darwin to a Larrakia word, 'Garramilla'. It's a great example of honouring Larrakia heritage in the everyday lives of Darwin residents. We recognise—and I personally recognise—the power of language. It is a storehouse of Larrakia knowledge about the environment and our ancient culture of the Top End. Papua New Guinea 119 10:50 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan Sunday, 16 September, may have been just another day for most Australians, but for Papua New Guinea 16 September represents a momentous occasion in their lengthy history—their independence as a self-governing country. No longer were they a territory of a foreign power. They were now a power in their own right. Independence was not an overnight occurrence, and Papua New Guinea—a name conferred only in 1972—certainly lived through some tumultuous times prior to this. Times for Papua and New Guinea were far from easy, with areas being annexed by Germany and, at one stage, the British government. In fact, it was not until 1920 that Australia assumed the role of governing the former German territory of New Guinea. These pivotal years, until 1975 independence, saw investment in infrastructure, education and, importantly, health care for the population. PNG has since experienced its fair share of catastrophe—from the Bougainville conflicts, where we saw significant loss of life, to natural disasters and outbreaks of polio and TB. I recently met with a delegation from Papua New Guinea, and we discussed their desire to develop and establish more and closer city-to-city relationships and business opportunities. One matter that always seems to persist—and I know that it is an ongoing concern for my friend, the member for Leichhardt—is TB and polio. For a small, developing nation, both illnesses can be, and often are, fatal. Polio is historically a devastating disease. It is one of the most dreaded childhood illnesses in human history, and, for a country with already high infant mortality rates, it does not bode well that, despite eradicating the disease as of the year 2000, it has now broken out in three provinces. Polio may well be a nightmare disease, with death and lifelong ailments as a result of contraction, but with TB, a commonplace airborne virus, Papua New Guineans also need our assistance. PNG experiences one of the highest rates of this highly contagious and airborne disease in the Pacific. In 2015, PNG was struck with an estimated 33,000 cases of tuberculosis. To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to the population of the City of Gladstone in Queensland. However, with the assistance of organisations like YWAM and their medical ships, together with Australian aid, PNG is receiving the assistance it so desperately needs. My close affinity with Papua New Guinea has given me many dear PNG friends. I'd like to take this opportunity to celebrate PNG's 43rd year of independence, and I look forward to continuing my advocacy for this wonderful nation and our friend and neighbour. Too often we take our close friends for granted. We must not let complacency damage this vital relationship. Youth 119 10:53 Dr ALY 13050 Cowan A few weeks ago, I joined primary school students from Canberra and authors Beck and Robin Feiner to launch their book If I Was Prime Ministerpublished by ABC Books. To commemorate the launch of the book, I also held a competition in my electorate of Cowan, asking students in year 5 to submit their entries on what they would do if they were Prime Minister. I'm looking forward to going through the entries we've had and being inspired by young minds and their ideas for a better Australia—ideas like this one, from Esme, who says: 'If I was Prime Minister, I'd make sure half our leaders were girls. That would be much more fair.' What a great idea from young Esme. Perhaps the LNP might want to meet with her to get some advice. Then there is this one from Teddy, who says: 'If I was Prime Minister, I'd make sure that every time you lost a tooth the tooth fairy gave a little money to you and a little bit to people who need it more.' What an amazing insight into fairness and the distribution of wealth exhibited by Teddy. There are many more insightful contributions, like the one from Wilbur, who says he would find ways to stop the pollution so we can protect our seas and the air we breathe. My personal favourite is this one from Arev, who says that if he were Prime Minister, he would invite all leaders of all countries down to Australia, 'To jump on my trampoline and eat cupcakes and, after that, we'd definitely all be friends.' Ah! Cupcake and trampoline diplomacy—fantastic! On Monday, I was super excited to welcome not one but two schools all the way from Cowan to Parliament House: Wanneroo Primary and Kingsway Christian College were in the House. The year 6 class from Kingsway Christian College were equally engaged and interested in what life is like for members of parliament, asking questions about my daily routine, how we make decisions that impact on them and where I stay when I'm here. I'm looking forward to seeing them again when I attend their graduation later this year. Too often we underestimate young people. We dismiss their ideas and their voices. We argue that they don't have free will and that they can't possibly have anything positive or constructive to contribute. But I disagree. In my experience, even people as young as 10 do have something to contribute. Often, their contributions are more insightful and more intelligent than some of the things I hear adults say. There's more that we could do as parliamentarians to listen and engage our youth. Of course, we don't literally have to implement their ideas of cupcakes and trampolines—although it is tempting—but if we look beyond the literal and delve into the meaning behind these ideas, we find a generation of young Australians that is engaged with complex concepts and values like equality, climate change and wealth distribution. These are concepts and values that go to the very heart of what we do here in this place in the pursuit of a better future for our nation. And if I were Prime Minister, what would I do? I'd probably start by making this a place where everyone has a voice, even 10-year-olds. Calare Electorate: Bathurst Wallabies Triathlon Club 120 10:56 Mr GEE 261393 Calare More than 5,000 of the best triathletes in the world travelled to Queensland last week to compete in the 2018 International Triathlon Union World Triathlon Grand Final on the Gold Coast, a very prestigious event. Athletes representing 46 nations attended. I'm proud to say that six athletes representing Australia were also there from the Bathurst Wallabies Triathlon Club. So it was Bathurst taking on the world! Congratulations to Fran Grady, Josh Stapley, Terry Roberts, Mark Windsor, and Dennis and Jodie Martin. Each athlete needed to finish in the top 25 in their respective age groups to qualify. The news arrived in May that Bathurst Wallabies Triathlon Club members had earned their place in the grand final. What lay ahead was months of intensive training—no easy feat in Bathurst's wintry conditions. Fran Grady competed in the 55-59 age division as part of Australia's standard distance team. This involved a 1.5-kilometre swim, a 40-kilometre ride and a 10-kilometre run. Fran placed 51st in her category, with a time of two hours, 59 minutes and 11 seconds. She was also the 20th Australian competitor over the line. Josh Stapley also took on the standard distance race in the 20-24 years men's division. Josh was 15th in his category and the sixth Australian to finish. It took Josh just two hours, four minutes and 53 seconds to complete this event. Terry Roberts also impressed on the day. Terry is a keen competitor when it comes to ironman distance racing, and so tackling the triathlon was a new experience. This didn't set Terry back in any way, as he placed 16th in the 55-59 years men's division. He covered the distance in only two hours, 12 minutes and 13 seconds. This time also ranked Terry as the fourth Australian across the finish line in his category. Mark Windsor is a true athlete, described to me as 'an absolute machine'. He competed in both the sprint distance event and standard distance event for the 55-59 years men's division. In the sprint distance, Mark placed eighth overall in his age group and was the fifth Australian home. He did all this in an incredible time of one hour, six minutes and three seconds. He then backed up again a few days later for the standard distance race. It was a truly outstanding performance: he completed the course in two hours, five minutes and 43 seconds. He was fifth in his category and the second Australian home. Dennis and Jodie Martin contested the sprint distance event. This comprises a 750-metre swim, a 24-kilometre ride and a five-kilometre run. Dennis competed in the 55-59 men's age group and finished in a time of one hour, eight minutes and 43 seconds. He placed 19th in his age group and was the ninth Australian to cross the line. Jodie also came away with a fantastic result, competing in the 45-49 years division. She was 22nd in her age group and the 13th Australian home in a time of one hour, 13 minutes and 29 seconds. Congratulations to Bathurst's wonderful triathletes, who have done us all proud. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. COMMITTEES 120 COMMITTEES Treaties Committee 120 Report 120 11:00 Mr JOSH WILSON 265970 Fremantle I'm glad to make some remarks on Report 182, from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is titled Oil stocks contracts: Netherlands. This report and the arrangement it puts in place between Australia and the Netherlands are an example of how our place in the world and our engagement with the world can be wonderfully complicated and terribly simple at the same time. At the end of the day, this arrangement is about fuel security. It's about Australia's fuel stocks and, to put it simply, we're not in a very good place. Our situation, when it comes to liquid fuel reserves, is parlous. We are a member of the International Energy Agency. There are 30 member countries around the world. The IEA came about in the aftermath of the oil crisis in the early seventies. Member countries are part of that group to make a contribution separately—more importantly, collectively—to greater fuel security on a global basis. You make commitments as a member of the IEA, and the key commitment is the 90-day commitment. Each participant country maintains reserves equivalent to 90 days worth of fuel. We have been non-compliant since 2012, so we have been non-compliant for six years. What does that mean? You can look at it in simple terms, and you can look at it within the terms of our international commitments. In simple terms, it means we don't have the kinds of fuel reserves we ought to have. If there were another oil crisis we wouldn't be well prepared for it. We wouldn't be able to make a contribution to any kind of international response. Comparatively, are there other member nations from time to time that are non-compliant? Yes, of course. Just to give you a sense of the scale of our noncompliance, since 2008 only two other member countries have been non-compliant: Turkey and Luxembourg. Their noncompliance was relatively minor. In the case of Luxembourg, it fell to 89 days of fuel reserves—one less than the 90-day commitment—on three occasions. Turkey fell from 90 to 88 days once in 2009 and from 90 to 86 days earlier this year. Those are the instances of other member countries being non-compliant since 2008. We currently have reserves equivalent to about 50 days worth, so we are non-compliant by an enormous margin. We have been non-compliant since 2012, so for the last six years. When you think of 50 days worth of fuel reserves, what does that mean? It covers a range of different kinds of fuel—aviation fuel, petrol, diesel. My understanding is that at various times since the beginning of this year our petrol reserves have been probably about three weeks worth. I note that retired Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn AO had some things to say about this earlier in the year, in the context of what's going on in Syria and the kinds of circumstances that could give rise to a disruption in global supply. He noted that Australia had no plan B. He said: In a major disruption … we would have major problems within two weeks. It's not hard to imagine how that would occur. Liquid fuel accounts for 37 per cent of Australia's energy use, but most importantly it accounts for 98 per cent of the energy used in transport. If we had a crisis in relation to our liquid fuel reserves, if global supply were disrupted, if there were some sort of crisis akin to circumstances we have seen a number of times over the last few decades, within three weeks we would have a major problem in our cities, in our freight networks. It's not as if the 1973-74 crisis was the last time we experienced this kind of issue. Obligations under the IEA have been triggered a number of times since then: in 1991, in the context of the first Iraq war; in 2005, around the time of Hurricane Katrina; and, more recently, in 2011, with the turmoil in Libya. So there are times when obligations of member countries are triggered under the IEA arrangements. Of course, we couldn't meet our obligations. We are not currently meeting our obligations. It is true to say—and it was certainly noted in this report—that other members look at Australia with a bit of a jaundiced eye. They take a bit of a dim view of our performance in that respect, because it is a collective arrangement; it only really works if all member countries hold up their side of the bargain, and we are not holding up our side of the bargain. What this treaty facilitates is the purchase of tickets from the Netherlands. Those tickets are essentially an option to take or otherwise disperse fuel reserves that the Netherlands have. It comes at a cost. Those tickets, over the next two financial years, will cost the Commonwealth some $24 million, just to have that option. Why are we doing it? We're doing it because the government has made some commitments to the IEA in relation to our noncompliance. Those commitments have two phases. Phase 1 is this early stage where we purchase tickets that give us access to these reserves that the Netherlands hold. Phase 2 is the much more interesting, important and difficult phase, because in phase 2, apparently, we're going to get to full compliance. I think it's important to note that we don't know, as members of the JSCOT, or as parliamentarians, much about how that phase 2 part of the exercise is going to occur. The government is currently undertaking a sort of a review of Australia's liquid fuel reserves, and apparently that review will report by the end of the year. I'll be very interested to see what it puts forward. We're currently at about 50 days of fuel reserves, a long way short of the 90 days that we need to be at. This arrangement effectively amounts to an additional 3.8 days worth of fuel. In each of the 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years, we are purchasing 400 kilotonnes worth of fuel reserve tickets, at a cost of $24 million, as I said. That will really only lift our effective reserves, or access to fuel, from around 50 days to around 55 days. How we're going to make up the other 35 days between now and 2026, which is the commitment we've made to the IEA under phase 2 of the arrangement that's described here, remains to be seen. We've got to this situation without enough scrutiny from government, without enough attention from government. Three of the seven domestic refineries in Australia have closed in the last decade. Our domestic production of liquid fuels has declined by a third. There is one further thing that I want to raise, and I've raised it in this place a number of times in the last 18 months. We currently do not have an Australian-flagged fuel tanker. Our fuel security depends on fuel production and fuel imports. Of course it depends on fuel reserves, and we know that they are in a parlous state. But everything that comes to this country comes by sea, and it is intolerable that we are in a situation of not having the sovereign self-sufficiency, the sovereign capacity, to transport fuel here. That is a result, unfortunately, of this government's very, very harmful policies in relation to shipping. They seem to be intent on bringing Australian shipping as we know it to an end. I want to thank all the members of the JSCOT who participated in this report. The member for Macquarie, who's going to speak after me, did a lion's share of that work. I actually wasn't on the committee for the last several months. I'm very glad to be back on the committee. This is an example of the important work that it does. 11:10 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie There are some members in this place who will remember the petrol queues of the seventies when, because of a world shortage, petrol was in very short supply in Australia. I can't remember all the details of it, but I remember my mum and dad being really stressed about getting a full tank of petrol. I certainly didn't know much about the OPEC oil crisis back then, but I certainly saw the effects. It seems like a long time ago. While it would be tempting to think that this agreement is about shoring up local fuel supplies, what we are recommending in this report is actually more about our role as a global citizen. Just as we saw post GFC, the world looked to put in place a series of things that were really to make sure the same mistakes weren't repeated. In the wake of the OPEC oil crisis in the late seventies, in 1979, we became a member of the International Energy Agency. We are one of 30 members required to hold the equivalent of 90 days of the previous year's average net oil imports. The idea is that if there's a major disruption of global fuel supplies, members' stocks can be pooled and can contribute to a collective effort to maintain global supply. The action has only been triggered three times since we signed that treaty in 1979. It happened in 1991 during the Iraq conflict. Hurricane Katrina triggered it in 2005, and the turmoil in Libya activated that agreement in 2011. To be clear, the committee sought some clarification about Australia's physical stocks of oil. The advice that we received from the department was that they are separate but interrelated areas, and that this treaty action only applies to the IEA obligation. Just because we're not compliant with the IEA obligation doesn't directly imply that we have a liquid fuel security problem, although we did hear evidence of only around three weeks supply of liquid fuel in Australia. I note that the government is doing an inquiry to really assess what the circumstance is, and that is certainly warranted. The department advised us that because there's quite a diverse supply—we import crude oil from 21 countries and we refine product from 47 countries, so there are multiple sources—that it does give us some resilience to a disruption. But, fundamentally, we have international obligations that we need to meet, and that's the purpose for entering this treaty: to make sure that we have sufficient fuel security to contribute back to the world. This really does speak to Australia's place in the global order. One of the points that I found quite interesting in the evidence that we took—and I have to say that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is always an education—was one of the reasons given for why Australia doesn't hold a strategic reserve. That is that we've never had a significant disruption in this country which has impacted on Australian supplies in the history of the IEA. So you probably do have to be in your 50s to go back to a time when you remember the previous impacts. Over 40 years of the different disruptions that we've had, none of them have actually impacted on Australia. The bottom line is that Australia has not been a good corporate citizen. We have been one of nine countries over the course of that treaty not compliant with the 90 days. Our current holdings are around 49.6 days, so fewer than 50 days. The minister says this is less than we would like, and the IEA says this is way less than what we are required to have—it's significantly less. By comparison, when you look at the others that have been noncompliant in the last decade or so, there have only been two noncompliant countries. Their noncompliance just pales in comparison to ours. Three times Luxembourg, instead of 90 days, had 89 days of fuel supplies. Turkey, in 2009, found itself with 88 days and, in 2018, with 86 days. So we really are dragging our heels on this one. While there is a cost attached to the solution that has been put forward, it's an important step for us to be taking if we want to be taken seriously on the world stage. About two years ago Australia submitted a plan to the IEA's governing board to demonstrate how we would for the first time be compliant. Under phase 1 of the plan we are procuring these 400 kilotonnes of tickets. This first agreement, which is with the Netherlands, is with only one country. We will have to make separate agreements with every country we do this with. We said we will buy 400 kilotonnes in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 financial years, so that is what this applies to. Phase 2 is much longer term and there is much less clarity around what that would look like in order to get us to compliance by 2026. The way to do that is still under consideration. I certainly urge a close and ongoing look at that. Let's keep in mind that the steps we're taking with this agreement are tiny. We're talking 3.8 days at a cost of $23.8 million. It is being considered a pilot phase, hence the decision not to take a larger chunk of ticketing. We look forward to hearing the result of the pilot and the finding as to what is the most cost-effective way for us to return to compliance. I think it's worth noting that the oil tickets that we are spending money on are actually a right to either purchase a reserved oil stock outright or release that stock back to the host market. There was some discussion about how quickly that oil could get to Australia. Of course, it would take a really long time to get here—several weeks. That's really where the committee recognised that this was not about Australia's domestic fuel supply but about our ability to contribute to the world's fuel supply. We sought an assurance that Australia would return to full compliance within the proposed time frame—that is, by 2026. I think we could only describe as limited the assurance by the department that the plan we currently have is going to achieve the outcomes we would like to see. I think that's the worry we should all have. 2026 is going to come around very rapidly, so I urge the relevant parties to keep focus on this. The member for Fremantle, who spoke before me, said that our ability to play a part internationally does depend on our willingness to live up to the promises that we have made as part of these agreements. We're certainly showing good intent here in accessing the Dutch ticket sellers. The Netherlands is the largest seller of tickets globally, so it has done this before. We're not so experienced at it. In addition to the Netherlands, we do have bilateral arrangements with the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany and we are negotiating or exploring bilateral relationships on this matter with a further six countries. I expect that those agreements will be a matter for this chamber before too long. In conclusion, we have serious concerns about Australia's own domestic fuel supplies. I want people to be very clear that this isn't seen as the solution, but it still has a very valid role to play in ensuring that Australia meets its international obligations. It is too easy to make promises and then let them slide. We have clearly done that for a really long time on this agreement. It is a show of good faith by Australia that we're progressing this agreement. I look forward to seeing more progress on this as we head towards 2026. Debate adjourned. Federation Chamber adjourned at 11:20