2018-10-15 45 1 7 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 15 October 2018

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

BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Federation Chamber 1 10:01 The SPEAKER 00APG I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed 4 pm for the meeting of the Federation Chamber on Monday, 22 October 2018, unless an alternative hour is fixed. COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Petitions Committee 1 Report 1 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Today I present the 30th report of the Petitions Committee for the 45th Parliament, together with 19 petitions and three ministerial responses to petitions previously presented. PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Falun Gong 1 Remote Housing 1 Child Protection 1 Human Rights Commission 2 Myrtle Rust Disease 2 Digital Rights 2 Affordable Housing 2 Carers 2 National Disability Insurance Scheme 3 Refugees 3 Hon. Peter Dutton MP 3 Fair Work Act 3 Electoral Law 3 Parliamentary Duties 3 Election Law 4 Antarctic Expeditioners 4 Child Protection 4 Health Care 4 Modern Slavery 4 PETITIONS 5 PETITIONS Responses 5 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented: National Broadband Network 5 Family Law 6 National Broadband Network 7 PETITIONS 10 PETITIONS Statements 10 10:01 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson Throughout the 45th Parliament, the committee has approved over 350 electronic petitions and close to 300 paper petitions. The petitions I present today demonstrate the range of issues that have prompted Australians to seek direct action from the House. The petitions include requests for electoral reform; a national summit on myrtle rust disease; and legislation to protect consumers when purchasing digital products. On behalf of the committee, I thank the petitioners and individuals who have signed these petitions for their engagement with the parliament. The committee has extended the submission deadline for its inquiry into the future of petitioning in the House. We look forward to hearing from petitioners and other parliaments about their experience. This will inform the committee of how to best facilitate petitioning into the future. Submissions will remain open until 23 November. I look forward to updating the House further on the work of the Petitions Committee, and on the progress of the committee's inquiry. BILLS 10 BILLS High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2018 10

High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2018

First Reading 10 Second Reading 10 10:03 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise to introduce this private member's bill, which would provide for the establishment of a high-speed rail authority to oversee the construction of a high-speed rail network along Australia's eastern seaboard. This is the fifth time I have introduced the bill into this parliament and the last. The fact is that the government has sat on its hands when it comes to high-speed rail and we've had five years of inaction. In 2013 the High Speed Rail Advisory Group, established while I was the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport in the former government, concluded that inaction is not benign and that an Australia without high-speed rail is a less prosperous one. That's why it recommended an authority to oversee the interjurisdictional issues between the Queensland, New South Wales, ACT and Victorian governments, local government and the private sector to drive this change. This recommendation came from the advisory group that included Tim Fischer, the former Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party, Jennifer Westacott, the head of the Business Council of Australia, a representative of the Australasian Railway Association and a representative of the Rail, Tram and Bus Union. It was a group of people dedicated to driving this change, which was intended to be bipartisan. That's why I established the advisory group. The authority is needed in order to make a difference now. Infrastructure Australia has estimated that significant savings can be made by preserving the corridor, making sure that all the land which is required is purchased now rather than later on. The two-stage high-speed-rail study undertaken by the former Labor government was comprehensive in its nature—it went down to the design of the very stations—and it found that the benefits were extraordinary. The benefits are not just in reducing travel times between Sydney and Melbourne and Sydney and Brisbane to under three hours; the big benefit is that this is a decentralisation plan. This is about turbocharging those regional economies. It would, of course, provide significant jobs during construction, but it also would provide a significant economic boost in the medium and long term, particularly for regional Australia. The bill The idea is that this authority's immediate priorities would be to finalise the track alignment and to work with Infrastructure Australia on the finalisation of a detailed business case, and it would then be able to go out to the private sector. We know that so many companies who've been successful in high-speed rail, construction and operation in Japan, China and Europe would be willing to participate. We know this because they've told us that that is the case. The project The network would ultimately service two-thirds of Australians. The first section was anticipated to be Sydney to Melbourne via the Southern Highlands and Canberra, but you could extend that to consider Newcastle to Sydney as well. It would be a game changer. If cities like Newcastle and this great capital city of Canberra were within one hour from the CBD of Sydney, it changes the economics of business being located in those regional cities. Canberra is Australia's largest inland city. High-speed rail would produce a return of $2.50 of economic benefit for every dollar invested on the Sydney to Melbourne section alone. The study that I commissioned to assess the project's viability identified that travel on the east coast of Australia is forecast to grow by about 1.8 per cent every year over the next two decades, which will be an increase of some 60 per cent by 2035. East-coast trips will double from 152 million in 2009 to 355 million in 2065. Population growth is greater than what was anticipated in the intergenerational reports—if anything, it was underestimated. That's why, in 2017, Infrastructure Australia found that protecting and acquiring the corridor now would reduce the eventual cost of the project by up to $21 billion. We know that in the worst-case scenario, unrestricted development along the preferred corridor could mean that when the project is built more tunnelling will be required at a cost of $100 million per kilometre in today's dollars. That's why we need to get on with this. The Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities, chaired by my colleague the member for Bennelong, in its recent report Building up & moving out: inquiry into the Australian government's role in the development of cities concluded in recommendation 5: … The Committee … recommends that the development of a fast rail or high speed rail network connecting the principal urban centres along the east coast of Australia be given priority, with a view to opening up the surrounding regions to urban development. This was a unanimous report by the House of Representatives committee, and I congratulate them for it. We need to stop talking. We need to get on with it. That's why it is tragic that we had done the work, in terms of the High Speed Rail Advisory Group, to recommend the creation of this authority and to establish funding for it—some $52 million to establish the authority was in the budget when the government changed—but it was reduced to zero, of course, by the incoming Abbott government, who walked away from that commitment. Now we know that, according to leaked documents, the government has set aside $1.5 billion for preconstruction for high-speed rail, possibly never to be announced, given the change of prime ministership. What we need to do is to make that announcement and to get on with the job. Financing We also know there is strong interest from the private sector with experience in high-speed-rail technology. That's why prior to the last election Labor announced that it would mandate the authority envisaged in this legislation to call for expressions of interest from international consortiums to participate in this project. These consortiums would bring their expertise as well as their investment. In addition, a portion of the funding for this major project could come from value uplift, which has been used for infrastructure projects for more than a century. However, the study completed by the former government dismissed the idea that the project could be funded solely through this mechanism. We also said prior to the last election that we would enact legislation to preserve the corridor along which the track would be laid. Conclusion Governments, of all political persuasions, should always aspire to be better. At a time when there is much cynicism in the political system, a high-speed-rail network down the east coast of Australia is a true transformational project. It's one that has the support of the population. It is one that has the support of the business community. It is one that has the practical support of those people who are engaged in the industry itself. It's one that has international support. We need to break the nexus between the short-termism of the electoral cycle and the long-term planning that is required to deliver these major transformative projects such as high-speed rail. That's why I established a committee including people like Tim Fischer. We need to recognise that a project such as this will go beyond one political term or one particular group of people being in government. How do you get that big change that Australia needs? It has to be bipartisan, and that's why the authority bill should be supported in this parliament. The member for Newcastle will be seconding this legislation, and I'd encourage the government to bring it on for debate and a vote. I know that there are many on the other side of the House, including the member for Bennelong, who are genuinely supportive of high-speed rail. Let's get on with the job of actually achieving it. This is a visionary, nation-building project. I commend the bill to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Ms Claydon 248181 I second this bill for an act to establish the High Speed Rail Planning Authority and reserve my right to speak. The SPEAKER 00APG The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 12

A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018

First Reading 12 Second Reading 12 10:14 Mr CLARE HWL Blaxland I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Trade creates jobs. According to the Centre for International Economics, the CIE, one in five Australian jobs is linked to trade. The more we trade the more jobs we create. It also leads to better paid jobs. That's why Labor supports trade, because it benefits working people. Most of the big reforms in trade have been made by Labor. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating working with Bill Kelty ripped down the tariff walls and opened up our economy. That created more businesses, more exporters and more jobs. According to work done by the Centre for International Economics another impact of these reforms is the average Australian family is now about $8,500 a year better off than they would have been if these reforms were never made. That doesn't mean that trade is popular. It's not. Cutting tariffs wasn't popular. Today there are a lot of people that are sceptical about trade and free trade agreements. There are a number of reasons for this. One is what some of these agreements have in them. Another is that they are often negotiated for years in secret and we don't find out what's in them until they are signed. That's why the way we design, negotiate and assess trade agreements has to change. Let me give you an example. This government has used trade agreements to repeatedly trade away labour market testing. Labour market testing is the simple task that before you bring in someone from overseas employers should first have to first check if there's an Australian who can do that job. That's not protectionism. It's common sense, and it's also the law of the land. But in a raft of trade agreements this government has removed this basic requirement. This undermines the whole purpose of labour market testing. For it to work properly it should apply to all employers—regardless of the country they are bringing workers in from. Creating exemptions like this means that employers can avoid this requirement by recruiting workers from certain countries rather than others. I have made it clear that where this government has waived labour market testing in trade agreements we will seek to restore it. In the case of the TPP we will seek to do this using side letters with the relevant countries. We will do the same with investor state dispute settlement, or ISDS, clauses. This bill will stop the Australian government from putting these sorts of clauses into trade agreements in the future. It will prohibit the government from waiving labour market testing in trade agreements. It will also prohibit the government from signing trade agreements that include ISDS clauses. It also prohibits other things that Australians don't want to see in trade agreements. To ensure that workers from overseas have the skills they need to do the job they are employed to do it will prohibit the government from signing trade agreements that don't require mandatory skills assessments (both practical and theoretical) being done in Australia. The bill also prohibits the government from signing trade agreements that require the privatisation of public services. It also prohibits the government from signing agreements that would undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. As Minister for Home Affairs I set up the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission. Dumping is when companies sell their goods at below cost price, with the deliberate intention to try and hurt local companies. It's not trade it's cheating, and it's why strong anti-dumping laws are so important. This bill prohibits the government from signing any trade agreements which would undermine our anti-dumping laws. It also prohibits the government from signing trade agreements that would limit the right of the government to regulate in the interest of public welfare or in relation to safe products—including stopping the importation of unsafe products. The bill also prohibits the government from signing any trade agreement that places certain restrictions on government procurement. High quality trade agreements should also lead to better working conditions and labour standards, not worse. That's why this bill also requires the Australian government to include in all bilateral trade agreements a labour chapter with internationally recognised labour principles. The bill also sets out that the Australian government should seek to include a labour chapter in any regional or multilateral trade agreement that it signs. I mentioned earlier that one of the problems with the way trade deals are done at the moment is that they are done in secret. The parliament, business, unions, other organisations and the entire Australian public usually have no idea of what is in them, or what is going to be in them, until they have been signed. We also need to fix that. To do that we need to do a number of things—some of which are set out in this bill. First we need to strengthen the role that this parliament plays in the scrutiny of trade agreements. If Labor wins the next election we will therefore expand the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. It should be involved in the development of trade agreements from start to finish not just examining what is in them once they are signed. Before any trade agreement starts it should be consulted on the government's Statement of Objectives for Negotiation—and given the chance to provide feedback. The committee should also be briefed by DFAT after each round of negotiations on how the negotiations are going and what they are focused on. This will provide valuable input for the team negotiating the trade agreement and help ensure that when the trade deal is completed it is scrutinised by legislators who are familiar with it. Business groups, unions and other organisations should also receive similar briefings. This bill sets up a system of Accredited Trade Advisors based on the model in the United States. Accredited Trade Advisors would be security cleared and provided access to the draft text after each round of negotiations allowing them to provide real-time feedback on what should and shouldn't be in the final agreement. We will also provide public updates on each round of negotiations and release draft texts during negotiations where this is feasible. The way trade agreements are assessed also needs to change. This bill requires an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement before it is signed. This assessment will cover everything from the economic benefits to the strategic impact to the social impacts of trade agreements. At the moment the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provides the parliament with what it calls a National Interest Assessment of signed trade agreements. I have said this a number of times. DFAT is full of exceptional people who do an extraordinary job. But getting the same team that negotiated the trade agreement to provide a report to the parliament outlining why it is in the national interest is a bit like marking your own homework. If the government signs any trade agreements in the next few months it is very unlikely that they will come before this parliament for consideration before the next election. That is because the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is required to consider any trade agreement for a minimum of 20 joint sitting days before it reports and enabling legislation is introduced. If the current government were to sign a trade agreement between now and the next election that includes clauses that are prohibited in this legislation we wouldn't support it in the parliament before the election and if we win the next election we will go back and renegotiate that agreement to take out those clauses before bringing any enabling legislation before the parliament. These reforms have not been developed in a vacuum. They are in response to legitimate concerns the community has about what goes into free trade agreements and the secret way in which they are done at the moment. I would like to acknowledge the different stakeholders that have worked with in developing these reforms. They include: members of the union movement who have worked with me in developing these ideas—including the ACTU the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry the National Farmers' Federation the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network the Export Council of Australia They don't all agree with all of the reforms in this bill but they have all had a hand in some of them. Labor will be announcing other measures before the end of the year that will also help to protect local jobs and communities from the negative impacts of agreements entered into by Liberal governments, which will also help to ensure temporary visas and temporary visa workers are not exploited and which will ensure government procurement and projects support local jobs. This is an important bill. If it passes it will fix many of the existing problems with trade agreements and make sure that the ones that we sign up to in the future are better and fairer. I commend it to the House. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Mr Conroy 249127 I proudly second the motion on the A Fair Go for Australians in Trade Bill 2018 and reserve my right to speak. Debate adjourned. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 15 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 15 10:24 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I 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. I am indeed delighted to put my name to this motion and commend the government for its decisive action in calling a royal commission into aged care, the key objective of which is to help build a national culture of respect for ageing and older Australians. I welcome the broad terms of reference announced just last week. After learning of the abuses at Oakden and receiving recommendations of the review that followed, the government acted swiftly to improve regulation and to impose a new audit regime on the sector. The introduction of unannounced audits and accreditation visits has seen a substantial increase in the number of identified incidents over the past year, including a 177 per cent increase in reported serious risks and a 185 per cent increase in notices of noncompliance. Yet, despite the significance of recent data that highlights serious issues, there is still strong evidence that Australia provides some of the best aged care in the world, and we should never lose sight of that fact. The Australian community has every right to expect only the highest standards when it comes to aged-care services that support the dignity of older Australians and the peace of mind of loved ones. Not only does the Australian government share these expectations but, as a government—and, I'm sure, as a parliament—we are determined that these expectations are met to ensure there are no exceptions. The Prime Minister's announcement of a royal commission has a special significance for me as the member for Fairfax. This is because the Sunshine Coast region, where I share the local government area with the member for Fisher, has one of the highest concentrations of older Australians anywhere in the country. At the last census, 20.9 per cent of the Sunshine Coast population was over 65 years of age, compared to just 15.2 per cent for Queensland and 15.8 per cent for the entire country. It should therefore come as no surprise that I have a keen interest in the welfare of older Australians, with whom I meet regularly, as I do with their families and aged-care providers across my electorate. I also meet regularly with the Fairfax Seniors Advisory Committee that I established soon after being elected, and we host a Fairfax Seniors Forum each year. The message from these groups is that while good progress on improving aged-care services has indeed been made, more remains to be done. Older Australians demand to be heard, and by hosting a series of community workshops later this month I intend to amplify the voices of my constituents to help inform the royal commission on the local situation. The message from the Sunshine Coast is loud and clear: they want firm action to identify and weed out substandard care wherever it is found. That is what this royal commission is all about, and this government should be commended for seeking to complement recent reforms with such a powerful response. However, it's not enough simply to shine a bright light on the problems; real action must follow. Such action is not only a matter of legislative will but also of financial will, and that is the Liberal-National coalition's strong suit. As is also the case with nation-building infrastructure, when it comes to supporting older Australians the coalition actually puts money on the table. Today, under this minister, funding for aged care is at record levels and is expected to grow from $18.6 billion last financial year to $23.6 billion over the next five years. This will improve the lives of older Australians and, thanks to the coalition's strong economic management, we can sustain the high-level services that older Australians expect and which they rightly deserve. The SPEAKER 00APG Is the motion seconded? Mrs Marino HWP I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:30 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I want to start by acknowledging the families, friends and loved ones of those who have been affected by the aged-care media that we have seen in recent weeks. I will be very blunt. The LNP government's involvement in the care of older Australians is now clearly evident because the sector is in meltdown. This LNP government cannot cut billions of dollars from aged care and then wonder why the issues are so serious. Surely, older Australians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, because in fact this is a human right. This government created this mess and now finally has decided to carry out a royal commission to investigate how the sector got into such a disastrous state. Well, let me give the government a hint: under now Prime Minister Scott Morrison's watch as Treasurer, the aged-care budget was used as an ATM to try to prop up the budget. As Treasurer, he ripped $1.2 billion from the aged-care system. Aged-care industry bodies warned at the time of the 2016 budget that cuts would result in declining standards of care, and—no surprise to anyone—that is exactly what has happened. It was always inevitable that these massive cuts would sadly lead to standards of care for older Australians slipping under the weight of the cuts. These cuts have also led to huge waiting lists for access to aged care—120,000 people across the nation are right now on waiting lists for access to in-home aged-care packages. In northern Queensland, there are more than 323 people waiting—people in my electorate, like Christine's mother. Sadly, Christine's mother passed away last year whilst she was waiting for approval of her aged-care plan. Christine's mother was on a plan in New South Wales, but when she moved to Townsville her mother had to apply again for an aged-care plan. What was really disturbing was the fact that Christine was notified by mail four months after her mother's passing that her package had been approved. This was both disgraceful and distressing. Labor fully supports the royal commission, but the royal commission must take a holistic analysis of the sector. Last week I met with my aged-care reference group and they formulated the following list. The act needs a review as there is serious concern that it is not fit for purpose in terms of the expectations of contemporary practice. It should investigate the provision of in-home care services, including the purchase of goods and services that are out of scope—capital works and renovations to dwellings, such as new bathrooms, and internal and external house painting to name a few. It should investigate the opportunity to implement emerging and innovative models of care and best practice across the entire sector. It should review the audit process related to aged-care standards, as the focus appears to be on financial and compliance aspects and not on service delivery and feedback from older persons and their families. The audit must include evidence of the voices of older persons who actually live in residential facilities. It should focus on workforce development and training. There needs to be a strong focus on quality and relevance of competencies to deliver a person-first approach. There should be staff ratios that recognise an effective skill mix and cultural competencies that meet residential needs. There should be a focus on access to aged-care services and facilities for people with complex mental health issues, including those who have been imprisoned. It should investigate the establishment of a funding model that is focused on the development of a co-design model of care, as opposed to services that simply meet a proposed funding envelope. It should investigate the growing incidence of elder abuse in both community and residential settings, including the use of chemical restraints; investigate ready access to advocacy services for older persons; and investigate access to appropriately skilled and qualified gender-relevant translators and/or interpreters. The Herbert electorate has an ageing population, and the issues associated with respectful care of our older persons from a human rights perspective are absolutely critical. We are an ageing population. In my electorate of Herbert, we have so many people who are in desperate need of aged-care services, particularly in-home care services. Our older persons are in desperate need of services and facilities in our community that help them live safely in their own homes for as long as is humanly possible. Older Australians cannot wait until after the royal commission; they need action right now. The government could start right now by reversing the billions of dollars that have been cut from the aged-care sector across the board, because this would make a significant difference to those people who are ageing in our communities as I speak. 10:35 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I certainly support this motion and I commend Minister Ken Wyatt, who is at the desk at this time, for his decision to call this royal commission. Many people, as the minister is aware, choose my electorate in the south-west of Western Australia to come to retire. It is a fabulous part of the world, and I expect that perhaps the minister, when he comes back to where he was born in Bunbury, could well be part of the retirement group that exists in my fantastic electorate in the south-west of Western Australia. We all know that one of the great measures of a society is how well we treat our elderly citizens—the wonderful generations who have come before us, who certainly deserve our respect and our care. Elderly Australians—and it's not only elderly Australians; it's we, their families, as well—expect that the care that is provided in residential aged-care facilities is of the highest quality. Families like us also expect that level of service. We have so many wonderful facilities around Australia. Certainly, in my part of the world in the south-west, I have aged-care facilities that are providing beautiful care to people. There are the sorts of places that you walk into and think, 'When it's my turn, if I need permanent residential care, this is the type of wonderful facility that I would like to be in.' And really that's what we want. That's what the government wants, and that's what this royal commission will help to achieve. We know that, as a result of recent inspections and some very well-publicised incidents, Minister Wyatt and the Prime Minister announced the royal commission. There were too many incidents that certainly couldn't be overlooked. The evidence was there. We know that we have some of the finest facilities anywhere in the world. However, what we've seen through the unannounced audit process and the identified evidence is that there are, certainly, in some facilities, very serious risks. For example, a 177 per cent increase in services with serious risks was identified in just the past year alone. There was a 292 per cent increase in services with significant non-compliance. One service is being shut down by the Department of Health every month. There were 154 notices of non-compliance, which is a 185 per cent increase. Sanctions are up 136 per cent. These are the very facts that the government and the minister have been presented with, and it does make really tough reading. It means that some 2,000 residents—out of a group of just over 200,000—who are living in residential aged care and over 80,000 who are living with in-home care support, including those who receive that within retirement villages, were impacted by these incidents. Some 300 had to be placed in other services. For both the individuals and the families, that is a very tough issue to deal with. I know, having had to make the decision myself with my family, that one of the hardest decisions any of us make is when we are entrusted with the complete care of a family member, because they need a level of care that we cannot provide in their home or in another home. It's the complete type of care that is needed when high-level residential care is required. Whether it's your parents, your partner, your husband or wife, a dad, an aunty, an uncle or even a young person—whomever it is—they are very, very hard decisions. These decisions need to be made with confidence in the care that they will receive. That's what we want to know. When people we love go into care, we want to know they have the right level of care, which is why the government has called the royal commission. I commend the minister for this action. 10:40 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin Whilst Labor obviously has been very supportive of this royal commission, we wait to hear some of the terrible stories to come out of the royal commission. I think we all know the sorts of stories we are going to see and hear. I think that Australians are bracing for those stories. As the shadow minister, I've been in a position where I've had to listen to and counsel some family members about some of the terrible stories of people's experiences in residential and in-home care in Australia. What we as a parliament need to make sure and what the government needs to make sure is that we don't wait until the final report in April 2020 before acting. We need to make sure that the issues that we know are wrong today are fixed today. I have been very strong on that. I have obviously contacted the government, the minister and the Prime Minister, together with the Leader of the Opposition, about the terms of reference for this royal commission. I am pleased that they are very broad. I am still concerned that retirement village living is not included, given that a large number of people in retirement village living are also receiving home care services. I hope that the commissioners, under any other item, also look at this issue, because it is a significant issue around the country and a lot of older Australians, in my view, are signing contracts that they don't understand and they are not aware of what they are being asked to do in terms of the fees and payments. As I said, I want to make sure that the government does act. The government has more than a dozen reports on its desk today. Some of those reports are about workforce. One, of course, is the Carnell-Paterson report into Oakden. To date, we've implemented one of the 10 recommendations. One has been partially implemented, with legislation in this place at the moment. There is a range of other recommendations that need to be implemented. We have the David Tune report into aged-care services in Australia and the government has responded to 18 of 38 recommendations. Another 20 recommendations are yet to be dealt with. So we do need to make sure that the government acts on these reports that are currently on its desk today. The government have to accept some responsibility for where we are today. They have been in government for five years. For five years, they have been in charge of this system and, by calling a royal commission into this system, they're saying, 'We've mucked it up and things are bad.' After five years, that is what they are saying. Essentially, after three ministers and ripping billions of dollars out, they are saying, 'We now have a problem, so let's call a royal commission.' We're pleased the royal commission has finally been called. Of course, when Labor said the aged-care system was in crisis months ago, we were chastised and, indeed, the minister at the table said some things to the Leader of the Opposition about it being akin to elder abuse. I know that he has since said that, perhaps, he went a bit far in his comments, but we have been saying that there are some very serious issues in the aged-care system today. That does not take away from the hardworking staff and people in the aged-care sector. They work extraordinarily hard day in and day out to provide the best possible care to older Australians. Many older Australians do receive very-high-quality care, but what this royal commission will show is that there are people who are not receiving high-quality care. What we know is that, when you rip billions of dollars out—and the current Prime Minister was the then Treasurer who ripped almost $2 billion out of the aged-care system; $1.2 billion in his first budget came out of the aged-care budget, went back into consolidated revenue and was not spent on aged care—it has an impact on people. We know that it particularly has an impact on residents who have the highest needs in residential aged care, and that is those who require the most support and the most help. We know that, today, there are 121,000 older Australians waiting for home care. Of those, more than 50,000 have no home care package at all. We know that many of the people waiting on that list need high-level care. They're waiting for level 3 and 4 packages. We know that, if they don't get that care, they often end up in emergency systems or in residential care. They should be able to get the care that they have been assessed for and that they need. Their families also need them to get that care so that they can return to work and not just be caring for their loved ones. We need to make sure that those people on that list get access to the care that they have been approved for and are entitled to. We are a wealthy nation. We can and should do better when it comes to older Australians. There are so many issues that should be fixed today—that need to be fixed today. And, whilst supporting the royal commission, I implore the government: please, fix it today! 10:45 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley Our government would firstly like to thank the community for their support for the establishment of the royal commission into the aged-care sector. I know it's an issue that has been raised within my electorate of Dunkley, whether in my local aged-care facility visits or across the community, as well as in the wider community across Australia. Around 5,100 submissions were received from aged-care consumers, families, carers, aged-care workers, health professionals and providers. I would like to thank the minister for aged care, as well as the Prime Minister, the cabinet and others for their significant work in bringing about the royal commission. This is indeed a vital step for Australia—to determine the full extent of the problems in aged care and to understand how we can meet the challenges, as well as the opportunities, of delivering and improving upon aged-care services now and into the future. It is also about helping to build a national culture of respect, and increasing respect, for ageing and our senior Australians. Some of the issues that I came across through my own grandmother's experience, as I've mentioned in this place recently, were of concern to me. They brought about a personal understanding of some of the issues that people go through in aged-care facilities as well as in retirement villages and other sectors related to that. I note that many people in the aged-care sector and in our retirement-village sector do a great job. But there are those who are doing the wrong thing, whether they are individuals or certain elements within the aged-care sector. I note that, on 9 October 2018, the Prime Minister announced that the Governor-General had issued letters patent establishing a Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. I would like to note now some of the issues that the aged-care royal commission will look into. Firstly, it will cover the quality of care provided to older Australians and the extent of substandard care. It will cover the challenge of providing care to Australians with disabilities living in residential aged care, particularly younger people with disabilities, which is an important element that we should not forget. It will also cover the challenge of supporting the increasing number of Australians suffering dementia and addressing their care needs as they age. It will cover the future challenges and opportunities for delivering aged-care services in the context of changing demographics, including in remote, rural and regional Australia, and it will also address any other matters that the royal commission considers necessary. We know that there have been aged-care issues for governments, whether in the six years of the Labor government between 2007 to 2013 or the over five years of the coalition government since 2013. So these issues have gone across governments. To be fair, both Labor, when they were in government, and the coalition, while we've been in government, have been working to address these issues. But we need to go further, which is why the aged-care royal commission has been brought about. We need to look deeply into the issues, and we can't necessarily bring that about just through regular conversations. We can bring about the opportunity to speak to people, on a privileged basis as well, to see: what are the major issues facing the sector and where can we better address them? I am very proud of the actions of our government in launching this royal commission into aged care, particularly given some of the things that I've heard, for example, from my constituents, or some of the things we've seen on television or in the newspapers, not only over the last few weeks but over the last decade or more. As I said before, I know, from my own family's experience, some of the issues across both the retirement-village sector and the aged-care sector. As I've said previously, I wish that my own grandmother had had the experience of some of the great places in my electorate, like the Village Baxter in Frankston, which has a very strong model and management, and has shown the ability to truly care for residents. I also had the privilege of going along to Village Baxter on the weekend. They had, at the conclusion of Seniors Week, an opportunity to have an open day and fete at the Village Baxter. I brought along my family—my wife and my daughter—not only to see some of the facilities but also to participate in some of the activities. I should acknowledge and commend the students from Mount Erin College, which is the neighbouring school nearby, who were involved on Saturday, which is normally their day off from school. I thank the minister also for coming down on a number of occasions to speak about aged care in aged-care forums and for visiting a number of villages within my electorate. I am proud of the government's actions we have taken not only to improve the aged care sector but also with respect to the royal commission. (Time expired) 10:50 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor There is only one truth in this chamber today and that is our aged-care system is in absolute crisis and that for five years this government has failed to act, time and time again. In fact, the story of neglect is appalling. It is a story of cuts, $2 billion worth of cuts out of the aged-care sector. Since the 2014 budget, this government has been on notice that its work in this sector is coming up short. When first elected after the 2014 budget, I have a clear memory of visiting one of the not-for-profit aged-care facilities in my electorate to hear from the management there about the drastic impact the dementia supplement cuts were going to have on their day-to-day operations. I raised it in this House, as did many others on this side of the chamber. We knew that those cuts were going to have radical implications on the ground, particularly in the not-for-profit sector where they were going to be dealing with more and more high-care dementia patients with less and less funds to do so. It only got worse from there. We had a crisis around retirement villages that the member for Franklin spoke about often, as did I, and we called then for an ombudsman to look into that sector to make it easier for people to make complaints and to have their concerns heard. We then come to the aged-care facilities and, again, we've had cut after cut after cut. The government signalled their intent in the 2014 budget and then, in the 2016 budget and the MYEFO, we saw further cuts. When the current Prime Minister was Treasurer, they looked for savings of $1.2 billion over four years with their changes to ACFI. In contrast, in May in this chamber in the budget reply speech, Labor leader, Bill Shorten, announced that a Labor government would make dementia and ageing a national priority, and here we are today talking about the royal commission into aged care. After failure after failure after failure, we find ourselves with the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This is despite the Carnell-Paterson review, commissioned by those opposite, that was delivered in October 2017. It is now October 2018, and we're here talking about a royal commission but failing to act on the recommendations of that review until this week, when legislation will be brought into this chamber. Our ageing population need to know that they will be able to age with dignity. They need to know that they will be able to stay in their homes for as long as they can, living independent lives, with support. We know that home care packages are the way to prevent people having to go into aged-care facilities for a longer period of time. They give people the best chance of staying in their homes and living a dignified life, and this government have failed in that space. In home care packages, they have failed. They've come up short at every opportunity. They then make announcements with a list of 121,000 people waiting for home care packages, 50,000 of those waiting for level 3 and 4 home care packages. They make an announcement that will put some home care packages into the system but go nowhere near covering the needs of our community. In contrast, in 2012, Labor went with Living Longer Living Better, an evidence-based policy about quality staff, about quality care, about dignity, about home care packages meaning people had preventative things put in place to avoid those accidents, to avoid those broken hips, to avoid the trips and falls, and to ensure that people could stay at home longer. Rather than put itself in a positive position, this government has failed to act for five years now across the entire space. The royal commission is necessary, but we know already that there are areas that could be fixed today if this government so chose. I join the member for Franklin and call on this government to take the actions we know will assist today, to increase the number of home care packages, to get this system out of crisis as quickly as possible. Yes, we need a royal commission, but we already know some of the faults and we already know some of the solutions. This government needs to act today. 10:55 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein One of the great privileges of being able to represent the good people of Goldstein in this place is, of course, that it is a forward-looking, modern, liberal community concerned about the issues not just of today but also of the future. When I go around the Goldstein electorate and speak directly to residents, one of the most critical issues that come to their mind and their agenda is aged care and making sure that people at a vulnerable stage of life—whether it is themselves or it is their loved ones—get the support, the care and the assistance they need to make sure that they can live out their lives with dignity in the way that they carried themselves at earlier stages of life. That's why the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety is so important. While there are many good aged-care centres out there—and there are—and while there are many good aged-care workers, nurses, support staff and those who care for and support those people at that vulnerable stage of life every day and make sacrifices to do what is right, you cannot pretend that there have not been issues that have arisen from examples identified by this government, identified by state governments and identified, of course, by the media, which justify this royal commission to make sure that we are meeting the expectation that Australians have of us to support those at the latter stages of their life. Of course, we know that these challenges are going to become more considerable and more complex over time. An ageing population is a testament to the wonder of modern medicine, economic progress and a society that values people for their full contribution and capacity in life. We have an obligation to support our elderly in the vulnerable stages of life and make sure they get that care. Goldstein, of course, is a perfect example of doing so. In Beaumaris, Black Rock and Brighton, more than 35 per cent of the population is aged over 55. The royal commission is about correcting any trust deficit between aged-care operators and the community so that people can age with confidence. There are over 900 residential care providers across the country who will benefit from a reshaping and a rebuilding of that trust. The nurses, the care providers, the cleaners, the cooks and the volunteers help give our elderly healthier and happier lives. Their passion and commitment should be reflected in the sector's policies and governance, and that's why this government has made it such a priority. We haven't twiddled our thumbs waiting for the commission's findings. The 2017 Legislated Review of Aged Care was a springboard for the changes announced in the 2018 budget to provide an extra $1.6 billion for home care. Aged-care funding will increase by an average of 6.4 per cent each year over the next four years. We also have legislated for new Aged Care Quality Standards, the first upgrade of standards in 20 years, and have introduced the bill to create the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, supported by $106 million to support better facilities, care and standards in aged care. And, since 2014, the government has allocated over 32,000 residential care places, and over 130,000 home care packages have been released and continue to be released at over 3,000 a week. But of course what people want, what Australians want, is action. They don't just want to cover the issues affecting the elderly in aged care; they also want to make sure there's action affecting young Australians who need the support of aged care. I have already had constituents making sure that this issue is properly addressed. We can say with confidence that it is. But, despite what may be revealed by the royal commission, one of the most critical things is that we do not beat up on the sector and diminish the standing of it when there are so many good people doing so much good work every day. We need to back them and to celebrate their achievements as much as we need to shine a very bright light into dark places. I was very privileged recently to be part of launching Fairway Aged Care, Bayside Aged Care's new facilities in Sandringham—only a week or so ago. It was a topic of great concern to the board and to the management there, including people like the president, Michael Scully, and the CEO and DON, Sandy May. Most critically, I was left with advice from the mayor and also Fairway's board member, Laurie Evans, who said, 'Tim, take it back to Canberra that there are so many of us in the aged-care and community space doing so much good work.' You heard Laurie. (Time expired) 11:00 Mr HART 263070 Bass I'm very pleased to be able to speak on another occasion about aged care. The shadow minister, my good friend the member for Franklin, has moved several motions in this place, calling the government to account with respect to their serious delay in reporting key indicators with respect to access to vital aged-care services. Now I'm dealing with a motion moved by a member of the government. I thank the honourable member for moving the motion. I must say that too often we are tempted in this place to deal with motherhood statements. It is obvious in this case that all Australians want to ensure that we look after our elderly. It is obvious that Australians can receive timely access to a level of service appropriate to their needs in their later years. But it's also a time for plain speaking, for honesty and for a direct discussion about failures in our aged-care system. Yet again I say that Labor welcomes the government's decision to hold a royal commission into the aged-care sector. It is of course appropriate to recount why a royal commission is necessary. Around 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving some form of aged care provided by approximately 400,000 nurses and carers. By 2056 it is projected that the aged-care workforce will need to triple to around one million workers required to deliver services for more than 3.5 million Australians, and older people will represent an increased percentage of Australians. Public expenditure on aged care is expected to double as a share of the economy by the 2050s. I say again: on the present policy settings, aged-care expenditure is expected to double. That of course does not represent additional investment—an opportunity for this lot to crow about their commitment to record funding—that is merely maintaining the status quo. So that is the policy setting. What have we seen on this government's watch? Right now, the aged-care system is in crisis. The fact that the aged-care system is in crisis should be obvious to any reasonable observer. It was obvious to many before this royal commission was called. When Labor raised this issue, when we pressed the issue—as we must in calling the government to account—we were heavily criticised by the minister. Indeed, when I've spoken on motions that I've previously referred to I'm tempted to say that the minister responded with bluster and obfuscation—indeed, with denial. Now this crisis is recognised implicitly with the calling of a royal commission. Billions of dollars have been cut from aged care in the past five years by this Liberal government. The Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, cut almost $2 billion in his first year as Treasurer and, shamefully, his government denies that fact. There are 121,000 people on the home care package waiting list, including over 88,000 with high needs—many living with dementia. More than a dozen reviews and reports, including hundreds of recommendations, still sit on the minister's desk without being actioned. Three different aged-care ministers across the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have had the responsibility for this for the past five years but have failed to undertake any real reform across the aged-care portfolio. Aged care has been a policy area which has attracted a significant level of bipartisanship. Labor introduced welcome reform with its Living Longer Living Better reforms. It's important to understand that the central philosophy driving policy was that of consumer-directed care, providing greater choice for older Australians, not just as to the care they wanted but also delivering independence and support to live at home for as long as possible. There was a growing wave of outcry from the public about the quality of care older Australians have received, particularly in residential aged-care facilities. This was highlighted by the investigations around elder abuse and neglect at the South Australian Oakden facility. In response to the Oakden inquiry there was a Senate inquiry. This triggered the government to commission a review, which is better known as the Carnell-Paterson review. This review was handed to the then Turnbull government in October 2017. This government has not addressed this policy area with any success, which is evident from the significant level of public concern around the aged-care sector. More than a dozen reviews and reports, including hundreds of recommendations, still sit within government. They sit on the minister's desk without being actioned, even though this royal commission has been called. The royal commission is to be welcomed, but we need action. We need something to be done now, not waiting for the results of the royal commission. (Time expired) 11:05 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler Firstly, I acknowledge the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, who is in attendance in the chamber, and I thank the minister for the visits he has made to my region. Aged care is an incredibly important provision of services into my local region for some very simple reasons. The first one is that as at March 2018 I had 27,738 people on the aged pension and 47,506 on a pension concession card. That is a substantial amount for local voters in the Hinkler electorate who will need these services moving into the future. It is an important issue for them, so it is an important issue for me. Can I also congratulate the member for Fairfax, better known as 'Super Ted' O'Brien, for bringing forward this PMB and giving us the opportunity to demonstrate our support. As I said, all issues are local. For my people, simply because they live in a regional area does not mean that they are second-class citizens. It does not mean that they should have fewer services or lower ability to access those services than their city counterparts. Unfortunately, over a long period of time we have seen, particularly around ACAT assessments, real difficulty for the Labor state government to deliver those assessments in any reasonable time frame. At a federal level we continue to fund those, but unfortunately we do not see sufficient services in the regions to do these in any reasonable time. That means that people wait longer to get themselves onto the waiting list and they wait longer for a package, right from the commencement point. This is the challenge that we've addressed sometimes before, but we do need to address it again. Certainly, consumers do not understand the difference in the packages from 1 through 4. They certainly don't understand that prior to level 4 they may still be waiting for those packages for a considerable amount of time. I personally think that is unacceptable. We need to do better, in terms of the delivery of these packages into regional areas, particularly for those smaller centres. If you live in Monto or Eidsvold or Biggenden, all inside the electorate of the member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd, those services are provided in the major regional centres, in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. It means that their loved ones have to travel to those regional centres to visit them. Once again, I want to point out the work of the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. Ken Wyatt has worked in very difficult circumstances. Let's face facts here: it is very often that these circumstances are with grieving families. They are grieving families who have found themselves in a position where their loved one has passed on. It is a tough role, and I congratulate him on the work that he's done. I also congratulate the member for Goldstein. We don't often see eye to eye, but on this we do. We cannot tar everyone in the aged-care industry with the same brush. We cannot say to the entire aged-care industry that they are not performing, that they are in crisis. The reality is that there are very hardworking people in the aged-care sector who are doing a good job. There are aged-care residential services that are doing a fantastic job, particularly in my electorate. We have any number of new facilities which have just opened in the last 12 months which are top class—five star. In fact, one of them I always looked at as a cruise ship offering. It's quite incredible. Where there are those bad seeds that are not providing sufficient services, where those organisations are not providing sufficient boots on the ground, then it is the department's role to crack down on them. That is what we have been doing. Once again, I thank minister for aged care for the action that he took in one particular residence in my electorate. I must say, again, that it is not a reflection on the sector that you have one individual organisation with some challenges that need to be addressed. The aged-care royal commission has been called. It will be about facts; it will not be about people out there politicising this very difficult issue. It will be about an individual with the resources and the facilities to investigate the facts, make determinations and make further recommendations. It is a difficult sector. As I've said, these are people who demand our respect and who deserve our respect. They have lived through changes in technology, like you wouldn't believe, from the donkey hot water system and the combustion stove. They've been through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They have lost children and grandchildren on their way through life. When they find themselves at the tail end and not the beginning, it is up to us to ensure the facilities and services that they need and deserve are provided. I look forward to the results of the aged-care royal commission, and certainly to getting to the facts and establishing what we can do to improve those services for them. 11:10 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners and pay my respect to their elders past and present. We can learn a lot from the oldest continuous civilisation on the planet. We are privileged to inhabit this continent of Australia. Indigenous Australians honour their elders, and so many of the different ethnic communities in my electorate honour their elders. So many cultures around the world have their elderly stay with the younger family; it's seen to be a responsibility that they have. I think when we look at the Australian aged-care system, which has developed very differently, we have a culture in this country where people go through it, perhaps in steps, and end up in aged-care facilities. We should bear that in mind and we should ensure that respect is at the centre of the way we treat those people who've helped build this nation, who've helped raise families and who've helped make a difference. That's why I support the government's decision to finally agree with Labor's call for a royal commission into the aged-care sector. We didn't need to watch Four Corners to know that this aged-care system is facing a crisis. The truth has been around for some time. Over recent years there has been increasing media attention of the problem. We've heard disturbing reports about frail aged Australians being mistreated in facilities meant to be dedicated to their wellbeing. This is a many-layered problem and a problem we must not ignore. It's about inadequate resourcing. It's about pay levels for aged-care workers. It's about ensuring that aged-care facilities meet required standards and taking action when they do not. It is about that culture of respect. Safeguarding the dignity of older Australians is a fundamental responsibility of this parliament. About 1.3 million Australians are supporting residential home and community aged care, including home support packages and services such as social support and meal delivery. That figure includes 240,000 who call an aged-care facility home. These people are our parents or grandparents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters or, indeed, friends. That's why Australians need to be secure in the knowledge that, as we all grow old, when we reach a point where we need assistance to look after ourselves there will be a society that pledges to look after them. Funding is critical. It does matter. That's why the government's changes to funding, which they called a cap to the Aged Care Funding Instrument, needs to be called out for what it is. It was due to grow by $3 billion. Instead, as a result of the now Prime Minister's first budget, it is due to grow by $1.8 billion. That's a 1.2 billion cut. That cut was not put into other areas of aged care; it was simply put back into consolidated revenue. Then, that was followed up with another $500 million cut, meaning that $1.7 billion has been ripped out of the system by this ATM government—an ATM government that is not putting dollars back in; an ATM government that just takes deposits, but not withdrawals that are then used for the benefit of elderly Australians. I hope that the royal commission will act as a reminder to all governments that, whilst spending matters, people matter too and we need to make a real difference with this royal commission. It is good that government is having a royal commission, not for political purposes but to make a difference. I think it can certainly do this. In the remaining time, I want to say that the issue of people from non-English-speaking backgrounds particularly has to be addressed. Elderly people from these backgrounds lose their English in many cases and go back to their first language, and they need specific support arising out of this. We need, too, as the Prime Minister has said, a culture of respect for older Australians. That's something the parliament should unite on. 11:16 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I come here today not to praise aged care but to bury it. This motion by my good friend the member for Fairfax goes a long way to expressing the challenges that our nation faces. Everyone else in this debate has noted that our population is ageing rapidly and our capacity as a community to pay for this ageing cohort's health will also become increasingly difficult to fund as the number of people who are of working age proportionately decreases. Increasingly, as a community, we are asking people to fund their own care into old age. In return, the least we can do is to ensure that the quality of the care is improving, of good quality, and reliably so. Both parties, I believe, come to this debate largely with clean hands. Previous Liberal ministers such as the member for Menzies and the member for Pearce were both pathfinders when it comes to aged care. The sector still considers both of them to have been the best of the best. They've both instituted a policy framework that got out of the way where it could and emphasised the importance of delivering reliable and quality care, but otherwise allowed providers the maximum flexibility to provide care that fitted the needs of our community. This allowed private providers to come into the sector and massively improve both the quality and range of care as well as the level of aesthetics that a resident and their family could expect. When I first started working in aged care, in 2004, I still remember walking into the UnitingCare nursing home at Croydon and being overcome with the stench of urine. This was by no means an isolated incident. I once visited a facility in Bathurst where the staff were all in the parking lot smoking as I drove in. I could not find anyone to help me and nearly all of the residents were in a cold common room watching a fish tank. I'm glad to say that after the reforms of the members for Menzies and Pearce this has largely stopped. The massive investment by private sector operators has lifted the care and quality of aged care out of a postwar malaise in which aged care was seen as an annexe to the local hospital. The member for Port Adelaide, Mark Butler, should also be noted in this debate. His reforms were both overdue and needed. They took the focus off form and onto substance. These reforms firmly put the focus on the care of residents first and foremost and stood up to the entrenched interests groups in the sector who have other concerns. The current minister, Ken Wyatt, who is in the chamber at the moment, has worked admirably to improve upon those changes, including massively expanding the number of unannounced audits. This is not to say, by any means, that all is well in aged care. I want to see a more perfect system. Our work towards that will never be finished and nor should it be. However, in any consideration of how to move towards the perfect, we should emphasise those things that have worked and have provided better care for our tribal leaders. The reforms that have allowed so much private investment have massively lifted the performance of the entire sector. Consumer choice has put pressure on providers to give all the quality of care and life that they deserve in their last home. This incentive has meant that we are far more aware of when providers fall down and do not live up to our expectations. But we should not ignore the failures. The artificial cap on bed places has meant too many Australians are forced to stay at home or else go into nursing homes that do not meet the standards that we would hope for as a community. This artificial cap on competition has brought about situations like the Oakden nursing home scandal in South Australia, in which the Butler reforms were universally ignored. The then South Australian government cared more about those working at the facility than the people they were meant to be caring for. If the royal commission achieves nothing else, it should be this: that whatever government strictures there are on choice of our tribal elders are removed, when it comes to their final home, especially if this allows more investment; and that no government should care more about the vested interests of those working in aged care over those that they are meant to be caring for. 11:20 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman I must say I find it galling how quick government members, like the member for Fairfax, have been to shower themselves with praise for establishing a royal commission into the aged-care sector, how quickly they've been to pat themselves on the back after it took them such an excruciatingly long time to act. There is no member opposite who can truthfully say they have done all they can to fix the crisis in the aged-care sector that has been allowed to happen. There was no member opposite who could say, when the damning reports of rife exploitation within the sector were heard, they responded quickly and appropriately. And no member opposite can say they have been standing up for the seniors in their constituency by ensuring that they have access to the care that they need, be it in a dedicated facility or through a home care package. We are still waiting for action and yet we see the government congratulating themselves on a job well done. Referring this crisis to a royal commission is a start. It's a start but it's nothing more. We know that there is a dire problem now. We know that we need to act now because, in the short-term, a royal commission won't change anything—at least not until the report's handed down and that's not until mid-2020. The government cannot use the royal commission as an excuse to delay fixing this crisis now, but this motion seems to indicate that they intend to do exactly that. Instead of patting themselves on the back before resting on their laurels, the government need to act now. They have a moral obligation to do so and they need to do it now because things just seem to be getting worse. I'd like to just give an example to the government and the members listening here. I was speaking to the wife of a constituent recently who's been approved for a level 4 package. He has taken a level 2 package just to get some support. This man's wife's employer and her co-workers have raised $10,000 to help provide simple and basic care and support that this aged-care package isn't providing because he's had to take a lower package than what he's entitled to. It is absolutely disgusting. It is not just constituents who are raising with me the fact that they are waiting for their package or for the appropriate package. I have GPs in my area who are contacting me, advocating on behalf of their patients, asking me to get something done now for their patients. It is the whole community that is outraged about this. It was when the June 2018 quarter of home care packages was released that we saw just how negligent this government has become with its treatment of older Australians. Since the first release of data, the waiting list for home care has grown from 88,000 to more than 121,000 older Australians waiting for packages. This is an appalling indictment on the Prime Minister and the government that he leads. Despite having claimed that aged care would be a focus of this prime ministership, Prime Minister Morrison has stood idly by as things have become worse and worse. This is unsurprising given his track record. Let's remember, as Treasurer, this Prime Minister ripped almost $2 billion from the care of older Australians—$2 billion caring for the very people who built this nation—and then he questions why things are getting worse. This is typical Liberal Party behaviour—cut first and ask questions later. I will always stand up for older Australians in my electorate. Seniors living in Caboolture, Bribie and Burpengary all deserve to live in comfort and with dignity. They deserve compassion and they deserve the care that they need. I'm proud to be part of Labor, who will be fighting for what's right. We're committed to a strong and sustainable aged-care system, one that delivers choice, easy access and better care for older Australians and their families and their carers. In the few seconds I have remaining, I'd like to make a special mention of the amazing, hardworking qualified professionals, people like Heather Jackson, delivering nursing care and personal care to those in our aged-care sector. They continue to deliver for older Australians while this government sits by and does nothing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZY I thank the member for Longman. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 24 BILLS Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018 24

Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018

Second Reading 24 11:26 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler I rise to speak in support of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, moved by my friend and colleague the member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon. This would reintroduce an inspector-general, a position that was let lapse by the Abbott government when it was elected in 2013. The reintroduction of an inspector-general would see the further strengthening of our live export regulatory system. It builds upon Labor's proud achievement of creating the Export Supply Chain Assurance System in 2011, which was in response to a Four Corners report that recorded atrocious acts of animal cruelty within Indonesian abattoirs. For a number of years now, ESCAS has effectively enforced animal welfare standards in other countries. While ESCAS is a great Labor achievement, more needs to be done to prevent future incidents of animal cruelty. For example, the shocking footage obtained by 60 Minutes on 8 April this year exposed the hideous conditions that Australian sheep were being subjected to during long-haul live export voyages to the Middle East. Unfortunately, this is not a one-off event. The 60 Minutes footage covered onboard treatment of live sheep over a series of voyages. Upon seeing the original footage, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, said: I've seen that footage and I was absolutely shocked and gutted … This cannot go on. He continued: We saw sheep that basically died from a heat event that were left and decayed, that were unable to get to water and food, and it disturbs me greatly that this has happened. If that is the case then the government must commit to immediately halting the northern live sheep trade, phasing it out completely within five years, as Labor has pledged to do. During the five-year transition period, Labor will impose the highest regulatory standards. Labor will work with farmers, unions and industry on a strategic red meat industry plan to do more value-adding here in Australia. This will be good for farmers. It will be good for animal welfare standards and good for the Australian economy. Labor will end the live export of sheep and Australia will be better off for it. There can be no doubt that appointing an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports is integral to preventing further cases of animal abuse, such as the kind that was seen in Indonesia in 2011 and during long-haul live export voyages earlier this year. Not only does this bill and the appointment of an inspector-general have the support of the caucus of the Labor Party; importantly, it has the support of the live export industry itself. So it's hard to see why the government is so opposed to this practical measure. The only people opposed to this bill are some of those opposite in the deeply divided rabble that is the ATM government of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison. Indeed, it's a fact that the Liberal member for Farrer, Sussan Ley, introduced her own private member's bill in May to stop live sheep exports entirely. Ironically, the member for Farrer has now withdrawn her support from voting for this bill. The fact is that a majority of this parliament—of the House of Representatives and the Senate—supports this legislation. So why is it that it is not going through this parliament? This is a failure of our democracy if it doesn't happen. Our animals need support and our agricultural sector needs strong and sustainable regulation. Both of these measures can be achieved by supporting this legislation. And the parliament needs to wake up to how angry the Australian population are about these issues not being addressed. Anyone who looks at that footage can't possibly say that this is okay to just continue. This should not be a partisan issue; we should be bringing on this bill for a vote and we should be carrying it through both houses of parliament. I commend the bill to the House. 11:31 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018. I think we should remember some of the basic facts here: 99.7 per cent of sheep that go to live export get off the ship in a better or the same condition—99.7 per cent. Of course there are times where there are issues that need to be addressed—absolutely. There are issues that need to be addressed, like there are on the roads if there is an accident, or like there are in a factory if there is a workplace accident or like there are in so many areas. But those are not solved by closing down an industry. And that seems to be the intent of the Labor Party: to close down an industry. We've had a go at this before. They closed down the live cattle industry and that ended in an absolute disaster for the people of Northern Australia and for Indigenous communities—for the whole lot—because there was this sense, this conceit, that thousands of kilometres away they were going to make a decision about other people's lives. And now we're going down this path again. They're deciding, without any real attachment to the industry, without actually being in the industry, that they're going to close another person's industry down. We know the path that this will follow. The people who are pursuing this are not going to stop with live sheep. After they've finished with live sheep, it will be live cattle. And after it's live cattle, it will be the transport industry. You can't believe for one second that these people—the animal rights people with this anthropomorphic principle that all animals are people and all people are animals—are going to relent after they close down just one section of the live export industry. In this nation, under this government, we have made it our target to get a better return to the farm gate. Whilst the Labor government was there, there was no real escalation—in fact, agricultural output in their last quarter went backwards. Agricultural returns went backwards. But we brought about that record return for lambs, mutton and live sheep. We went to Western Australia and Western Australian towns, and they said: 'You have to do something about revitalising the economics of these towns. You have to get the live sheep trade going again.' And we did, and it did. So now we are saying to these regional towns: 'Sorry, you go back to being poor. That's what we're going to deliver to you. We're going to make an edict from here, from the inner suburbs, that you be poor. We think that's the only thing you deserve: to be poor.' And that comes from the Labor Party, which is supposed to support those on the peripheries. And there is their vague promise, 'Somewhere down the path there is going to be something that may help you.' No-one is going to believe that. No-one takes them seriously. We can't take them seriously, because we've got to take them by their track record—their track record which decimated regional towns and industries, and that has no empathy and no understanding of those away from the inner suburbs of the major urban capitals. We also have to note that we're living in a global economy and note the cultural practices of some of our major trading partners. Some of our major trading partners in agricultural products are Islamic. I spent a lot of my time as a minister going to the Islamic countries to make sure that we were seen as a global trading partner. Now we're deciding that we'll no longer do that. After we've stopped preaching to regional towns, we'll start preaching to Islamic countries around the world about how they should act. I'll tell you what: they're not going to listen to our sermon. We've got to be really careful because, if we start having a conceited approach to how they live their lives, they might have a very parochial approach as to how they trade with us, or whether they do at all. Might I remind people that there are a lot of meatworkers in the processing sector who sell meat to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait and, if we lose those markets, there will be downward pressure on their jobs and a reduction in their prospects. We're expanding. I think the biggest manufacturing industry in Australia is the meat processing industry. That's where the jobs are, and it's worked hand in glove with the revitalisation of the ag sector because of the returns that are there. The Labor Party represent a closure of the live export industry. They represent a reduction in income to regional towns. They want you to go back to being poor. That's what they believe you should be. If you're in a regional town, away from an urban capital, the Labor Party have no policy for you but that you should be poor again. 11:36 Ms SWANSON 264170 Paterson Today I speak in support of the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018. My colleague the member for Hunter and shadow agricultural minister has formulated legislation that would make Australia a world leader in animal protection in live export industries. The former speaker, the member for New England, boasted that 99.7 per cent of animals reach their destination in a better state or the same state in which they left. Well, if that figure is indeed true, then point 3 certainly troubled many Australians. I and many of my colleagues and those across the chamber have received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails about this. It has been one of the issues that has engaged people like none other. People who live in the bush and produce have also sent me emails saying, 'We don't want to see the animals that we produce treated this way.' Coming from a radio background, I distinctly remember the dark days in 2011 when the switchboards lit up as people across Australia saw the horror unfold before them in the Indonesian abattoirs. It was visceral. People reacted because they, on some level, thought, 'This is not how we, at the top of the food chain, should be treating the animals that get there.' No-one is suggesting that we shouldn't eat or consume meat—that's a big thing and that's what we do—but we have to treat those animals with respect. I think that's why we've seen such an incredibly heartfelt response from the people of Australia over this issue. We know we're better. We know that we have the capacity to treat the animals with dignity that we and others consume. Whilst Labor supports the sustainable live export industry, where acceptable animal welfare standards can be achieved, the Australian public are becoming increasingly concerned about breaches to the current regulations. People in my electorate want guarantees that animals exported from Australia will not be subject to the types of abuse most of us have seen on our TVs, on our phone screens and on the internet. Abuse of livestock, particularly in the live export industry, is not new, but what has changed is technology, and investigative journalism has brought us pictures that we never saw in the decades before. We know that this has potentially been going on for as long as the trade itself has been going on, but what we have now is images and that's what make it all so very confronting. Public sentiment shifted dramatically following that ABC Four Corners program which screened the terrible acts of animal cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs. Community outrage forced the government's hand and the live cattle export trade was suspended, pending improvements in the industry. There is no doubt that this was an extraordinarily difficult time for producers and exporters alike, but we responded, not like this government, which turns tail and does nothing. No-one, including producers, wants to see those animals mistreated. Producers are often the first ones on the phone and on the email to say, 'This is not what we want to happen to the animals that we've produced.' But this environment paved the way for the establishment of the Export Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS. Internationally it was recognised as a good animal-welfare assurance, or guarantee. Over time it became evident that more needed to be done, and in 2013 Labor announced that it would establish the inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports, or IGAW. The IGAW's role would be to review the regulator's processes and systems to ensure that the regulator was working with the regulatory framework. This would include the regulator's processes and decisions under the new ESCAS reforms. True to form, in October 2013, that same year, when in government, the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and his then Minister for Agriculture, the member for New England, scrapped the inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports. The Abbott-Morrison government subsequently scrapped two parliamentary committees committed to contributing to animal welfare strategies. The former agriculture minister has nothing to boast about in terms of the agricultural industry. At his best, he was absent and, at worst, obstructive in improving this space, handballing responsibility to the Australian veterinary authority, which has neither the resources nor the leverage of government. This private member's bill calls on members to support the re-establishment of the independent statutory officer, and I recommend it strongly to this House. This do-nothing government should do something about this. (Time expired) 11:41 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey ( I rise to speak on the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, this private member's bill by the member for Hunter. It seems to me that, in so much of our political conversation in Australia, conversations taking place are often mired in misinformation. Certainly, so it is in the case of the live export trade. As someone who farmed for over 30 years and had sheep on my property for about 95 per cent of that time, I can tell you that I am completely committed to the welfare of the animals. I understand that animals are raised with a specific purpose. In the case of merino sheep, they are for wool, but they are also for human consumption. Somewhere along the line there comes a reality about that, and we need to recognise that reality. Farmers produce animals for various reasons. I touched on the merinos. Merinos, of course, produce one of the finest fibres in the world, one that is actually riding on a great high at the moment. But farmers need to sell their stock. Sometimes they've reached the end of their useful life; sometimes they are surplus to requirement owing to droughts; and always we hope for an increase in our flock that will go to the human consumption market. In the case of lambs, lamb is Australians' preferred way of eating sheep. I won't say mutton, because 'mutton' refers to a sheep at a different stage of its life. A lamb is something that's less than 12 months old, but the 12 months is actually measured by dental development in the animal. The day that those first two large front teeth—just like our children when they are six years old—cut through the gum, they turn from being a lamb into being a hogget. Now, 'lamb', of course, is a very marketable name. We've invested a lot of money in Australia into marketing lamb. Unfortunately the day it turns to 'hogget', it does not seem to be so attractive to the public. I think that's misinformation in itself. A number of people over the years have said to me, 'I don't want to eat old hogget.' Of course, there isn't any such thing as old hogget, because that particular sheep is only a hogget until it cuts its four teeth—until the next set of teeth come through. They come through in roughly 12 months time again, so that's what we would call a two-year-old. Then of course the meat becomes 'mutton'. Once it's become mutton, it's particularly unfavourable for the Australian public. We've got to think about why farmers would keep a sheep until it turned into mutton rather than having sold it off as a lamb. Firstly, when the lambs are born, about 50 per cent of them are male and about 50 per cent are female. The females are generally kept for breeding purposes, but they will be assessed on their wool value sometime after they become hoggets, not when they are lambs. Consequently, there is already a part of this market where Australian marketing is not preferable. The wethers are castrated at around four or six weeks old. They might be for wool production for a time, and then they need to be sold off. The export industry is largely based on wether sales and ewes that are deemed to be unpregnant. They might be barren ewes is, for instance. They need to be preg tested before they go on boats. The industry is very necessary—it is the safety valve for Australian farmers. It's the reason why the trade exists. It's good for farmers, because it's a necessary way of unloading sheep that are not particularly palatable for our domestic markets. They are also not particularly palatable for our chilled markets, in so much as the areas that we sell these live sheep into demand that they have a live sheep. Whilst they are prepared to accept some chilled beef, it is worth reflecting on the market of Bahrain, for instance. Up until about 2015, Australia was supplying around 11,800 tonnes of chilled meat into the Bahrain market. We lost our pre-eminence there as the live sheep provider, and we lost 40 per cent of the chilled meat market along with it, because these companies—these countries—actually trade as an entity. They are looking for trusted trading partners, which is why we need to be steady and careful about the things that we do in this place that disrupt those long-term trade arrangements we have made with other countries. With all things, I urge caution around the live sheep trade. It is very important to the farmers, particularly of WA and certainly of my electorate of Grey as well. 11:46 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell I rise to speak on Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018 introduced by the shadow minister for agriculture and member for Hunter. The purpose of this bill is to re-establish an independent statutory officer to watch over the regulation of the live export sector. His or her role will be to ensure that correct animal welfare standards are maintained, and, when there is an alleged breach, that the regulator fully and properly investigates the matter, comes to the right conclusions and imposes appropriate sanctions. When in government in 2013, Labor appointed an interim inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. Unfortunately, the incoming coalition government did not proceed with the legislation necessary to make the position permanent. That was the wrong decision, which has proven to be devastating for animal protection. This government has been consistent in its opposition to the appointment of an inspector-general. We've made it clear that a Shorten Labor government will, at the first opportunity, put an end to the northern summer live sheep trade. The evidence on this is clear, and the community sentiment is clear. The northern summer live sheep trade is just not possible, because it's cruel. We've stated that, during the necessary transition period, we'll put regulations in place that will ensure the highest standards, proper oversight and appropriate sanctions for breaches, including the establishment of the inspector-general as an independent statutory position. The inspector-general will be responsible for advising on the protection of animals in all Commonwealth regulated activities and will report directly to the minister on issues like live animal exports, animal welfare standards and required guidelines. The inspector will also work with the states and territories to establish an independent office of animal welfare to oversee animal protection and welfare activities nationally. This re-establishment of state and territory cooperation on animal welfare matters will ensure a consistent national approach and continuous monitoring. Labor supports the sustainable live export industry where acceptable animal welfare standards can be achieved. In government, Labor will provide more transparency and accountability around the live export trade. For a long time, Labor has been calling for these changes, as have many in the community. Like many members of this House, I have received thousands of letters and emails in recent months about the live export trade. It took the horrifying Awassi Express incident to get a response from this government—a response that did nothing to fix the systemic issues with the long-haul sheep trade. They have now withdrawn even their very small token measures. It is clear the government is not willing to deal with the abuses that have occurred on its watch. This is a heartless approach. The Awassi Express incident has made it clear that the regulation isn't working. The current system is cruel. You simply cannot load 50,000 or 60,000 sheep onto a boat for four weeks and sail them through some of the hottest and most humid climates in the world and expect animal welfare expectations to be upheld. That is the reality. As one of my constituents said, if you treated your dog like that you'd likely end up in jail. Labor's proposed five-year transition period will give the industry time to adjust to the changes. It will be a transition to something better. In contrast to all of that, all we see from the government is inaction. In fact, those opposite failed to even list their bill to increase penalties for breaches of the animal welfare standards in the live animal export sector. The government withdrew the Export Legislation Amendment (Live-stock) Bill 2018 in June following our announced intention to move amendments to the bill, which, if successful, would have put an immediate stop to the Northern-Hemisphere-summer live sheep trade and phase out the trade within five years. In September, the government used its numbers in this House to block debate on a private member's bill on this issue that was passed by the Senate. The government seems determined to keep looking the other way while these appalling abuses continue. But Labor will not stand by and do nothing. Many of my constituents have written to me. Christie from Wyoming said, 'It's so difficult to see no action being taken on such an important issue.' Labor will act. We won't stand by and do nothing, like this government has done on such a critical issue as animal welfare. It's time the government started listening to the community and hearing the concerns that they have voiced. I call on those opposite to support this private member's bill. Currently, as I and many others in this House have said, the system is cruel and unfair. The government should stop doing nothing. It should listen to the community's concerns and support this private member's bill. 11:51 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I'm very pleased to stand up and defend the interests of this nation and the people who put the food on our tables and the wealth in our economy. Mark my words, this bill, the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports Bill 2018, is not just about sheep exports during certain months; it goes to the very core of the difference between the two sides of our parliament. On one side we have the coalition government wanting to improve the lives of people across the country by helping them engage in the economy to their capacity. We back our farmers and we back our rural communities. On the other side we have the entirely trade-union owned Labor and Greens parties wanting to erode and degrade our economic strengths and at every turn demonise and deride our farmers and fail our rural communities. It is a sad indictment on the intelligence and capacity of every single Australian that we would even entertain the member for Hunter's motion for the second reading of this bill, a bill that would place every grazing operation in this country in a perilous state and weaken our economy as a result. What we have seen in recent footage of sheep on boats has been shocking and an absolute disgrace. This footage is certainly not representative of normal transport conditions. In 2017, some 1.7 million sheep were exported by sea; of those, some 99.29 per cent were delivered in good health. That is the real story of live export. The people I have met with who were most upset by that footage are graziers and transporters in my local electorate, people who know a thing or two about animal welfare and who care a great deal about the shape animals are in when they arrive at their destination. What these people do take to heart, though, is the response from Minister Littleproud and this government. We haven't just thrown our hands in the air and said, 'Well, this is just too hard.' We haven't done that, because this is too important. The value of live export is absolutely integral to small rural economies right across the country. Even if those opposite don't realise it, our live export markets are just like any other market for export; they are part of the tapestry of opportunities that make up the whole export picture. Having access to live export markets helps drive the prices for our sheep and cattle. Because of that positive effect, we're currently seeing livestock prices as high as they've ever been in living memory, and that's great news for primary producers, especially during times of drought. That's why Minister Littleproud has acted swiftly in enacting the McCarthy review, headed by veterinarian Dr Michael McCarthy. All of Dr McCarthy's 23 recommendations were accepted, subject to further testing and consultation on the heat stress risk assessment recommendations. Adopting outcome measures that focus on welfare rather than mortality is perhaps the most significant suggested solution, and by adopting the recommendations we are delivering both a better outcome for the welfare of livestock and the opportunity to keep trade open. The only option those opposite are content with, though, is to shut down the whole trade. We saw how well this went when they were last in power. Labor shut down the live cattle trade to Indonesia for a matter of weeks, and many graziers are only just recovering from the effects of that decision. Those opposite may wish to suggest a five-year phase-out, but the result will be the same. Our rural communities will suffer. Other countries who care far less about animal welfare will supply the sheep. One does not require a degree in economics to work out what will result from this. We will have secured ourselves a weaker-economy country, especially in our rural areas, and we will achieve nothing for animal welfare. So I urge those opposite to stop trying to fight a trade that delivers over $1.4 billion to the nation's economy and get on board with the government's efforts to reform and improve it. Every farmer and grazier across this wide brown land is counting on you to do so. Debate adjourned. BILLS 30 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Food Contamination) Bill 2018, A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018, Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018, Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018, Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment Bill 2018, Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017, Airports Amendment Bill 2018, Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation for Small Business Entities) Bill 2018, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018, Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018, Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018, Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018, Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018, Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016, Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Employer Register) Bill 2017, Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 30

Criminal Code Amendment (Food Contamination) Bill 2018

A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

Medicare Levy Amendment (Excess Levels for Private Health Insurance Policies) Bill 2018

Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018

Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment Bill 2018

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

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017

Airports Amendment Bill 2018

Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation for Small Business Entities) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card Trial Expansion) Bill 2018

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018

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

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

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018

Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018

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

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018

Bankruptcy Amendment (Debt Agreement Reform) Bill 2018

Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Honey) Bill 2016

Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing ASIC's Capabilities) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2018

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

Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018

Assent 30 COMMITTEES 30 COMMITTEES Economics Committee 30 Report 30 11:56 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics I present the following reports: Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 2017 (Second Report), and Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Annual Report 2017, together with the minutes of proceedings. Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e). Mr TIM WILSON IMW by leave—On 29 June 2018 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission appeared before the committee and discussed its activities in relation to enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and related legislation. The ACCC has an important role to play in monitoring and holding individuals and groups to account for anticompetitive behaviour in breach of Australia's Consumer Law. In the last year the government has extended the ACCC's roles and responsibilities to include regular inquiries into competition in the financial sector, inquiry powers to increase transparency in the gas markets, examining the electricity markets and inquiring into the supply of residential insurance products in northern Australia. The committee notes the ACCC's assurance that it is taking a more proactive approach to issues in the financial sector in response to the committee's recommendation in its November 2016 report on its review of the four major banks. The government established a new financial services unit. Through the FSU, the ACCC now has a permanent role in monitoring the banks on competition matters, enabling the regulator to play a competition champion role. The FSU will undertake regular inquiries into specific financial competition issues, facilitating greater and more consistent scrutiny of competition matters in the sector. The committee shares the Productivity Commission's concern that the financial sector has been without a competition champion, and it will continue to monitor the ACCC's work in this area. It looks forward to the ACCC further developing its role of competition champion. While strong competition laws and corresponding penalties have been in place since 2007, until recently this has not been reflected in the pecuniary penalties imposed in competition cases. There is still much work to be done by the ACCC and in the legal system to clearly demonstrate to companies that for serious competition breaches there will be serious consequences. In particular, penalties for competition law breaches must take into account company size and turnover for them to be an effective deterrent to anticompetitive behaviour. While the ACCC appears well placed for its new enhanced competition role, the committee notes the regulator's advice that it has been a different story when it comes to Australian Consumer Law. However, the recently passed Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 3) Bill 2018 will correct the disparity between competition and consumer law penalties. The maximum penalties under the Australian Consumer Law will now align with the maximum penalties under the competition provisions. The ACCC is also doing important work in energy markets on electricity and gas supply and affordability. In particular, the committee notes that the ACCC will now be monitoring and reporting to the government on electricity prices at least every six months until 2025. The ACCC will be empowered to require energy providers to support relevant information, and the regulator may make recommendations to government on how to improve electricity outcomes for consumers. The government has also directed the ACCC and the Australian Energy Regulator to set a default price for electricity, which is expected to apply, at the latest, from July 2019. The committee will continue to monitor the ACCC's work on energy with a particular focus on and interest in making sure that we do what we can to reduce prices. On behalf of the committee, I thank the chairman of the ACCC, Mr Rod Sims, and other ACCC representatives for appearing at the hearing. I would also like to thank the former chair of the committee, Ms Sarah Henderson MP, for her contribution. With that, I commend the report to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP I think there may be some people interested in speaking on this report, but firstly the member for Goldstein in continuation. Mr TIM WILSON IMW On 7 August 2018, the Reserve Bank of Australia, the RBA, left official interest rates unchanged at 1.5 per cent. In making this decision, the governor commented that accommodative monetary policy was continuing to support growth in the Australian economy and the board did not see the need to alter the cash rate. At the public hearing on 17 August 2017, the committee scrutinised the board's decision to maintain the cash rate at its lowest historical level for the past two years, given that Australia's economy is now growing above three per cent and the unemployment rate has dipped below 5½ per cent. The governor noted: 'In the broad sweep of our economic history, these are a pretty good set of numbers,' and he said that the RBA expects further progress in reducing unemployment and having inflation return to target; however, he said that this progress is likely to be gradual. Australia's economy continues to grow strongly, and the RBA expects GDP growth to average around 3¼ per cent by the end of 2018 through to the end of 2019, reflecting above-trend growth in a number of major economies. This is being supported by a pick-up in non-mining investment, strong commodity prices, growth in investment and energy projects and public sector infrastructure, low interest rates and the tax cuts that have already been put in place for small and medium businesses—and exciting ones to come. While the global economy is growing strongly, the governor reported that a number of risks have emerged that could dampen investment and growth, such as the escalation of trade tension between Australia's biggest trading partners, the United States and the People's Republic of China. He noted that it was in everyone's interests for China and the United States to resolve their differences and that it was important that Australia continue to promote free trade as a pathway to prosperity in international fora. Australia's labour market has continued to strengthen, with the labour force participation rate currently at 65.5 per cent, which is close to its historical high. Strong, continued growth in employment is expected to further reduce spare capacity in labour markets and generate a gradual increase in wages and inflation. While growth in average wages has been relatively low, we have turned the corner on wages growth. The wage price index increased by 0.6 per cent in the June quarter, which is the fastest quarterly increase since March 2014. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Philip Lowe, and other representatives of the RBA for appearing at the hearing on 17 August 2018. I would also like to thank the former chair of the economics committee, Ms Sarah Henderson MP, for her contribution. On that note, I commend the report to the House. 12:04 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith by leave—I rise to speak, firstly, in respect of the RBA hearing before the Standing Committee on Economics on 17 August. Much of the debate revolved around the slow wages growth that Australia has been experiencing. I'm not sure I agree with the chair in saying that we've turned the corner on wages growth. We've had another annoyingly slow year when it comes to wages growth, in that growth has been basically slow or non-existent for too many Australians. Workers and those on a wage are getting a dud deal, with a falling share of national income. It's really a tale of two nations at the moment, with a divide between those workers who are doing a fair day's work but waiting for a fairer day's pay and those who aren't. This is a point that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Philip Lowe, made in looking at and analysing wages growth in the Australian economy in recent times. He said that sustained low wages growth diminishes the 'sense of shared prosperity' that we all have as Australians. He said: I have certainly been talking for a couple of years about the benefits of stronger wages growth. The governor said that wages growth, unfortunately, in the lower levels of the wage price index is set to continue for some time. This echoes Labor's concerns about the growing inequality that we're seeing throughout the country. We all know that with low wages growth it's those who are in marginalised occupations and those who are on award wages that tend to suffer the most. Unfortunately, they are people who are working in casual and part-time occupations, with an increasing number of women in those occupations. That ensures that those who are at the lower levels of the wages bargain, if you like, continue to fall further behind. There's a sense that we do need to do more to look at boosting wages growth in this country. We all know that the enterprise bargaining system has been smashed in recent years by this government, and we're starting to see, for the first time in Australia since the inception of enterprise bargaining in the 1990s, that the number of agreements that are being made is actually falling in this country. That's a great shame, because, to get real increases in incomes beyond those that are catered for by the awards system, people need to collectively bargain through that enterprise bargaining system, and changes to that system that allow companies to put workers back onto the award system if they can't reach an enterprise agreement with a company are, I believe, contributing to lower wages growth in this country. It is ensuring that we're not getting the boosts to incomes that will fuel consumption and bring us out of the economic malaise that we've had for some years now. There was also quite a discussion about the cost of electricity, particularly for large and small businesses throughout the country, and the fact that very, very high electricity prices are contributing to inflated cost pressures for many of those businesses, which is impinging on potential growth and potential employment opportunities. We all know that this government has been in the midst of a war for the last decade about its views on climate change and its approach to improving renewable energy uptake in our economy and eventually reducing the cost of electricity throughout the economy. We all know that we have an obligation to make a smooth transition away from dirty coal-fired power to cleaner, renewable energy sources. But this government is intent on halting that process and, in doing so, has created uncertainty for investors in this industry, which is pushing up the cost of electricity for households and businesses in Australia. All Australians are paying for this government's inability to work out its arguments and the war that's been going on around climate change and energy policy for the last decade. Nonetheless, I thank the Reserve Bank and the deputy governors who appeared before us on 17 August for, once again, being very frank and honest with the committee about the economic progress of the country. Turning to the second report, about the ACCC, again there was a broad-ranging discussion. Electricity and the cost of energy were included in one of the principal discussions, but I want to turn my attention to some of the discussion that occurred about independent mechanics and the process that they have in potentially forcing up prices for motorists when they get their car serviced. In December 2017, the ACCC released its final report for the new-car retailing industry market, with studies and details of findings from almost 18 months of investigation, consultation and research. The ACCC says that independent repairers must be provided with access to the same technical information that car manufacturers make available to their authorised dealers and preferred repair networks at reasonable cost. This is something that the Labor Party wholeheartedly agrees with the ACCC on. Everyone should be able to choose where they get their car serviced, but the car manufacturers have, unfortunately, been pushing a view that you need to get your car serviced with them if you're going to maintain your warranty and if you're going to be able to ensure that you can resell your car in the future. It is absolute garbage. It does not reflect the Australian law and these big dealerships are forcing many Australians into having their car serviced with them, at often inflated prices, by not supplying information to independent mechanics that can ensure that they can access the technical details that are required. Cars are computers on wheels these days and they need to access that technical information. We had a review of the industry's voluntary code in September 2016 that this government promised to deliver. They failed to do so. They also promised to review the voluntary code by October 2016 and, again, the deadline came and went without action. Labor now, in the wake of the government's inaction on this issue, have developed a plan to ensure that car manufacturers share their technical information so that vehicles can be serviced by independent mechanics. Labor will require car manufacturers to share that technical information with independent mechanics on commercially fair and reasonable terms, with safeguards on the environmental safety and security related technical information to be shared with the independent sector. The result will be more money back in the pockets of car owners and a rev up for our nation's 23,000 independent repairers. It's a shame that Labor has had to act on this when the government's had many, many months. For many years, they've known that this is an issue and they've been unable to work on developing the process of putting in place good policy. I urge the members of the government to support Labor's approach and to support the policy of ensuring that the big dealerships provide that important technical information on a fair and reasonable basis to repairers. Once again, I thank the members of the ACCC who appeared before us and I thank the committee secretariat for their work in preparing both of the reports. 12:13 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I move: That the House take note of each of the reports. 12:13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Reference to Federation Chamber 33 12:13 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. National Broadband Network Committee 33 Report 33 12:13 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, I present a progress report of the committee. Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e). Dr GILLESPIE 72184 by leave—On 7 December 2017, the Joint Standing Committee of the National Broadband Network agreed to conduct an inquiry into two discrete aspects of the rollout of the NBN: the rollout of the NBN, in particular in regional and rural Australia, and NBN Co's business case. Submissions on both issues were sought by 29 March 2018. The committee is due to report to parliament on the rollout of the NBN in regional and rural Australia in September 2018, and October 2018 for the business case. The committee has received 22 submissions in relation to the rollout of the NBN to regional and rural Australia and eight submissions for NBN Co's business case. There have been four public hearings—4 June 2018in Sydney, 5 June 2018 in Melbourne, 14 June 2018 in Brisbane and 15 August 2018 in Canberra. The committee's establishment requires this report to come annually. The document has been tabled. While the committee intended to table a fuller report, this interim report that's been tabled requires the committee to deliberate for another week. The committee will table its full second report on 22 October 2018 and has provided this interim report for now. BILLS 34 BILLS Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 34

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017

Report from Committee 34 12:16 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee's second advisory report incorporating dissenting reports on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr GILES 243609 I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this report, which goes to a very important piece of legislation and indeed to a revised bundle of amendments the government proposes to introduce which will deal principally with implementing a ban on foreign donations to political parties and other political actors. The Australian Labor Party has long been in favour of introducing such a provision into Australian law, in particular into the Commonwealth Electoral Act. This report follows an earlier report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters done in April this year, which made a very large number of amendments to the government's substantive amendment proposal to the Electoral Act. It is very pleasing to see that a number of the committee's bipartisan recommendations have been acted upon by the government and certainly the legislation that will be before the Senate—the other place—as I understand it, is a marked improvement on that which was originally proposed. Many of the unintended consequences that were identified by members of the committee, guided by academics and civil society, have been rectified. However, unlike that report of the Joint Standing Committee, this report features two dissenting reports. That is disappointing. It is less than pleasing in a committee of this nature, which is really concerned about upholding the standards of our democracy, that we have felt in the Australian Labor Party—through me and my three colleagues—that it's necessary to issue a dissenting report and we have not done so lightly. We've done so principally because the amendments introduced by the government, without notice, introduced an entirely new element to this legislation, an element that bears only the barest resemblance to the subject matter of the principal piece of legislation—that is, a series of provisions which would, in effect, seek to override state electoral laws about donations. These electoral laws include provisions introduced on the recommendation of state anticorruption commissions that, for example, in the case of Queensland, ban developer donations. This is a really important matter which goes to the heart of trust and integrity in politics. It's not a matter upon which the Commonwealth parliament should lightly, if ever, seek to override state jurisdictions that have considered these matters and made laws. It is deeply concerning that such a provision is proposed here, and it is principally for that reason that the Labor members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters are dissenting. We urge the government to reconsider. We urge the government to get on with the job, the bipartisan and multipartisan goal, of banning foreign donations from our national politics, without unduly interfering with state arrangements that take money out of politics and remove certain vested interests out of politics, as I said, including on the recommendation of state anticorruption commissions. I note also that there are some important matters that will require careful consideration in debate, and this particularly goes to some of the key definitions that are contained in these amendments. Labor members are concerned to see that any such ban and significant changes to definitional arrangements take place in a manner that provides certainty to all political actors. The regime here requires to be clearly understood by all participants, and we will be looking very carefully at the bill as presented to the parliament to ensure that that objective is met. Fundamentally, all of us in this place have a responsibility to lift the standards of Australian politics. This bill, if enacted properly with those concerns addressed, and in particular with those provisions seeking to override state laws, would be a step forward—a necessary but insufficient step. I call on the government to look seriously at Labor's longstanding proposals to take money and the undue influence it brings out of Australian politics so that Australians can feel that our democracy is working for them. I take this opportunity, lastly, to thank my colleagues on the committee for their hard work under a very short—indeed, unnecessarily short, in my view—time frame and of course the secretariat of the committee for their extraordinary work on behalf of all of us in this place. I move: That the House take note of the report. Debate adjourned. Reference to Federation Chamber 34 12:21 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate. Question agreed to. Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 35

Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018

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

Second Reading 35 12:22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER DZP The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Franklin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now before the chair is that the amendment be agreed to. 12:22 Mr HAYES ECV Fowler I quote: In May last year I was asked to come to the nursing home to clean him. My husband was on the verandah outside. He was naked from the waist down, covered in his own faecal matter and in full view of other residents. He had been in that state for three hours. That's a statement from Mrs Heather Mansell Brown, a very passionate advocate for aged-care reform. After several issues with regard to the substandard treatment that had been offered to her husband, Mrs Mansell Brown decided to take action over what she describes as 'systemic' problems facing aged care. I've chosen this extract not because any of us are proud of the current state of aged care but because I think it succinctly puts into perspective the dire situation currently faced by many elderly in our community. It's stories like this that have moved me to raise my voice when it comes to the most vulnerable in our community, and this is what I intend to do today. Situations like this—the situation experienced by Mrs Mansell Brown—regrettably are not unique and are by no means one-off in the aged-care sector at the moment. I think we've all been moved by regular media stories concerning aged care and, in particular, the most recent investigative reporting conducted by ABC Four Corners into aged care, and I congratulate them for bringing this very much to the community's attention in the way they did. We've seen and heard about the Oakden facility in South Australia and, more recently, we've read about the Seaforth facility in Sydney's northern beaches. It certainly highlights the inappropriate care outcomes which have been afforded to elderly Australians today. For these reasons, I will be supporting the amendment. Should the amendment not proceed, we will support the bill because we see at least an effort going some way to addressing the integrity of the aged-care system. In essence, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 establishes the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will commence on 1 January 2019. The bill will give effect to one of the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson report, which recommended bringing together the functions of the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. The new commission will be tasked with the most daunting of tasks—that is, to restore amongst aged-care consumers confidence in the delivery of aged-care services. Particularly I say that that's a daunting task given the current level of public concern. The new aged-care commission will provide a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to the quality of care and regulation. It will also be responsible for the accreditation, assessment and monitoring of aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care providers, and for complaints handling. These aged-care services will include all facets of aged care: the aged-care service itself, residential home care, flexible care, Commonwealth home supported care and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. The new commission will be led by a statutorily appointed commissioner who will be termed the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. He or she will be advised by the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. The terms will be up to five years. Hopefully that actually gives a measure of some certainty in terms of the regulatory aspects applying to aged care. The second part of this cognate debate refers to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, which provides for the administrative matters associated with the transfer of functions and operations from the existing authorities to the new commission. It also provides for the continuation of appointments of those engaged on the Aged Care Quality Advisory Council. They are essentially welcome aspects of this bill. They are matters that we would certainly support, but I have to say that we do so with some degree of caution. The government has shown no willingness to work with this side of the House to undertake a bipartisan approach to aged care. These bills reinforce that this government, quite frankly, for some time now has had a very misplaced sense of priorities. To see this, one only has to look at the recent budget handed down by the government. The government have not put the best interests of older Australians front and centre, as they claim to do. In fact, they have done the exact opposite. This government sought to play a hoax on the Australian people, pretending to allocate more funds to aged care but in reality putting not one extra dollar into aged care—not one extra dollar throughout the budget or its processes. I remind the House that it was actually this Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, robbed the aged-care system of vital funding. In just his first term as Treasurer, this Prime Minister ripped almost $2 billion from aged care. That's $2 billion that ordinarily would have been targeted at care for older Australians. They would like us all to think that they've changed, that they've taken a new approach. I wonder how they can do that, particularly when they were the government who put, front and centre, as their signature policy, not aged care but an $80 billion tax cut to the big end of town, to big business. That included, despite what's occurred in the banking royal commission, what would have been $17 billion of tax breaks for the big four banks. That's where they set their priorities. Bear in mind that when we're talking about aged care we are talking about some of the most vulnerable in our community—people who require our help and people who, for most of us, are our loved ones. We want the best for older Australians. We think, when they have worked all their lives, paid their taxes and been good, model Australian citizens, they should know that they will be treated with care and dignity in their most senior years. But please keep this in mind: on top of the Abbott-Turnbull government's previous cuts to aged care, robbing billions over the last five years, we had the embarrassment that occurred in this current budget where Minister Wyatt, who I think is universally respected in this place, tried to sell the proposition that there was more money going into home care packages. Not even he seemed to realise that there was not one extra dollar going into aged care. What they did was take money out of residential aged care and put it into home care packages. It was the exact same figure. Not only was this a Treasury hoax played on the Australian public; regrettably, it was a hoax played on their own minister, who tried to argue that there was priority being given to home care packages, but didn't understand, regrettably, where the money came from. The money wasn't coming away from the banks or big business; the money was coming away from residential packages. I think the Health Services Union—I must declare a little interest in this organisation, given that my brother is the general secretary of the Health Services Union—summed up the government's persistent attacks on aged care when they made a submission to the Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport. This is what they said: What is undisputed among providers, unions, consumer advocacy groups and residents is that cuts to aged care funding by consecutive federal governments are having a significant and adverse impact upon the provision of quality care to older Australians. I think that's pretty right, particularly when you think that only recently Southern Cross Care in New South Wales and the ACT cut over 6,000 staffing hours from its rosters because of the government cuts to funding. With no reduction in residents, this means hundreds of older Australians have less care, less clinical support, and less support services such as kitchen and/or cleaning services due to the government stripping residential aged-care support in its current budget. As we speak in the House today, this is happening all across aged care. Staff are increasingly working in unsafe workplaces, doing increasingly demanding work and increasingly spending longer time at work. Many of them are getting less pay than people who are working in our fast-food outlets. Can you imagine? People are looking after older Australians—changing their nappies, regrettably, and doing all that work, trying to show dignity and care—and many of them are getting paid less than the people who work at McDonald's! What sort of situation is that, using smoke and mirrors to move around a budget situation that robs money from some of the most deserving and vulnerable people in our communities? Putting politics aside, I think those of us in this place, with the privilege to be here and represent our communities—I think we've got to be a little bit more mature than that; we've got to understand the way we set our priorities. We simply can't fund the big end of town by attacking the most vulnerable. That's not what a smart government does, and it's not what a caring government does. As I say, despite all the rhetoric in the lead-up to the last budget, with the government promising to put an extraordinary amount of new money into aged care—it simply did not occur. Those opposite like to tug at the heartstrings of the nation when they talk about aged care, but, when the rubber hits the road, they don't want to provide the funding. They've provided funding for just over 14,000 new home care packages over four years in this budget. Quite frankly, that's nothing but a cruel hoax, when you think of the number of people lining up at the moment for supported home packages. The government, quite frankly, needs to apologise for overpromising and underdelivering when it comes to its treatment of older Australians. The government now has a proven track record of underinvesting in aged care. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have created the aged-care crisis. They have gone out of their way to ignore that crisis and they've failed to bring down a budget that does anything to fix the crisis. While we support the government's recent announcement of a royal commission into the abuse and cover-ups in the aged-care sector, we should not forget the damage to aged care that has occurred under this coalition government. The government cannot wait for the royal commission to finish before it starts trying to fix the problems that it has created in the aged-care system. Those opposite should stop looking after friends and big business and pay attention to the needs of the most vulnerable in our community. (Time expired) 12:38 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill. I want to support the wonderful aged-care providers in my electorate, and I want to thank their staff, who genuinely care for their residents and often spend many hours, over and above their actual shifts, caring for people. One of the toughest decisions you make as a loving family member is the decision you have to make when your parent or grandparent needs high-level or permanent care, especially when your mum or dad doesn't want to go into care or is struggling to understand why they need high-level care. It's a traumatic time, and it's one that our family faced when our much-loved mother's Alzheimer's made it impossible for her to live at home. She fell in an aged-care home while on respite and broke her hip, and then she fell in hospital and broke her spine. She did not walk again, and she couldn't remember that she couldn't walk and needed high-level care. It broke our hearts to have to make the decision to put mum into an aged-care facility, and we know that we broke her heart as well, because this was the last place that she wanted to be; we'd already had that discussion. In spite of the fact that our family knew there was no alternative, we do carry that hurt today, and I know it's the same for so many families that I speak to. Given Mum's condition and how much we loved her, my sister and I decided that one of us would visit her every single day and spend as much time as possible with her. We knew it would not be possible for the staff to spend the amount of time with her that we thought she needed. We also knew that for her, with her Alzheimer's, the only real thing that she recognised in her surroundings every day was us—her long-term memory kept us in her mind. My sister and I did an Alzheimer's workshop to better understand how to help her. We learned at the time that where she was mattered far less than who was looking after her. Some of the staff were amazing, wonderfully caring people. On the nights they were on duty, we left the nursing home with a smile on our faces. On other nights I would cry on the way home knowing she would have a long and lonely night. My mother, because she couldn't walk and was at great risk of falling, was strapped into her chair and her bed. One night she tried to get out of the bed but became entangled in those straps. She hung over the side of the bed in the straps for far too long. She bruised much of her body between the bed and the floor, suffered a stroke and died several days later in 2002. The staff were not allowed to talk to us at all about what had happened or how. Mum had died at night, and we were told that we could clean out her room the next morning. We were told we had until 11 am to do so, but when we got to the aged-care facility, first thing—we were early—her belongings were in a black plastic bag on a trolley and another family was already inspecting and in her room. What we also saw the whole time mum was in this facility was that some of the other residents never had one visitor. My sister and I frequently did the rounds to simply say hello to those lonely people, and there were some staff members who also spent as much time as possible with them. We know that how we treat our senior and older Australians is a measure of our society. We were taught to respect our elders, most particularly the elderly who need our care. All of us need to show this respect and care, not just staff in aged-care facilities. It applies to each one of us—the family members, the friends, the people in our community as well as those entrusted with the care of our seniors and who provide the formal care. There are different models of care depending on different cultures. In some countries, families have elderly family members living them, like many in the Italian community. We see this both in Italy and in places like my hometown of Harvey, with its strong Italian population, where local families do everything they can to keep their loved and respected older family members in their homes as long as possible. Some people, like those I've met in India, have several generations living in the same home—grandparents, parents, children and grandchildren. Others build facilities to provide care, like the facilities we see in our electorates around Australia. With the calling of a royal commission into the aged-care sector, our government is determined to ensure the care of elderly Australians in aged-care facilities is of the highest quality. The royal commission will primarily look at the quality of care provided in residential and home based aged care for senior Australians, but it will also include—and I think this is particularly important—young Australians with disabilities living in residential aged-care settings. Providing care for young people with severe disabilities is really important. One fantastic example of care for young people with disabilities is Treendale Gardens in Australind in my electorate, and I hope this model is considered by the royal commission as a model for delivering future projects around Australia. This project was a combined effort of the then Liberal state government, the local Rotary Club of South Bunbury and the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the result of the persistence and hard work of John Castrilli while he was the Liberal member for Bunbury. John Castrilli worked closely with Leanne Maher and the CEO of MSWA, Marcus Stafford. With John's strong advocacy, the then WA Liberal government provided the land. MS committed to building, equipping and operating the facility. And what a great model this is: the state government working with a genuine organisation geared towards, and with experience in delivering services to, the community. This should be the model explored by the royal commission and the government for delivering services Australia-wide for young people. MS built double the originally planned capacity. They saw the need. MS then committed to further investment in our region, building another facility in Bunbury as well providing additional services to the community. In my opinion, this is a win-win model. People throughout the south-west really understand how important it is that we now have the first high-care facility for young people outside the Perth metro area. There was and is a very real need for this facility. Local girl Kylie Berryman was only young when she had a major car accident. She suffered brain trauma and needed permanent care. Her mother, Helen Demarte, worked tirelessly with John Castrilli to find the right facilities for her daughter. Unfortunately, both Helen and Kylie passed away before Helen was able to realise her dream with the facility in Treendale. In his speech at the opening of the facility, John said, 'A dream came true today: Treendale Gardens, an accommodation and respite facility for people who have high-care needs due to disabilities but are too young to live in nursing homes.' The Rotary Club of South Bunbury contributed over $82,000 to the project, which were the proceeds from their charity house project, which involved an enormous amount of work by club members, and, as always with this type of project, very generous and direct support from the local business community. In this respect, I also want to acknowledge and thank key contributors and Rotary members Kevin, Annette, Terry and Jennifer Coote. It was land at their Treendale development that was bought by the then state government to build Treendale Gardens. In relation to aged care, it is really important to put the facts on the record. Funding for aged care is at record levels. In 2017-18 alone, aged care spending will reach an estimated $18.6 billion, and funding will grow by $5 billion over the next five years. The sum of $1.6 billion has been provided to create an additional 20,000 higher-needs home care packages and in excess of $50 million is being provided every year for dementia-specific programs. The issues facing both the aged care sector and people in the later years of their lives are very many and very complex. Those of us who have or have had relatives in aged care really understand this. It is very, very complex. The royal commission will see Australians providing a great deal of evidence in this space. In my view, in many instances our aged care sector provides some of the very best care in the world. I can think of many such facilities in my electorate. There are many in which I would be more than happy to spend my last days, weeks, months and years, if it comes to that. The incidence of elder abuse and people not being provided appropriate care will be examined by the royal commission. Our government has made some significant changes in the aged-care sector, legislating for new Aged Care Quality Standards, the first upgrade of standards in 20 years, and has introduced a bill to create the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, supported by $106 million to support better facilities, care and standards in aged care. We have ensured that the department has the power to inspect facilities and to conduct spot audits. This has led to the closure of one aged-care service per month, with more under sanction to improve their services. This is a really important part of what the government is doing. We are putting in place clear requirements for better standards and we are providing the resources and powers to police those standards and to shine a light on the problems that exist. That's the whole point. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of the measures we've been taking. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and Minister Ken Wyatt for taking this decisive action. This bill is a further step in our government's efforts to provide better quality care for consumers of aged-care services in Australia. It establishes a new single, independent commission that brings together, streamlines and makes more efficient the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, the Office of the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner and, from 1 January 2020, the aged care regulatory functions of the Department of Health. It brings together all issues relating to regulation in one body, which has the power to police the regulations it sets. The commission will be responsible for promoting the confidence and trust of aged-care consumers in the provision of services, including Commonwealth funded aged-care services. It will also promote engagement with aged-care consumers and representatives within the aged-care sector about the quality of care and services that are provided. It will be led by the independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. A single statutory office will enable flexible and responsive regulatory powers—flexible and responsive; those things are really important in the aged-care sector. This will enable a holistic risk based approach to aged-care regulation. Many of the facilities I see, and some in my electorate, were built many, many years ago. We know that the expectations of family and people who are in aged-care facilities have increased significantly. The government is determined to ensure that the aged-care system has, at its heart, the consumer and the consumer's care. Consumers are at the heart of this reform, and, to me, that is the key in this space. On the complaints side, the commission will have the powers to enforce the regulations it makes as a tough cop on the beat. The commission will engage with aged-care consumers to promote best practice models for engagement and for providers, again showing how consumers are at the heart of this—and the government's intention. Consumers are at the heart of these reforms. But, in concluding my remarks, I believe that it is up to all of us. Whether we're family members, whether we're members of the community, whether we're the wonderful people who work in aged care—we all have a role to play. I'll go back to the comments I made about the numbers of people who are in aged-care facilities who never receive a visitor. If your families are not in the area, in some instances I can understand this. But when our relatives and when our dearly loved people are in aged care, it is up to each one of us to make sure that we get there as often as we can and love them in the same way when they're in aged care as we did when they lived in their own homes. 12:53 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I rise to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. Like many Australians, I watched last month's episode of Four Corners. On Four Corners, I watched footage of the disgraceful, inhumane and undignified conditions that vulnerable older Australians are forced to endure in our aged-care facilities. These are people who have spent their lives building Australia to be the nation we are today. They are Australians who have worked, have toiled and have fought for their country. They are certainly Australians who deserve better. As I watched Four Corners last month I was disappointed and disturbed, but I was not surprised. Those of us who have had loved ones in aged care have watched the standards and quality of care slip for far too long, particularly on this government's watch. This is no way to treat our most senior and some of our most vulnerable members of the community. I acknowledge the member for Forrest for sharing her mother's and family's experiences of aged care. It is unfortunately too often a story that resonates in many of our electorates and it certainly resonates with my family's experience of my mother's 13 years experience in aged care. In light of the Four Corners expose, the government seems to have remembered the Carnell-Paterson review. This review came out in October 2017. I would like to ask why it has been sitting on the minister's desk for the better part of a year. The Carnell-Paterson review outlined 10 recommendations on how to improve quality regulatory processes in aged care. Now, nearly a year later, the government has produced legislation enacting one of these 10 recommendations. The government says the purpose of the bill is to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We in the opposition welcome this. Having a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers in relation to quality of care is a good thing. However, it does not fix an aged-care system that is broken beyond the help of a single bureaucratic measure. This bill is inadequate, just in time for a government that is out of touch and out of sight of vulnerable older Australians. The opposition also welcomes the royal commission into the abuse and cover-ups in the aged-care sector. But action on this crisis can't wait until the royal commission is finished. This government is well aware of the woeful state of aged care in Australia. It has commissioned dozens of reports and reviews and it knows what needs to be done to fix the problems in the sector. But, like the Carnell-Paterson review, these reviews are also sitting on the minister's desk. The royal commission is badly needed, but many of the issues in the aged-care sector are a product of the government's cuts to aged care. This delay in action is the failing government passing the buck. We do not need to wait for a royal commission into aged care to deliver its final report. We can act now. We already know the quality standards and reporting systems are not working. We know there are not enough aged-care workers, and that those who do work in the sector are not adequately paid, respected or sported to do their jobs. Aged-care workers undergo limited training—some may suggest inadequate training. Currently, workers are able to enter the aged-care industry with a certificate course and are often paid a minimum wage to do so. Given the level of care and attention those with high-care needs require, there seems to be a clear gap between the standard of care older Australians deserve and the way that we train and develop our aged-care workers. However, I do recognise there are wonderful dedicated workers who do their best in demanding conditions within our aged-care facilities. We need to ensure that there is adequate support to ensure all workers in the sector are able to perform to the best of their ability. It has been two months since the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care received the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce's report A matter of care: Australia's aged care workforce strategy. Only now has the Liberal government publically released this strategy. We call on the government to implement the workforce strategy as soon as possible. The government must work with unions and aged-care providers to implement the strategy to meet the growing demand within the sector. The state of aged-care facilities in Australia is disgraceful. Constituents in my electorate of Werriwa have long been raising concerns about the standards of care in the aged-care facilities in my electorate. Whilst there are really, really good facilities that care deeply about the people in their care, some have reported to my office that they fear raising concerns due to the mistreatment of other residents who have spoken out. The thing that most concerns me about the latest revelations from the Four Corners story and what I learned from constituents is that aged care has not changed in decades. The treatment of our elderly and most vulnerable has not improved; indeed, for many, it has deteriorated significantly. All of us in this place must have personal experiences of family members needing aged care. My mother needed nursing home care 25 years ago. As a younger person in aged care with multiple sclerosis, she along with my sister and I, faced many challenges—waiting lists, loneliness, quality of the food, the lack of staff to feed her and look after her needs. We had to supplement and supply personal care items because of the inferior quality and quantity. We were there every day to ensure she was given dinner and lunch because overworked staff didn't have time to get around to everyone while it was hot and palatable. I saw how hard the staff worked and how much they cared about the residents, and this was back in the days when there were registered nurses—most often, more than one—on every shift. Seven years ago, my husband's grandparents entered a facility. There I saw the same dedicated staff, but it was clear that they were more overworked and that their level of experience and training had further reduced. Given the revelations of Four Corners, it seems that the quality of aged care has not improved and this just isn't good enough. There has been report after report about the situation. We have known that the baby boomers were going to start needing this sort of supported care for several decades, and yet for five years the government has not enacted any policy and has made no progress to improvement. The reforms introduced by Labor in 2012 were the beginning of this and that government did not let aged-care policy fall by the wayside. This is what happens when funding is ripped out from the aged-care sector. In his first year as Treasurer, the member for Cook cut almost $2 billion from the sector. The royal commission must examine the impacts of those cuts. You can't fix aged care by making cuts like this in an already stretched system. This is a system intended to support the ageing population. The aged-care workforce is supposed to increase by over 300 per cent in the next 30 years, and it's time to get things right now. As reports about the problems in the sector pile up, the government seems to brush them aside. The government must respond and stop cutting and cover-ups. I say to the government: 'You must do better. You must put compassion and care for older Australians ahead of the cuts.' The government owes an apology to Australians who've been let down by this system. Older Australians have lived lives of service and contribution; they deserve better than the overpromises and underdeliveries of this government, and the failures that older Australians see again and again. How we treat our most vulnerable of citizens is a true measure of Australian society. If we want to do better—and we should—we must act on changes and fix aged care now. We must not wait for the findings of the royal commission to do so; we must fix what we already know to be broken. These proud Australians affected by the inadequacy of the aged-care system built this nation and fought to secure the future we now enjoy. They are our mothers, our fathers and our grandparents. They deserve better, and this government should do better. 13:01 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I rise to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. Older Australians deserve a comfortable and a dignified retirement. The current generation of older residents of my electorate of Fisher literally built our modern Sunshine Coast and the Australian community, transforming what was a quiet and sparsely populated rural area in the years after last century's wars into today's thriving, economically diverse region, filled with opportunity. Across the country, there are 1.3 million older Australians who receive aged-care services. This issue is of particular importance to my community. In Fisher, we have more than 26,000 residents who are over the age of 65, and we have more than 30 aged-care facilities and services. Debate on this bill is extremely timely. The need for an Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission has never been clearer. At the end of September, The Courier-Mail reported that assaults and rapes of nursing home residents rose by a third last year to a record 3,773. That represents one such assault for every 55 occupants of residential aged care. Those statistics are truly shocking. There was also a 31 per cent rise in aged-care operators reporting residents missing in 2017-18, representing a fundamental failure of their duty of care. As a result of the stepped-up audits conducted at the Minister for Aged Care's request following the Oakden tragedy, the Aged Care Quality Agency has identified 61 homes which were considered a serious risk to residents' health and safety in 2017-18. That's 177 per cent more than last year. The Aged Care Quality Agency was forced to shut down 12 homes and sanction a further 26. In total, 209 nursing homes failed this year's quality audit. These statistics were illustrated very starkly in the recent Four Corners programs. Alongside the harrowing footage, the testimony from people working in care homes themselves was deeply concerning. Tony Northcote, a consultant of 12 years experience, said: It's regular, if you're on a night shift as a registered nurse, to be in charge of 100, 120, 150 people … …   …   … … I found that over 60 per cent of their bed-bound residents had forms of pressure injuries. 90 per cent of the residents that are incontinent had rashes. Katrina Legzdins, an enrolled nurse, told the program: Some people get really depressed, and you have a resident saying, 'Can you give me a pill to kill me?' They just want to die, and you don't have five minutes to spend sitting there with them. She added: You walk out there knowing that the residents deserve better than what you can give them. Rebecca De Haan, a personal carer of 10 years experience, said: There were people that were in bed that needed to be fully fed, they couldn't feed themselves at all, and you'd see staff members just quickly going to offer the resident a bit of food. If they didn't take it immediately, [the staff would] just go out and ditch the lunch. And that was really common. You can see these people are so hungry. The impact on the mental health of staff who work in aged-care residences which do not meet the required standards can also be serious. Once again, the testimony of aged-care workers on Four Corners was distressing to hear. Tanya Bosch, a personal care assistant, said: It was the most exhausting, confronting, distressing job I've ever had. It was really frustrating to know that on a daily basis, you were failing to meet the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. …   …   … … it's just heartbreaking to have to walk away from someone who just wants a bit of kindness and a little bit of a chat. Troy Mann, a personal carer, said: I suffered a mental breakdown because of it. I put myself in the residents' shoes. I thought to myself: 'Would I be happy in their position?' This experience is known as 'moral distress'. It results from care workers feeling helpless in the face of structures which prevent them from taking the course of action they believe is right. A study presented at the American Psychological Association convention in 2014 found that 97 per cent of aged-care workers have experienced moral distress in the workplace, with 47 per cent considering resigning. One in five have taken time off work as a result of these feelings. Associate Professor Denise Jepsen of Macquarie University has said that 50 per cent of home care workers she's interviewed report that they currently suffer or recently suffered from anxiety or depression. The consequences of failures in the processes, practices and structures of aged-care providers are not limited to the harm done to consumers of the services. They also extend to those workers who already do one of society's most emotionally challenging jobs. For our part, the government have demonstrated significant commitment to providing older Australians with access to care that supports their dignity and recognises the contribution that they have made to our society. Funding for aged care under our government is at record levels. In 2017-18 the government spent $18.6 billion, while over the next five years funding will grow by a further $5 billion. This has helped to support an extra 140 aged-care placements in my electorate of Fisher. We've also invested $1.6 billion to create an additional 20,000 home care packages and allocated $50 million a year for dementia-specific programs. However, it is clear that in too many cases this additional funding is not delivering the standard of care for older Australians that they so rightly deserve. The Prime Minister should be commended for his decision, in response to recent revelations, to set up the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. The royal commission will give us a chance to go beyond the cases highlighted by the two previous parliamentary inquiries and those described in recent media stories, and conduct a fundamental review of all parts of this sector. It will also give us the opportunity to take a wider view and consider what the future of aged care should look like in Australia. However, that does not mean that we do not need immediate action. We cannot afford to wait more than a year to begin to turn this ship around. That is why the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care already asked for increased inspections and compliance activities from the existing Aged Care Quality Agency, resulting in a non-compliant facility being shut down every month this year. The immediate action we now need has two parts. The first is a new set of aged-care quality standards unified across the sector and focused on the needs of consumers so that everyone in the system—providers, users, employees and families—knows just what to expect. We legislated these this year under the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill 2018. The second step is the bill before us today. Just as it recreated the Australian Building and Construction Commission to enforce the new Building Code and get tough with the bad behaviour of unions, so is the Morrison government creating an Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission to enforce the new Aged Care Quality Standards and get tough with aged-care providers who are doing the wrong thing. The bill before us will establish the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, which will provide a single point of contact for aged-care consumers, their families and providers of aged-care services to deal with issues of quality and regulation. It will comprehensively cover all parts of the sector, including residential care, home care, and flexible care services. A single commission will be responsible for accreditation and approval of providers, reviews of quality, monitoring of services, and complaints handling, giving the commission all of the levers it needs to ensure appropriate compliance. But the commission will go beyond enforcing compliance; it will help to improve the sector itself and the public's engagement with it. The commission will be responsible for working with consumers and industry leaders to develop best-practice models in delivering aged care and then disseminating them among providers. The commission will also be responsible for helping to provide information on aged care to consumers, their families and the wider public to build confidence in the reformed system and to help them to understand how to engage with it. Through all of this we will properly resource the new commission, with $106 million allocated in the 2018 budget. Neglect and abuse in the aged-care sector needs to stop. We must have no more stories like those we all heard on Four Corners. The royal commission announced by the Prime Minister will get to the bottom of what needs to be done. In the meantime, this bill will create the tough new cop on the beat that will take what the royal commission has to say and make sure the aged-care sector listens. Just as a government cannot cure all ill in our society, as the member for Forrest said in her speech, there must be recognition of responsibility among us as families of people living in aged care. I recently had the aged-care minister come to my electorate of Fisher. He was talking about the number of people in aged care who do not get a visitor at all for over 12 months. I appreciate that some families may be geographically located away from their loved ones in aged care, but for some people not to have received a visitor for 12 months is a blight on our society. Once upon a time, our community—and, in fact, many communities in Europe—looked after their old. I'm addressing this to the young people in the gallery: once upon a time, we looked after our aged in our own homes. With the advent of modern society, that is becoming increasingly more difficult, as we all—both men and women, or couples—work. But we've got to take greater responsibility for our family, for our loved ones. The Europeans would look after their aged relatives—and still do, so much better than we do in this country. And it falls upon us, as a community, to try and take a leaf out of their book, as best we possibly can, to ensure that our loved ones are appropriately cared for in their own homes, or our homes, or—in the worst-case scenario—in an aged-care facility. But if people are living in an aged-care facility then for God's sake visit them. Some of the loneliest people I've ever met are those living in aged-care facilities. There's a place here for our community groups to offer the kind of friendship and love that some are missing out on in aged-care facilities, by just sitting down and talking to an older person and holding their hand. And it's not charity. The gift that they will give you—the gift of their stories—is priceless. So I'm calling upon all Australians to do their bit: even if it's not your family member, go to an aged-care facility and spend some time with a resident. You won't forget it. 13:17 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons The member for Fisher's words remind me of something I've said before: if we ran Australia like a family instead of like a business then things like those the member for Fisher talks about would be much more possible, I think, for many Australians. If we run the place like a business and people are treated like units of production—they're worked harder and harder and faster and faster, and all that matters is money—then it becomes much more difficult for people to take time out to do the sorts of things that he's talking about. If we ran the place like a family, we'd still have to balance the budget, but we'd look after people. We'd look after grandma in aged care. We'd make sure our kids got the best education we could afford. So maybe, if we just changed the thinking of the country—stopped running it like a business and ran it like a family—then I think we'd all be better off for it. No-one could have watched the Four Corners programs and been unaffected by them. It's the view of many in this House, certainly of those on this side, that the royal commission that the government announced before the program even went to air was to pre-empt the inevitable—that the government knew the revelations would be so nauseating that nothing short of a royal commission would satisfy the public. Of course, the reason Four Corners decided to report on the state of aged care in this country was the unprecedented flood of calls and emails that the ABC received when it put out the simple call to Australians: 'Tell us your story about aged care.' More than 4,000 Australians hit their phones and keypads, and, from those many stories—themselves a fraction of the number of people working in, cared for, or otherwise related to this sector—a tiny number were chosen to reflect what is going on. So I have a plea that I hope those opposite will heed: do not wait for the royal commission to wind up before taking action to address the issues exposed in the Four Corners reports. The government must not wait for the royal commission to finish before getting to work to fix this crisis. We have all known for some time that all was not well in aged care. There has been report after report, recommendation after recommendation. The Leader of the Opposition said in May that there was a crisis in the sector, and the minister lectured him for it, saying it was like committing elder abuse to claim that there was a crisis. And that was an appalling—and, frankly, out-of-character—overreach by the minister, and it was demonstrably false, as the government's calling of the royal commission has demonstrated. If there was no crisis, why is there a royal commission? There have been many inquiries into the issues confronting aged care, and the findings are the same: not enough aged-care workers; too many unreasonable deadlines and expectations; not enough staff per client; and not enough pay, respect or support. The recommendations of these inquiries often aren't acted upon because they cost money, and so a new inquiry gets launched—perhaps in the hope that the new recommendations won't involve spending more money. Well, that would be a false hope. We all in this place share responsibility for the parlous state that the sector is in today: not enough money invested, not enough staff trained, not enough oversight of standards and not enough care at the highest levels of government to ensure that people who are at their most vulnerable, in the twilight of their lives, are cared for with dignity, compassion and respect. I am ashamed, as a parliamentarian and an Australian, that elderly people in care facilities have been left for hours in their own faeces or left to cry for assistance but not heeded because of either a lack of staff or a lack of care. I am ashamed that people whose only crime is age have been fed slop barely fit for dogs because providers either do not have the money or do not care enough to cook them decent meals. Each and every one of us in this place needs to take a good, hard look at ourselves and ask the questions: 'What can I do to improve things? Where are my priorities? What do I regard to be a proper level of public investment in aged care? What will I do to progress a better outcome?' I know the minister to be a decent man—a thoroughly decent man—and I know that the shadow minister has a cordial and respectful relationship with him. I know the minister would always prefer there to be bipartisan support on aged care, and normally I'd agree with him. The parliament and the operations of government generally work better when there's more cooperation and less conflict. But it is this opposition's job to hold this government, and this minister, to account, and under those opposite aged care has lurched from crisis to crisis. And it has lurched because of the deliberate actions of the government. In the 2016 budget, the Prime Minister, who was then Treasurer, cut $1.2 billion from the Aged Care Funding Instrument. The problems in aged care were not unknown at the time, they just weren't in the headlines. The Prime Minister told this place in the last sitting that there have been no cuts to aged care, even though they are there in his own budget, in black and white and in unambiguous language. Perhaps he thinks if he repeats the lie long enough it will simply be believed, irrespective of the fact that the cut was announced in his own budget, was reported far and wide in headlines across the country and was talked about with alarm inside the aged-care industry. We can't cut our way to better care. We need to be investing more, not less, in the care of our elderly. And if anyone in this place starts muttering about the impact on the budget or fiscal irresponsibility, they can mutter all they want. This is a matter of priorities, and I know that my priority as a parliamentarian is to ensure that elderly Australians live out the final years of their lives with dignity. We need more staff, better wages and better conditions for those who undertake the important work of caring for our elderly. And it's important that when we talk about staffing levels we talk about more than just nurses. Nurses are vital, but so too are personal care assistants, cooks, kitchen hands and cleaners. Much of the heavy lifting in aged care—and I talk literally here, as well as figuratively—is done by non-nursing staff. These are the people who help move immobile residents from place to place, who turn up in the middle of the night to shift people to avoid bed sores and who help with cleaning, toileting and other personal care. So, yes, more nurses are important. But if we are really serious about improving the level of care in aged-care facilities we will provide more staff across the board, including overnight, and in non-nursing roles as well. I am pleased to offer my support for this bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill, and to the new agency that the government is intending to establish. I am disturbed, however, that the aged-care sector has been allowed to deteriorate to the point that such an agency is necessary. It is not like we weren't warned. The Health and Community Services Union, HACSU, and other health unions have been warning us for years that this crisis was headed our way. They see it every day on the front line with their members, who battle with unreasonable demands to meet deadlines, inadequate staffing and massive turnover—so many good people leave the sector, burned out by poor pay and grim working conditions. Australia is a wealthy country. It is unacceptable to me that the government has failed to appropriately support this crucial sector, its employees and its clients. Across Australia, the aged-care sector is an enormous contributor to the national economy. It is a $20 billion sector, employing more than 224,000 Australians, across more than 1,800 businesses, companies and agencies, who care for more than 270,000 elderly and disabled Australians. As the Four Corners program demonstrated, we are beyond the tipping point when it comes to acceptable standards. Over the past year, my own office has received numerous complaints from constituents about the standard of care that their loved ones are receiving. They come to my office, helpless and distraught, unsure of where to go or what to do. Many are scared to complain to the centre itself, worried that by raising their concerns their loved ones will be resented for it. Aged care is especially concerning to people in Tasmania, which has the oldest population per capita in Australia. The Council of the Aged indicates that more than 19.4 per cent of the Tasmanian population is 65 or older, that the state has a median age of 42 and that, across our state's 29 local government areas, the proportion of the population that is over 65 years is increasing. Tasmania's population is also ageing at twice the rate of the rest of Australia, with over-65s increasing by 3.4 per cent between 2011 and 2016, compared to 1.7 per cent for the rest of the country. This suggests that many of the people who are coming to live in Tasmania from other states are already in their senior years. In June 2017, during a hearing for the inquiry into the future of Australia's aged-care-sector workforce, the committee was told that by 2025 Tasmania alone will need an additional 4,000 aged-care workers to meet demand. It is clear that simply putting recruits through a training sausage factory is not good enough. We need an aged-care sector that values its employees, pays decent wages and offers secure employment and fair conditions. We need to recruit good people and keep them in the sector, not burn them out. For some time now, my office has been trying to help Ron navigate the aged-care complaints process after his wife, Maureen, who suffers early onset dementia, was neglected during a short stay in one of Hobart's more reputable aged-care facilities. Over just a few short weeks of care, which was supposed to offer respite for Ron, he would visit Maureen to find her lying in bed or propped up in a chair—soiled and unshowered—sluggish after being dosed with valium, a medication she'd never previously been prescribed. He complained to the service a number of times and then to the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, but Maureen's care did not improve. At one point, Maureen managed to leave the facility undetected. Where she went Ron does not know, nor has he been told how long she was missing. Having withdrawn Maureen from the service, Ron now relies on her home care package for assistance and respite, which is a challenging process and service to negotiate in and of itself. As we all know, there are hundreds of thousands of people on that list. Is this the kind of care we want Australians to experience? Is this the type of care that is appropriate and acceptable? No, it's not. We need to do better for our elderly. We need to do better for aged care—every single one of us. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Perfect timing! The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43, the debate will be resumed at a later hour. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 44 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Canberra Electorate: Drones 44 13:30 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra The drone delivery trial in Bonython is still going and residents are getting increasingly fed up. Since I did a callout last month, feedback about the drone trial has not slowed down. In fact, it has increased dramatically. While some reactions have been positive, the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Over the past week, I've had a number of comments coming in from residents—a bit of a surge in comments from Bonython residents. Judy, a Bonython resident of 24 years, says, 'It's like having a permanent mosquito every weekend. Initially the drones seemed to follow road routes, but lately they've been flying directly over my house and the volume has increased.' Sue: 'They are driving me crazy. I enjoy having my lunch in the sun and listening to an audio book, but this is impossible as the drones are too loud and drown out the book.' Kris: 'The noise echoes across the valley and it flies over my house continuously. The serenity of a peaceful suburb has deteriorated.' Briana: 'Every weekend for the last month or so I have had drones flying around and over my property. As a result I no longer feel I have privacy in the outdoor spaces around my home.' And from today: 'This morning, starting just after eight o'clock, there have been five drones passes—10 including the return trip—by 8.35.' That's on a Sunday. 'The weekends are by far the worst. In a period of just one hour one Sunday 11 passes, 22 including the return, were made until I lost count.' (Time expired) Pidcock, Father Paul 45 13:31 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I would like to acknowledge Father Paul Pidcock, who is retiring after 62 years of faithfully serving the school community of St John's College, Woodlawn, in Lismore. Father Pidcock first arrived as a student at Woodlawn in 1944. In 1949 he attend the Marist seminary in Sydney and he was ordained in 1956. His ties to Woodlawn remain strong, as he returned there the following year as a teacher. Father Pidcock had stints in Tasmania and California, where he studied for his Master of Theology degree. He returned to Woodlawn in 1979. He became the school's bursar and was also appointed Superior of the Marist community. In 2000 he took the role of part-time chaplain at the Grafton Correctional Centre. He held this role until 2012. When Woodlawn became co-educational he was invited to be the college chaplain, a role he will be retiring from at the end of this year. My children went to Woodlawn and I've had many interactions with him as both a parent and an MP. His humility, his dedication, his love for people, not just students but throughout the community, will be missed as he heads into retirement. Father Pidcock, thank you for your 62 years of faithful service, and we wish you all the best in retirement. Immigration Detention 45 13:33 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand It is my sad obligation today to recognise in this chamber the recent statement from Medecins Sans Frontieres about refugees and asylum seekers in Australian-funded facilities on Nauru. Upon being forced to leave the country by the government of Nauru, MSF described the situation of the men, women and children that it had been previously providing mental services to as 'beyond desperate' and 'expressed high concern for the conditions of the patients we have been forced to leave behind.' The current situation on Nauru is wrong. It is not justifiable on any grounds. These people should not still be there. Nauru and Manus Island were set up as temporary regional processing centres but have become places of indefinite detention because of the failure of this government to negotiate third-country resettlement options over the past five years. These refugees have been left in limbo for far too long, longer than any human being should have to endure. They should be resettled as soon as possible. To this end, I again implore the government to accept New Zealand's resettlement offer and start getting these people off Nauru. In the meantime, the government must immediately take action to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees on Nauru are receiving adequate health care and mental health services. This includes transfers where mental health and other health-care services are not available on the island. Despite the government's denials, Australia has a moral responsibility to the people currently in Australian-funded offshore regional processing centres. It must act and it must act now. (Time expired) Canning Electorate 45 13:34 Mr HASTIE 260805 Canning It has been a hive of activity in Canning these past three weeks. We've had the Serpentine and Jarrahdale Country Fair and Jarrahdale Log Chop; the Waroona Show and the Perth Hills Live Lighter Festival. Every year the volunteers who organise these events do a wonderful job of showcasing our region and building up our local community. Special congratulations must be made to the Waroona Agricultural Society, which hosted its 88th show, and also to the Hills Orchardist Improvement Group, which had its 35th show just this past Saturday. We have also had the health minister visit Canning. He visited the Peel Maternity and Family Practice run by Dr Peter Kell. Dr Kell and his team have created a unique model of maternity care that brings together midwives, GPs, obstetricians and healthcare professionals who care for families through all stages of pregnancy and beyond. It was a pleasure to show the minister how the model works and why it has been so successful in delivering over 10,000 babies since the practice was established in 2006. And last Thursday the Peel Employment Facilitator, Maryann Baker, and the Department of Jobs held the Peel Region Jobs Fair in Mandurah. This fair connected jobseekers with recruitment agencies, potential employers and researchers. It was heartening to see more than 750 people attend the event, including people in the middle-age bracket, to participate in workshops and to hear about what they can do to increase their job prospects. We all know that work gives people dignity and purpose, and the Peel jobs fair— (Time expired) Energy 46 13:36 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro No doubt, like most Australians—like the residents of Eden-Monaro and, no doubt, the residents of Indi, as I see the member for Indi in the chamber here today—the good voters of Wentworth, who are being asked to cast their ballots on Saturday, would have been shocked and appalled to hear the comments of the member for New England this morning calling on the abandonment of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 project in favour of building more coal-fired power stations. This is wrong on so many levels, but No. 1 is that he talked about $4½ billion being diverted to these power stations. He doesn't even know—he is not even aware, the former Deputy Prime Minister—that the financing for Snowy 2.0 will be private financing. Snowy Hydro is raising that money themselves. So what is this member trying to do? Is he going to try to force private financing to finance the coal-fired power stations that every investor has abandoned? They will not even invest in refurbishing them! But beyond this: this project, as the Marsden Jacobs & Associates feasibility study highlighted, is only a goer if we commit to an ambitious renewable energy target of 60 per cent by 2040. It's spelled out there in black and white. This project is specifically designed to achieve our transition to 100 per cent renewable energy. There will be 5,000 jobs in Eden-Monaro based on that project, and many jobs in the member for Indi's electorate in building the transmission lines as well. This Prime Minister needs to tell the people of Wentworth that if he sticks with this— (Time expired) Western Australia: Telethon 46 13:37 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney We are heading for a very important and very special weekend in Western Australia—and no, I'm not talking about the Taylor Swift concert! What I'm talking about is Telethon. Generations of Western Australians have grown up with Telethon. This Saturday and Sunday are this year's annual opportunity for everyone to give what they can to this life-changing charity. The support and generosity of so many Western Australians has had a major impact on some of the threatening diseases our children face, including brain cancer and leukaemia. Telethon also provides state-of-the-art equipment to children in hospital and critical services for children with disabilities. WA's Telethon is the highest-fundraising telethon per capita in the world, and since its inaugural broadcast in 1968 Telethon has raised record-breaking amounts year after year after year. Telethon exists on a day-to-day basis through the generosity of Seven West Media. Their expert technical teams bring Telethon to our TV screens without a glitch from dozens of locations across WA and from the live performance stages at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre. I know everyone looks forward to watching Channel 7 in Perth and GWN7 statewide to see the 26-hour continuous coverage—the big names, the stars, the headline acts and all the entertainment throughout the broadcast. More than $36 million was raised last year and I just know that WA is set for another historic record this year. (Time expired) Northern Territory: Relationship with Indonesia 46 13:39 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon Our north Australian communities have for centuries or longer traded with our northern neighbours, and we want to see those relationships grow into the future. I was very proud to establish the Australia-Indonesia Youth Association NT a number of years ago, and I'm still involved—even though I'm not so young anymore! I'm pleased to be co-hosting an event with AIYA NT soon, called Ideasfest Indonesia. It will be down at the waterfront campus of CDU on 30 October. Its aim is to look at what we're doing at the moment between the Northern Territory and Indonesia and to look at emerging opportunities and how we can make the most of them. Registration is essential for Ideasfest Indonesia, although it is a free event. Registration is at www.topendideasfestindonesia.com. Can I close by extending to Indonesian President Bapak Jokowi our best wishes to the Indonesian people and the devastated communities of Palu and Donggala in particular. On Saturday evening I joined the Indonesian consul in Darwin, Bapak Dicky, in solidarity at a community fundraiser for those devastated communities in Central Sulawesi. Top End ideas fest—get on it! Indi Electorate: Vocational Education and Training 47 13:40 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, there are some very special guests in the gallery today. I'd like to acknowledge leaders from Sacred Heart College in Yarrawonga and FCJ College Benalla. I acknowledge in particular, over on my right, Councillor Ashlee Fitzpatrick, one of Victoria's youngest councillors; Rob Richardson, President of the Regent Honeyeater Project—and a couple of other people, who I'll come to in a minute. I especially welcome back to parliament Julie Aldous from the schools-to-industries pathway project. Julie brings with her Lucie Wallis, Norm Madden and Danny O'Donoghue, who are in parliament today doing some lobbying around a fantastic project that we've got operating in north-east Victoria, linked to the North East Local Learning and Employment Network, with a specific focus on health care, social assistance and agriculture. It's a lovely example of all levels of government working together. The project is aimed at year 9 students and employers in the ag and hort industry and in the healthcare industry, who will work at school based apprenticeships and traineeships, post-school vocational work and online study and build the community capacity and create jobs in our communities so that these young people know that they've got a future in our communities, because we want them living locally. So I send a call-out to all schools, parents and employers: we've got a fantastic model and we're happy to talk about it. You too can have it in your community, employing young people where they need to be. (Time expired) Great Australian Round Up 47 13:42 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'm here to talk about the Great Australian Round Up and I'm not talking about question time. I'm talking about stock handling and cow work; I'm talking about a dry work program; I'm talking about the arrival of cattle and ranch sorting national finals and the stockman's challenge. All of these are going to be happening in Tamworth. They're coming up and they're going to be part of how we show off the stock skills that are part and parcel of what we see in rodeos. They're part and parcel of what we see in campdraft. They are part and parcel of what we see at the Tamworth Country Music Festival. It will be held from 19 to 20 January 2019 during the country music festival. It's a charity event to raise money for the Burrumbuttock Hay Runners and other vital rural services assisting with drought aid. The main event will be held at the ABCRA, the Australian Bushmen's Campdraft and Rodeo Association, and will also feature the stockman's challenge, working dog trials, whip cracking and sheep shearing. It will be a must-see for so many people. Bush skills and stock skills are part of the culture of regional Australia, and I think a lot of people want to get out and have a look at them. They might be able to incorporate some of those skills down here. I suppose the party whips would like to go up there and have a look at how they can get put a bell on them, hobble them, keep them where they are, prod them along and get them to go where they need them to go. Those will be the sorts of skills that you'll be shown in Tamworth. I'm looking forward to being there, and I'm inviting all of you as well. Lalor Electorate: India-Africa Festival 47 13:44 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to commend both African Media Australia and the Forum for Indian Australians on their wonderful India-Africa Festival held on 22 September in the electorate of Lalor. It was a great celebration of multicultural diversity in our electorate and in our community. The festival was a day to engage in cultural programs showcasing the African and Indian cultures, and it included a friendly soccer game. The festival was a fine example of how communities can work together to bring about social cohesion. I want to acknowledge the work of the Forum for Indian Australians in the electorate and thank them for the work they do to assist our Indian Australian community and for their reaching out to other community groups in the electorate. They've delivered many social programs in the community, with a particular focus on health, wellbeing and sports. A particular highlight in the community calendar is the 'light up Wyndham' Diwali event, and this year I'm again looking forward to seeing the community lit up in the lights for Diwali. I was pleased also to name Amit Singh a Lalor Hero last week for his work in the Forum for Indian Australians. In communities like ours with a rapidly growing population, it is the grassroots work in community organisations that builds our communities. Our strength is in our cohesion, in reaching out to one another and developing understanding between groups. I am happy to say that in my community that happens every day. Cantello, Lieutenant George 47 13:45 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes A fortnight ago I had the special privilege of meeting Don Cantello of the USA at Hammondville, on the site where Don's father, Lieutenant George Cantello, commander of the 41st Pursuit Squadron of the US Army Air Force, died 75 years ago. It was early June 1942, one week after the Japanese midget submarine raid on Sydney Harbour, and the Imperial Japanese Navy still had a number of submarines submerged off our coast. Just after midnight on 8 June 1942, one of those subs surfaced offshore of Maroubra Beach and rapidly fired 10 rounds of 140-millimetre shells from its main deck. With air raid sirens wailing and searchlights sweeping the Sydney sky, the call went out to the 41st Pursuit Squadron at Bankstown airfield to defend our city. Just before 1 am, a solitary P-39 Airacobra piloted by Lieutenant Cantello took off alone into the night sky to protect our city of Sydney. But tragically, shortly after its take-off, the plane stalled, crashing into a park, killing Lieutenant Cantello the day before his son Don's first birthday. That spot today is a memorial park dedicated to the memory of Lieutenant Cantello. Last week, with the Australian and American flags flying high, being on the site where Don's father, whom he had never met, whose plane had crashed while defending my city of Sydney, was a very special occasion. National Carers Week 48 13:47 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons Today marks the start of National Carers Week, a week dedicated to recognising and commending the contribution of unpaid carers to our country. They're usually family and friends who make a great contribution to the people they love and to the broader community. About 2.7 million Australians are considered to be unpaid carers. Of this number, 85,508 are within Tasmania. We're a small state, a state of 500,000 people, and we've got 85,000 carers. And yet, for the most part, many of these people do not consider themselves carers but feel that they are instead simply taking on a role that comes with being part of a family or being a friend of someone who needs support. Anyone at any time may become a carer, and National Carers Week provides us with the opportunity to stand up and acknowledge the work that all carers do, to thank them for their contribution and to help raise awareness about the diversity of carers and the diversity of what they do. Throughout my electorate of Lyons, it is estimated that one in six homes includes a family carer. Of the 85,508 carers in my state, 7,600 are under the age of 25, and 2,100 are under the age of 15. Statistically, that means there is one carer in every classroom in Tasmania. So my plea goes out to the kids in the galleries above: be a carer. Teachers 48 13:48 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman In last week's Q&A show but also in an opinion piece of mine in The Australian last week, we examined the plight of Australian teachers. It's a surmountable but still very serious workplace issue that our teachers are worked so hard with unpaid work that they have to take home. Sure, they might do 41 weeks a year out of 52, but, if they mentally need so much recovery in those 11 weeks, we need to do something about what happens in term time. At the moment, the burdening of teachers with unpaid work is completely unacceptable. Let's remember: it's fundamentally an education system there for children, not for teachers, and children have slipped in their performance since 2012 compared to the major economies. We know that PISA scores in the top fifth have shrunk by 20 per cent over those years, and we know that the number of kids ending up in the bottom part of performance worldwide has increased by 40 per cent. We need to give teachers promotional scales built not on how long they've been a teacher but on their postgraduate research and their ability to perform better as a teacher. If a person is having trouble as a teacher, they need early help with leadership and subject-matter experts and should not be put into special education where they are away from a classroom of kids. Lastly, we need state education systems to get serious about a promotion scale that doesn't top out after nine years of teaching, because that leads to the best teachers moving out to look at occupations elsewhere. Nursing has managed to get $100,000 salaries for a quarter of the nurses in Queensland Health. They are not even anywhere close to that—they have just touched $100,000. Teaching deserves what nursing has. (Time expired) Payday Loans 48 13:50 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley It's 1,165 days—that is how long this government has known there has been a problem with the loan sharks in the out-of-control payday loans industry in this country. In that time, the number of homes forced to turn to payday loans has jumped to 800,000. Yet, despite promise after promise by minister after minister we are no closer to clamping down on the loan sharks who continue to rip off consumers. I don't hold any hope for the future, either, when we have a minister in charge who is happy to charge taxpayers $38,000 for home internet at the same time that the loan sharks keep ripping off consumers. This is the same minister who in 2015, when he was Minister for Human Services, said: 'While most people receiving welfare payments are honest and do the right thing there are a small number of people who still think it is okay to cheat the system and take more than they are entitled to. What these individuals don't appreciate is that they are actually stealing from their neighbours.' Well, the minister's actual neighbours are quoted in the media. His neighbour, Mr Thompson, said, 'The enormous internet bill seems a little dodgy.' Others said they were stunned on hearing how much the minister had spent on wireless internet. The hypocrisy is staggering. Rather than spending his time downloading thousands and thousands of hours of House of Cards, I call on this minister to start focusing and bring forward the full and proper legislation to stop the loan sharks and end the payday loan rip-off in Australia. Brisbane Electorate: 42 for 42 49 13:51 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane In Brisbane on Wednesday I attended a special and, at times, emotional community fundraising lunch for a group known as the 42 for 42. That name stands for the 41 soldiers killed in Afghanistan, with the 42nd representing those who returned with injuries and mental illness, and those we have lost and continue to lose to suicide. It's a group founded by ex-Army veterans aiming to help struggling veterans and their families by building a memorial dedicated to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice. The proposed memorial garden is to be located in an iconic Brisbane location: next to Suncorp Stadium, in the memorial reserve next to the Milton Christ Church. The purpose of last week's event was to help to raise awareness and funds for the memorial. I was very pleased that Minister Greg Hunt was able to join us there, especially given that it coincided with World Mental Health Day. Those present at the lunch were enthralled by the words of Doug Baird, father of Corporal Cameron Baird, the 100th Australian to be awarded a Victoria Cross, and were captivated by the words of the poet Rupert McCall. Thanks to the former Origin greats for getting behind this very special project, especially rugby league legend and Origin coach Kevin Walters. Thanks to the Brisbane City Council, and Councillor Peter Matic in particular, for their ongoing work in support of the memorial, and thanks to everyone in the Brisbane community who came together to support such an important cause. Lindsay Electorate: Frocktober 49 13:53 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay One woman dies every eight hours from ovarian cancer. It is the ninth-most-common cancer and the most lethal of all the gynaecological cancers. It has few warning symptoms and no early detection test—it is called the silent killer. Four women are diagnosed each and every day in Australia. Whether it is ovarian or cervical cancer, endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome, successive governments have failed to recognise the value of funding research into these women's issues adequately. It is just another reason why women are needed in this place, sitting at the decision-making tables leading those debates and helping to tackle the issues that are facing women, who make up half the population. Women's issues and issues affecting gynaecological health had been ignored and overlooked for far too long. This year I'm very proud to be participating in Frocktober, where team Lindsay ladies frock up to raise money and awareness for ovarian cancer and a diagnostic screening test for early diagnosis that will help reduce the fatality rate of this silent killer. Frocktober is in its 12th year and continues to get bigger and better each year. It involves wearing a dress each day and snapping a photo to share on social media to encourage others to encourage awareness of the 1,600 women who are diagnosed every single year. I would like to acknowledge those around me have taken up the fight: the Lindsay Ladies Frock Up! team: Amanda Wiley, Janis Donnelly-Coode and Peggy Wilcox, inspired by the formidable Ellie Whiteaker, who participated last year and clocked over $4,000 in donations. A massive shout-out to all those people have already supported our efforts. Currently, our team has $1,500 and will power through the second part of the month hoping to double that. I implore anybody who can to frock-up and donate to help together to frock cancer. Showcase WA 49 13:54 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I rise today to welcome some special guests who have flown in from WA to help myself and the member for Burt for Showcase WA. The PM will open the event in the Mural Hall just after 6 pm, with over 50 Canberra based heads of missions attending. To make this project a reality, we've partnered with Perth Airport, who plan to open a third runway to facilitate greater international and interstate tourism as well as improving the logistics of moving our amazing produce to our near neighbours. Perth Convention Bureau will host a stand. Our mining giants are represented here with Woodside, Rio Tinto, BHP, and the WA Chamber of Minerals and Energy all hosting stands showcasing our incredible mineral diversity and the contribution this makes to the Australian economy. Our regions have all brought a taste of what they're famous for, whether that be wine, whisky, gin, Manjimup truffles or our amazing green, clean agriproduce. I welcome our WA food ambassador, celebrity chef Anna Gare, who shared her delectable secret recipes with the APH catering team. They will bring out the best in our WA rock lobster, MG Kailis prawns, Harvey beef, WAMMCO Katanning lamb, Plantagenet free-range pork, Mt Barker free-range chicken, Kytren goat cheese and Manjimup Truffle & Wine Co truffles. Wines have been sourced from Wines of Western Australia and paired with the food offerings by CEO Larry Jorgensen. I close in saying welcome to all our special guests. I invite all senators, MPs, ministers and their staff to join us in the Mural Hall after 6 pm this evening. Climate Change 50 13:56 Mr CONROY 249127 Shortland Last week the UNIPCC released a groundbreaking report on the dangers of climate change and the urgent need for the entire world to act in coalition to reduce climate change to only rising by 1½ degrees. What we saw from the government in their response was, quite frankly, embarrassing. The Minister for the Environment—the so-called minister, who has been in witness protection—was let out once to do an ABC interview on AM, and she got demolished. It was embarrassing. She refused to acknowledge the expertise and seriousness of the IPCC report. She got her units of measurement mixed up—she thought it was per cent rather than degrees Celsius. She repeated the falsehood that their inadequate 2030 target will be met. It will not be met, and the Minister for the Environment should not keep repeating that lie. Worse was Senator Canavan's offensive and incompetent intervention last week, where he lectured businesses about going on their own scheme because this government had failed on climate change yet again. He called the Renewable Energy Target the worst policy in the world, which was a bit inconvenient, given the fact that the Prime Minister hides behind it any chance he can get, and the government's own reports find it has reduced electricity prices and driven massive investment in renewable energy. This government is a disgrace on climate change and is betraying future generations. (Time expired) AFL Grand Final 50 13:57 Mrs MARINO HWP Forrest I want to congratulate the West Coast Eagles on their fourth premiership win in a classic AFL thriller of a grand final. It was a heart-stopping last five minutes. The Eagles never dropped their heads, in spite of a tough first quarter. The SPEAKER 00APG I'll take a point of order on this! Mrs MARINO HWP I want to congratulate the players who did their supporters proud. A special mention to Lewis Jetta, who is from Bunbury. I want to congratulate coach Adam Simpson; captain Shannon Hurn; Norm Smith medallist Luke Shuey, who played a cracker of a game; the CEO, another Bunbury boy, Trevor Nisbett; and all the club volunteers. It was a great reward for the 17,000 fans who travelled to the MCG on that great Saturday. I'll just mention that the Eagles flew 59,404 kilometres during their season—more than any other team, and certainly more than the 12,000 that Collingwood flew. I want to say to all of the players: you did Western Australia proud. I want to congratulate everyone involved in the club, and particularly the volunteers around all of our footy clubs in Australia, who work to give us the best game in the world. The SPEAKER 00APG In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. CONDOLENCES 50 CONDOLENCES Cunningham, Mr Barry Thomas 50 14:00 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House of the death on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 of Barry Thomas Cunningham, a member of this House for the division of McMillan from 1980 until 1990 and from 1993 until 1996. As a mark of respect to the memory of Barry Thomas Cunningham, I ask all present to rise in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the House. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 50 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE West Gate Bridge 50 14:01 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On indulgence, I rise today to remember an Australian tragedy and to remember those who were lost. On this day 48 years ago, Australians watched in horror as the West Gate Bridge collapsed during construction. It's not a particular anniversary this year, just like it's the 16th anniversary this year since the terrible Bali bombings that were commemorated just a few days ago. But, whether it's the 48th or the 16th or the 35th or the 55th, each time this date and this period is marked it's a chilling reminder and a terrible time of sadness for all of those who are touched personally by these tragic incidents. On that day, Australians watched in horror as the West Gate Bridge collapsed during construction. Most of us who sit in this chamber would have been small children. Some would not have been born. But Australians around the country on that day watched in horror and 35 men needlessly lost their lives. Just before midday, on what should have been just another ordinary working day, 2,000 tonnes of steel and concrete crashed to the ground and the waters below. Thirty-five working men, many of them migrants who had come to Australia seeking a better life, were killed and lost. Kids lost their dads, wives lost their husbands, parents lost their sons and family members lost their brothers, and many, many more were seriously injured. Miraculously, 18 men escaped the carnage and, on that day, these survivors would be the first responders, doing what they could do to save their mates. It was a day that should never be forgotten, and it's not been forgotten today. I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition writing to me about this anniversary and suggesting us doing this here today together. Mostly, when these things happen we call them accidents—a chance of fate—but that wasn't the case on this day. The collapse of the West Gate Bridge was not an accident; nor was it a chance of fate. As the royal commission found, the collapse was as a result of man-made errors—error upon error, mistakes compounded by efforts to rectify them, and all occurring within a confrontational culture marked by distrust, division and demarcation. Thankfully, much has changed since the 1970s and, of course, our workplaces are much safer today than they were almost half a century ago. Tougher laws have been introduced and workers have been given more of a say, as they should, about safety on the job. Safety is now something everyone is responsible for right across the organisation. We achieve so much more in our workplaces and, indeed, in a country where we work together and we look out for each other, whatever our role is within an organisation. As the report of the Royal Commission into the Failure of West Gate Bridge said: It is widely accepted that the essential requirements for good labour relations are mutual trust, confidence and respect as between management, trade unions and men. Once this relationship is established, all concerned will work as a team and first-class production can be achieved. Without it, little if any progress can be made. As a lesson for today, the mistakes that are made are not supposed to bind us forever; they're supposed to guide us into our future. On this 48th anniversary, we remember the lessons of those times and we remember the 35 men who needlessly perished and their families, who have lived with this every day from then till now and will into the future. Today, tens of thousands of vehicles will pass across the West Gate Bridge. Its flags will be lowered in an act of remembrance. Families, friends and former workmates will gather at the site of the collapse, as they do every year, to remember the loved ones they have lost. It's only appropriate for us here today to pause here in the nation's parliament to remember the lessons of that day so that they might shine a path forward for all of us. May the 35 souls lost at the West Gate Bridge rest in peace and may God bless their families. Honourable members: Hear, hear! 14:06 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I thank the Prime Minister for his words and for agreeing to our request for this motion. It was 48 years ago, on a windy Melbourne morning at 11.50 am, 50 metres above the Yarra, 128 metres of concrete and steel in span 10 to 11 of the West Gate Bridge suddenly began to shudder. Workers later told of an eerie ringing sound as giant steel bolts turned blue under the strain and shot from their sockets with a sound like light bulbs popping. Then, in a flash, 2,000 tonnes of concrete and steel fell onto the muddy ground below and onto the eight wooden site huts, where the workforce's first lunch break had just begun. Thirty-five men died; 18 were injured. Families were fractured by tragedy, others spared by sheer luck alone, racked by that inexplicable human phenomena of survivor guilt. Today we remember riggers and fitters, ironworkers, boilermakers, engineers, fathers, brothers and sons. Many of them were actually migrants who were seeking a fresh start in a new nation, who went out the front door that day from commission flats in Collingwood and humble houses in Altona and never came home. Victor Gerada was a steel rigger born in Malta. On 14 October, the day before the collapse, he thought he felt a shudder run through the bridge. He told his wife Doris that night when he got home from work, explaining he didn't want to tell his workmates because he didn't want them thinking the less of him. That morning, Victor woke Doris before he left for work to reassure her it must have been the wind. Victor and Doris's home was close enough to the bridge for Doris to run straight there when she heard the sirens. She arrived just as her husband's body was being loaded into the ambulance. Jack Grist was the site foreman and Fred Upsdell was a storeman. They had been mates for over 20 years. They both lived in Altona and, as usual, Jack gave Fred a lift to work that day. They had their lunch in the hut at the same time. When the mess of the rubble and the tangle of the scaffolding was cleared, their bodies were found next to one another. Later, the two old friends would be buried alongside each other. The humble plaque on the memorial beneath the bridge at Hyde Street bears 35 names. It lists their trade or craft, each carries its own story and so too do the survivors, some of whom I've had the privilege to meet. They are men like Bob Setka, a rigger, who somehow miraculously rode the bridge down, a 50 metre fall. He'd stepped out from the interior of the span for a cigarette moments before. That decision saved his life. It should also be noted that a generation of union organisers rose out of that tragedy: men who'd worked on this job, galvanised by it. I've had the privilege of meeting some of these survivors and some of those who were on the job that day: Tom Watson, John Cummins, Pat Preston and Danny Gardiner. There were more. They learned very difficult lessons that day and they made it their mission to advance the cause, not just for better industrial relations but to champion stronger workplace health and safety across the state and the nation. Most of us who use the bridge day by day rarely stop to reflect on Australia's worst industrial disaster. But today in the House of the Australian people we honour the memory of all those who have died. We acknowledge and remember the trauma and the guilt inflicted on families and loved ones and on survivors—many of whom lived with the nightmares for years. But in doing so we remind ourselves that we sit in the relative comfort and security of this place—that workplace deaths and injuries are not just a tragedy confined to the history books and black-and-white photos. It's been about three weeks since the parliament last met, but, in the three weeks since parliament last met, around 10 Australians have died at work, whether that be falling from heights or crushed by heavy machinery or falling material. Thousands more right now live and will die from industrial diseases incurred at work. Until every Australian workplace is safe and until every Australian has the right to come home to the people they love, then there is more for all of us to do. 14:11 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt by leave—I move: That further statements in relation to the 48th anniversary of the Westgate Bridge collapse be permitted in the Federation Chamber. Question agreed to, honourable members standing in their places. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Morrison Government 52 14:11 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has complained that voting for anybody but the Liberals in Wentworth will destabilise his government. But didn't this Prime Minister destabilise the government in the first place when he and his colleagues deposed Mr Turnbull? Isn't government instability the only reason we are having the Wentworth by-election? And will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Wentworth why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister of Australia? 14:12 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I know who the Australian people don't want to be Prime Minister: the leader of the Labor Party! They don't want him. They've had five years to have a good look at him and they've rendered their verdict on him when they make their judgement about who they think should be the Prime Minister of this country, who they think should be managing the economy of this country, who should be looking out for Australian families about their cost of living and who they can trust to get taxes down. That's what the Australian people are making their judgements about. They have made their judgement on this Leader of the Opposition and they know that after five years of looking at him hard and looking at everything he's said and at every flip flop he's ever made: he's for small business, he's against small business, he's for small business, he's against small business. And he wonders why the Australian people don't trust him and why small businesses, in particular, don't trust him. I'll tell you why we're cutting taxes for small businesses, Mr Speaker. It's because those on this side of the House know that small and family businesses are the backbone of our economy. That's why we do it. We believe in it. We don't have to be dragged into it; we initiate it. We bring the bills into this parliament and we say that Australians deserve to keep more of what they earn. Our government is committed to a strong economy—a strong economy that guarantees the essential services that Australians rely on, that keeps Australians safe and brings and keeps Australians together. In this Wentworth by-election, what I know people in Wentworth will be considering is: 'How do you keep the economy strong? How can you ensure that you have the certainty in this parliament to ensure that the policies that are going to continue to grow our economy can be passed and can be pursued?' They can't trust the Labor Party to do it. As a majority party in this parliament, a majority coalition, the Liberals, together with the Nationals, are bringing forward policies week after week that are driving our economy forward. We need to continue to do that as a majority government in this parliament. A vote for anyone other than Dave Sharma, the Liberal candidate in Wentworth, is a vote that would undermine that certainty and the strong economy that our government is delivering. Economy 52 14:15 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's actions to keep our economy strong are working to keep Australia together, keep Australians safe and deliver the services that Australians expect? Prime Minister, what are the risks and what is at stake if this commitment is not adhered to in the future? 14:15 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Robertson for her question. It was great to be up on the Central Coast—a shout-out to the project at the Central Coast. It was great to be at the Central Coast last week. It was great to be up there with Nathan, a small-business owner from Kombucha Zest, and of course Ryan and Chris, who run the Six String Brewing Company up there on the Central Coast. They are two of many small businesses on the Central Coast which are ensuring a strong economy on the Central Coast to support jobs on the Central Coast so people can get about their livelihood and live and work and play in the region that they love, like so many people across this country want to choose to do. We're living up to our beliefs and we're living up to our principles when it comes to how we run our economic policies. We believe you need to back Australians who are having a go, and that in particular means small and family businesses. Our policies have seen, over the last five years, more than a million Australians get a job. They've seen more than 100,000 young Australians get a job in the last year alone. That is the highest rate of employment growth for young people on record. That's more than 100,000 young people whose lives have been changed as a result of them getting a job. What do those beliefs and those principles mean? They mean we believe in lower taxes. We believe in lower taxes for small and family businesses. We believe in lower taxes for those who go out and earn a living as wage earners. We believe in lower taxes for those who have retired and are living off their retirement savings and not in hitting them with higher taxes. We believe in those who want to invest in their future and that they shouldn't have higher taxes. We believe in lower taxes so Australians can keep more of what they have earned to provide for their plans for their future. We're investing in infrastructure, with $75 billion in rolling infrastructure projects. I was just over at the NorthLink project, in Western Australia, a few weeks ago, seeing the massive progress being done. We're expanding our markets with trade deals to ensure that our businesses, large and small, can expand their businesses into growing markets all around our region and all around our world. We're transitioning our industries through things like our defence industry plan, which is ensuring, through the supply chain, that companies that once were making vehicles are now making tank bonnets for armoured vehicles—like Penguin Composites, down in Tasmania, in the electorate of Braddon. And then we have our medical industry plan, which is ensuring that we're investing in future jobs in our fast-growing medical industry. One thing we're also doing is keeping militant unions out of the building and construction industry. If the Labor Party were elected, you'd pay more tax, you'd pay more for your private health insurance, you'd pay more for your electricity bills and you'd pay more for what you're doing in building and construction— (Time expired) Discrimination 53 14:18 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. This morning, when asked about laws which allow discrimination against LGBTI teachers, the Treasurer said: I don't think these laws are right and I do think we need to ensure that there is no discrimination in either our workplaces or in our schools. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Treasurer? Will the Prime Minister join with Labor to ensure that teachers can't be sacked because of who they are or who they love? 14:19 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'm happy to table the letter that I sent to the Leader of the Opposition today. I table that letter knowing that I believe it's very important that we act in this parliament over the next fortnight to deal with the unnecessary anxiety that has been created for children and their parents in relation to potential discrimination and expulsion of students on the basis of their sexuality. We think that needs to be addressed, and we think it needs to be addressed urgently. I have written to the Leader of the Opposition in those terms and I have said that there are many other issues that will be addressed as a result of the religious freedoms review that has been undertaken. There will be a time and place to address those issues, and they're important issues, but the issues that we need to address right here and now relate to the children and ensuring that we protect them against discrimination and that we act in the area of absolute consensus, not just in this place but beyond this place, because I know religious communities and schools also believe that they should not, and indeed they do not, discriminate against children on the basis of their sexuality in their schools— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order. Mr Burke DYW On direct relevance. On this policy issue, the question only went to teachers. It did not go to students at all. There is agreement on the issue of students, but this question is about the principles as they apply to teachers. The SPEAKER 00APG I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. I was listening very carefully. The Prime Minister, about 30 seconds ago, addressed the topic of the question in the context of his answer. He's in order. I'm going to keep listening. The Prime Minister's in order. Mr MORRISON E3L As I indeed said, the religious freedom report, prepared by Philip Ruddock, addresses a broad range of issues, including the ones that have been raised by the members of the opposition. What I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to do is to come together with the government this week and deal with this issue, on which, beyond this place and within this place, there is broad consensus. We are prepared to do that in absolute good faith. The Attorney-General is preparing amendments to that end and will share those with the shadow Attorney-General. I hope we're able to do that and that we won't be pointscoring and playing politics with this. I hope we can just get it done and give those families and their children the certainty that they deserve, and I hope that the laws, which were indeed introduced by those opposite when they were in government, can be corrected. Economy 54 14:21 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how strong economic management allows this government to invest in regional Australia, help make our roads safer and boost productivity? What are the risks and what is at stake if our plan to invest in regional roads and productivity is not delivered? 14:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I'm delighted to take this question from the member for Dawson, a very hardworking Queenslander, somebody who understands that, when the regions are strong, so too is our nation. He's getting on with the job of lobbying and agitating for the roads that he wants in his electorate and he's doing a darn fine job there too. We know, on this side of the House, that good economic management helps small businesses grow. Small businesses are those great employers, those wonderful businesses who get behind our nation and our regions, particularly in the member for Dawson's electorate. Good economic management helps creates jobs. A million jobs were created in the first five years of our government. Good economic management enables us to invest in the roads and the infrastructure that regional Australia wants, needs, demands and, best of all and most of all, deserves. That's exactly what this government is doing. On the weekend I announced the guidelines in Manjimup, in Western Australia, for the Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. It's a $3.5 billion investment in making country roads safer. Whether it's the first mile or the last mile or all those in between, it's going to make sure that the needs of our freight task, which is expected to double by 2030, are addressed. It's an investment to boost productivity, as the member for Dawson full-well knows, to get people home sooner and safer, to help get the mining wealth, the food and the fibre to our ports and to our markets. We're growing our markets. The trade minister and his assistant minister are doing an outstanding job in that regard. There is also a specific $1.5 billion investment in northern Australia, making sure that the north continues its critical role in boosting the productivity of our nation. It follows our $10 billion investment in that marvellous 1,679 kilometre road, the Bruce Highway, finally ending the talk and delivering the highway that Queenslanders, and indeed all the nation, needs. I know how important that $800 million for the Cooroy to Curra section is for the member for Wide Bay. It is delivering the Mackay Ring Road stage 1 and the Haughton River Bridge upgrade projects, totalling more than a billion dollars. I spoke to Lyn McLaughlin, the mayor up there, just last week, when I was with the member for Dawson. She knows how important that is. She also knows—as does the member for Dawson—about the Bowen Road Bridge, a $3.3 million investment from the federal government at Townsville. The member for Dawson and the coalition government, the Liberals and Nationals, understand that all this will go to waste if those opposite ever get into government. The Building Better Regions Fund, the Roads of Strategic Importance, the beef roads initiative—they'll all go to waste; they'll all be dropped and stopped if ever those opposite get into government. Woe betide them if ever that happens! (Time expired) Discrimination 54 14:25 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I ask the Prime Minister again: will the Prime Minister join with Labor to ensure that teachers can't be sacked just because of who they are or who they love? 14:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook Let me read to you the explanatory memorandum to Labor's bill, circulated by the then Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, in March 2013: The Bill will extend the exemption at section 38 of the SDA— the Sexual Discrimination Act— so that otherwise discriminatory conduct on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity will not be prohibited for educational institutions established for religious purpose. Consequently, the Bill will not alter the right to freedom of thought— and it goes on. He said in his second reading speech: The bill also amends existing exemptions as appropriate to reflect the new grounds. This includes exemptions for religious bodies in relation to employment and the provision of education that have been in place for many years. I said, in answer to my earlier question, that the issues raised will be addressed through the process of our response to the Ruddock review, and this fortnight I have asked to work together with the Leader of the Opposition to provide the certainty for children and families. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition and those members opposite that we don't take kindly to being lectured on these issues when you created the laws which created the discrimination. The SPEAKER 00APG Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer? Mr Morrison interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. The Manager of Opposition Business? Mr Burke DYW I'd ask the Prime Minister to table a copy of the Ruddock report that he referred to in his answer. The SPEAKER 00APG No, the Prime Minister, as the Manager of Opposition Business well knows, did not quote from it. He merely referred to it. The point of order doesn't allow members to ask for documents to be tabled just merely because they've been referred to. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr Morrison interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG If the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister would just pause—the member for Indi is seeking the call. The member for Indi has the call. Immigration Detention 55 14:28 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, my electorate of Indi expects our government to show compassion, mercy and justice. There have been claims and counterclaims about the welfare of children in immigration detention on Nauru—reports of children withdrawing, refusing to eat and unable to communicate. We have responsibility for the welfare of these children. We put them there. Prime Minister, what would it take to act with compassion, mercy and justice, to accept the resettlement offer from New Zealand and have these children and their families off Nauru by Christmas? 14:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Indi for her question. My electorate expects our government to show compassion, mercy and justice. I believe every electorate, every constituency, in this country expects that. And I must say, as a shadow minister who was responsible for immigration and border protection, while I watched the carnage that happened under the previous government, as people died, as immigration detention centres were opened that we'd closed, they expected us, as a government, to act with compassion. And we did, and we stopped the boats. That's what we did. And now we are dealing with the legacy of Labor's failure. Opposition members interjecting — Mr MORRISON E3L I notice they get very agitated when I talk about this issue. That's what happens when you stare failure in the face, which is your record on immigration and border protection as an opposition today and when you were in government. To the very serious issues that the member for Indi asked about, there are 65 health professionals contracted by the Australian government to provide health services on Nauru, and that includes 33 mental health professionals. There is one healthcare professional to every 11 transferees on Nauru. Decisions about medical transfers are made on a case-by-case basis, and quite a number of those have been made in recent times. Ms Keay interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Braddon is warned. Mr MORRISON E3L Four hundred and eighteen people have been resettled from Manus and Nauru to the United States, and I should note that, as you would also know, Mr Speaker, and as we have discussed, transferees are not— Honourable members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I'll come to the issue you've raised, but transferees are not in detention on Nauru. They are living freely in the community, as Nauruans are. You ask a question about New Zealand. The advice to government I have from our agencies—I've seen this advice and I've quizzed our officials on this advice—is that people smugglers are marketing New Zealand as a destination, as a back door to Australia. You asked me what would need to happen. We've introduced legislation into this place to prevent that backdoor movement of people from New Zealand into Australia. That legislation is not supported by those opposite, and we would ask them to consider that. The legislation has been sitting on the Senate Notice Paper, up in the other place, since 2016. It passed this chamber. It did not pass this chamber with the support of the Labor Party or the crossbench. But, until that back door is shut, these issues only run the risk of inviting more people to risk their lives at sea and of us having to stop the boats. We're not going to start them again; only the Labor Party will do that. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 56 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:31 The SPEAKER 00APG I inform the House that joining us in the gallery this afternoon is Mr Marcelino Gonzalez, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Republic of Cuba. He is accompanied by His Excellency Mr Jose Galego, Ambassador of Cuba. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you. Honourable members: Hear, hear! The SPEAKER 00APG I also inform the House that joining us in the gallery this afternoon is the Hon. Selena Uibo, the Northern Territory Minister for Education and Minister for Workforce Training. On behalf of the House, I extend a warm welcome to you as well. Honourable members: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 56 14:32 Mr EVANS 61378 Brisbane My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how our government is delivering strong economic growth for all Australians, including in my electorate of Brisbane? What are the risks, and what's at stake if our plan to lower taxes, particularly for small and family businesses, is not observed? 14:33 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I thank the member for Brisbane for his question, knowing that he has supported our efforts to provide legislated tax relief for 32,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in his electorate. That is a result of our policy. He knows, and the people of Brisbane know, that our economic plan is working. It is an economic plan that has created more than one million new jobs—around a thousand jobs a day; an economic plan that has delivered economic growth at 3.4 per cent through the year, at the fastest rate since the height of the mining boom and higher than any G7 country; an economic plan that has delivered the smallest budget deficit in a decade and put us on track to come back to balance a year earlier, in 2019-20; and an economic plan that has seen Australia rewarded with a AAA credit rating from the three leading agencies. On the weekend, I was in Indonesia for a meeting of G20 treasurers, the IMF and the World Bank, and Australia was lauded for its economic performance. The Secretary-General of the OECD praised Australia's strong economic growth and our sound macroeconomic policies. Now, we're not complacent. We know the Australian economy doesn't run on autopilot and that the biggest threat to the Australian economy comes from those who are sitting opposite, because they have $200 billion of new taxes—taxes on your income, taxes on your savings, taxes on your property, taxes on your business, higher taxes on your electricity. But most punishing of all is the retirees' tax, because not only is it bad economic policy; it's philosophically flawed, punishing those who take responsibility for their own retirement. It is going to impact on 900,000 individuals, 200,000 self-managed super funds and 2,000 super funds, and the perverse income will see fewer people invest in Australian stocks, in Australian companies. It will see more people go on the pension and, of course, it will see higher income earners rewarded with their franking credits, but not low-income earners. Only the coalition will continue to grow the economy, only the coalition will continue to deliver jobs, and the Labor Party will continue to increase everyone's taxes. Religious Freedom Review 56 14:36 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs My question is to the Prime Minister. Given members of the Prime Minister's government are already leaking large parts of the secret Ruddock review into religious freedoms which the government has had for five months, why won't the Prime Minister just release it in full and announce the government's response so the Australian people, including voters in Wentworth, can read the whole report and know what the government is planning to do? What is the Prime Minister hiding? 14:36 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The answer to the question is: nothing. As I said, the Ruddock review will be released with the government's response, and I think that is the appropriate way for the full report and the response to be considered together, so Australians can have a very clear understanding about what is being proposed. The government has been addressing, particularly over the last seven weeks, a range of other priorities, which have included addressing the drought, the royal commission into aged care and ensuring that we bring forward cuts in taxes for small and family businesses. On the weekend, we announced $51.8 million extra for headspace. We've announced another 30 MRI and other licences to ensure that hospitals can have and provide the services and support to Australians. We've been very focused on these priorities; it is true. I first saw this report not long after I became Prime Minister, and the other matters which I've identified to the House have been my priorities. Once we've been able to address those priorities, we'll be taking a government response through the normal cabinet process and, when we have concluded that, we will release this report and seek to have a mature discussion with this chamber, the other chamber and the Australian people about protecting the religious freedoms which millions of Australians hold dear. We won't be bullied into it by the Labor Party. We will simply hope, because I'm quite sure that their constituents would also want to address this very important issue of religious freedom in a sober and mature way—not try to play politics and pointscore on it this fortnight. Small Business 57 14:38 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe My question is to the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government is delivering for small and family businesses? What are the risks? And what is at stake for small businesses from a different approach? 14:38 Ms O'DWYER LKU Higgins I thank the member for La Trobe for his question and I want to congratulate him on the incredible work he's doing on behalf of the more than 16,000 small businesses in his electorate of La Trobe. I had the great privilege of being able to be with him only last week to meet a very entrepreneurial young couple, Sophie and her husband, David, who set about creating their own business, the Five Sparrows cafe in Berwick. This is a business that they have had to sacrifice for, borrow money for and, of course, work incredibly hard for, creating their own employment opportunity and an employment opportunity for around 16 fellow Australians, and that's not to mention all of the small and medium sized businesses that, in fact, supply their business. Sophie and David's story is the story of so many entrepreneurial Australians. On this side of the chamber we are proud to be able to back small, medium- and family-sized enterprises right across our nation, because we know that they play a critical role not only in providing the goods and services that their communities want and expect but also in providing the millions of jobs that Australians rely on—more than seven million jobs at last count. We're proud to be able to bring forward a tax cut for small, medium- and family-sized enterprises—it will apply to around three million businesses—because of our strong economic plan and our longstanding commitment to lower taxes on this side of the chamber. We know that small- and medium-sized enterprises are the engine room of the economy and the creators of employment. They can continue to create jobs when they have certainty and they can continue to keep their costs down. Of course, those opposite have got a very different plan. They would see small and family-sized enterprises around the country face more of what they absolutely do not like: higher bills. They would be slugged with higher electricity bills. They would be stuck with footing the bill for union sweetheart deals and for the damage that militant unions would cause to productivity right across the country, sending industrial relations back to the Dark Ages. Make no mistake: under Labor, they will face higher electricity bills because all we will see from those opposite is higher bills—bills that drain motivation, bills that sap productivity and bills that have a nasty habit of blowing a hole in the budget. Schools 57 14:42 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Prime Minister. Last time the parliament sat, the Prime Minister guaranteed that all school funding deals would be agreed with the states by 4 October, the date of the scheduled COAG meeting which the Prime Minister cancelled. Is the reason not a single state has signed a school funding deal for next year that this Prime Minister refuses to reverse his $14 billion cut to public schools? 14:42 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook No. Trade 58 14:42 Mr CREWTHER 248969 Dunkley My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry, representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Will the minister update the House on how the government's ambitious trade agenda is supporting Australian exporters? What are the risks and what is at stake for Australian exporters if this partnership is not honoured? 14:42 Mr CIOBO 00AN0 Moncrieff I thank the member for Dunkley for his question. Like everyone on this side of the chamber, he is another strong advocate and passionate advocate for the benefits that flow to Australia's small and medium enterprises as a consequence of the most ambitious trade agenda in Australia's history. The Liberal and National government have a strong track record of delivering market-opening trade deals for Australia's small and medium-sized enterprises. We did it under Minister Robb, we did it under my ministership and we are doing it now under Senator Simon Birmingham. All of this is geared towards making sure that we open up market export opportunities for Australia's small to medium-sized enterprises, because we know that that's critical for driving economic growth and for driving jobs. The record of delivery of the coalition includes opening up export market deals in China, Japan, Korea and Singapore; the work that we've done now to conclude Indonesia; the work we've done with Peru; and the new opportunities that will be opening shortly with the European Union and with the UK. All of this is centred on making sure that the primary goal of this government of driving a strong Australian economy and creating jobs for Australians is delivered upon. We will continue to do that. We will continue to do it because we know that in order to keep the Australian economy strong, in order to ensure that Australians have the best chance of getting a job, and in order to make sure that there is more opportunity for Australian businesses to get out there and employ more Australians, we must open these market opportunities for Australian SMEs. Our track order record, as I said, is very strong. I want to put some contrasts though. One of the biggest deals that this government was able to put in place was the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or the TPP-11. We pursued that when the Australian Labor Party said it was a vanity project and that the Liberal-National government should walk away. This is the problem with Labor. Labor's policy approach when it comes to trade is to get the big trade calls wrong. They get them wrong consistently. We saw it on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and we see it now on the TPP-11. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party are very divided when it comes to trade policy. Half of the Australian Labor Party claim they are acting in the interests of Australian workers and turning their backs on Australia's small to medium-sized enterprises, and there are other businesses who are actually recognising that, for us to do this deal, we've got to have the Australian Labor Party on board. We need the Australian Labor Party to stay firm, to hold the course, to remain on the side of Australian small businesses, so that they can have certainty that Labor will not squib it when it comes to trade deals— (Time expired) Education Funding 58 14:46 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has finally admitted that he was wrong to cut funding from Catholic and independent schools. Why won't the Prime Minister also admit he was wrong to cut $14 billion from public schools? Why won't the Prime Minister join with Labor to reverse his cuts to public schools so that every child can get the best start in life no matter which school they go to? 14:46 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I would like to thank the member for her question, because it gives me the opportunity to let the House know that the government is providing record levels of funding to schools, and that is growing every year. Commonwealth funding for state schools was $6.8 billion last year. It will be $7.3 billion this year, it will be $7.9 billion next year and it will be $8.6 billion the year after that. From 2017 to 2027, Commonwealth funding to state schools will grow by 86 per cent. According to the Productivity Commission, since 2006, on a per-student basis, Commonwealth funding to state schools has increased by 78.5 per cent. Drought 58 14:47 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker My question is to the Prime Minister. What further action has the government taken to support farmers and regional communities and businesses in the grip of drought? Prime Minister, what are the risks and what is at stake if the government cannot support our entire country because of a slowing economy or poor budget management? 14:48 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Barker for his question. I was pleased to be out at Murray Bridge with him just on the weekend, visiting with a wonderful small family business producing tomatoes with hydroponics. They have been making a huge investment in their future and for their family's future. We are all about small family businesses, so to be able to back them in with lower taxes, the instant asset write-off and all of the other taxation based support that enables those businesses get in and make investments to provide for their future and employ Australians, I think, is a tremendous credit to them. The National Drought Summit will be held on 26 October, bringing together people from all around the country to ensure that we better coordinate efforts—including the special envoy, including the ministers—and to ensure we are properly coordinating our response, including the situation update and program update that will be provided by Major General Stephen Day, the Coordinator-General for Drought. The government has already provided $1.8 billion in additional support to drought-affected farmers and communities. Importantly, that includes the announcement we made which gives a million dollars to every single drought-affected council and shire across the country, ensuring that those towns are able to work their way through the drought. Opposition members interjecting— Mr MORRISON E3L I hear the heckles of those opposite. I don't know why they're opposed to us supporting councils with additional funds so they can employ people locally and keep the money in the town, but that's our policy. I was also asked about other things we're doing to support the work that is being done by farmers to get the fruit off the vine as we go into the harvest season. We said there are three things we are going to do. First of all we want the agricultural producers to log their job requirements with the official service which registers this, which is, of course, the National Harvest Labour Information Service—1800062332. You can do it online as well. We need to know where the jobs are, when they start and how much they pay so we can get Australians into those jobs. If Australians won't do those jobs then they'll be in breach of their social security requirements. Australians should not be collecting the dole when there is work available for them on farms in Australia. Where there are shortages we will make sure that the Pacific Labour Scheme and the Seasonal Worker Program, with our Pacific island partners, fill the gap. On top of that, for the next harvest the backpacker visa arrangements will be modified to ensure we can fill that gap. We have a plan to ensure we get the fruit off the vine during the harvest. The Labor Party wants people to turn up and pick up the dole even when they're not working and there's work available. Schools 59 14:51 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the member for Bowman that his government is 'yet to provide a compelling alternative' to Labor's plan to invest $14 billion in public schools, a policy that would mean every child can get the best start in life? 14:51 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook As the Minister for Education just explained, we're investing almost $30 billion extra in education in state schools. We're investing in non-state schools, in independent schools, in Catholic schools. We're investing, at record levels, in education in schools all around the country, because we're running a strong economy and we're running a strong budget. The Labor Party can make all the pie-in-the-sky promises they like, but the Australian people know that they can't trust this Leader of the Australian Labor Party to run a budget or run the economy. If you can't run an economy and if you can't run a budget, which the Labor Party showed last time they were in office, then you can't keep your promises when it comes to funding schools. Our government will continue to provide parents with the choice that they deserve and students with the education that they deserve, and we will continue to fund all schools at record levels. The Labor Party will continue to lie about these things. We'll continue to fund these things. Defence Procurement 59 14:52 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on how the government is ensuring Australia's national security by increasing defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product? What are the risks and what is at stake for Australia's national security if this program isn't delivered in full? 14:53 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. I believe today might be his 50th birthday, so congratulations to the member for North Sydney. It is critically important that we fund the government's build-up of our military capability in full and into the future. Several years ago we made the decision that we would fund a build-up of our military capability, the largest in our peacetime history, costing, from this year, $200 billion over the next 10 years and taking the spending on defence to two per cent of gross domestic product by 2020, a year earlier than we had initially promised. That's why we put in place the structure to give people certainty, whether they be foreign governments, state and territory governments, the defence industry, or the Australian government through the ADF and the Department of Defence. We set in place the structure through a white paper, through the integrated investment plan, through the Naval Shipbuilding Plan, through the Defence Export Strategy and through the Defence Industrial Capability Plan so that everyone knows how we are building up our military by $200 billion over the next 10 years. It gives us the security we need to be a good ally to the United States, to have the capability to influence our region and to be the regional security power in terms of, for example, submarines—to have regionally superior submarines. We decided to use it as well to drive high-technology jobs, manufacturing jobs, throughout our economy. It is working. It is working very well. But we can only do it because we have budgetary management under control— Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Eden-Monaro is now warned. Mr PYNE 9V5 under the Treasurer, and before him the Prime Minister, because we have a growing economy that gives us the financial capability and heft to invest that $200 billion to reach two per cent of GDP. It was a very, very different story under the previous Labor government. In the previous Labor government, from 2007 to 2013— Dr Mike Kelly interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Eden-Monaro has been warned. Mr PYNE 9V5 the Labor Party used defence as a piggy bank, to take money from defence and to use it for other priorities in the government. Did you know that spending under Labor on defence dropped to the lowest levels since 1938, the last year of appeasement before the Second World War? It was 1.56 per cent of GDP, in comparison to the two per cent that we will be spending by 2020. But we can do it because we have a growing economy, because we have strong budgetary management and because we have a plan to deliver that military capability and the jobs that it entails. Education 60 14:56 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon My question is to the Treasurer. Earlier this month the Minister for Education claimed, 'The government has guaranteed preschool funding.' But page 32 of Budget Paper No. 3 shows there is no funding for preschools after next year. Will the Treasurer guarantee four years of funding for preschool for every four-year-old in this year's midyear financial update? 14:56 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong It's a bit like how the member for Lilley, when he got up at this despatch box, said, 'I guarantee four years of surpluses tonight.' I remember that. The answer, as you know, is that we have guaranteed funding for early childhood to 2019. You know that. You also know that we continue to have a discussion with the states and territories. You also know that when the Leader of the Opposition got up and announced his early childhood spending proposals, he was expecting the states to do all of the heavy lifting but he hadn't even got their agreement. He didn't even ask them. One thing I can confirm to this House is that, when we put more money into our schools, when we put more money into our universities and early childhood, when we put more money into the pockets of Australians, we fund it. We fund it because we've improved the health of the budget. We inherited growth in spending going at about four per cent per annum. We have halved it to the lowest level in 50 years. We inherited $210 billion worth of debt. We are bringing the budget back into balance. Only we will deliver better educational outcomes. Crime 60 14:58 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on steps the government is taking to protect Australian families from transnational and organised crime? What are the risks, and what is at stake if our approach to transnational crime is diluted? 14:58 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the honourable member for Petrie for his question. Like all Australians, he and all of us in this place are worried about the cost of transnational crime. We're worried that that figure is now estimated at $47 billion. The sorts of things that we are talking about are when our parents or senior Australians might go online and have their savings ripped off, or they might be exposed to some sort of syndicate that is targeting vulnerable people who might give over passwords or bank account details. We are worried about the exploitation of children, particularly in relation to Australians moving offshore or travelling offshore to exploit children in South-East Asia, but also paedophiles and their activities and networks in our country as well. We are also worried about the distribution of drugs such as ice, particularly in regional communities where ice has infiltrated its way into many families and destroyed countless families across the country. It takes investment and determination from a government to make sure that we are on the side of Australians when it comes to these very important issues. We have provided record funding not only to the Australian Federal Police but to the other agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio, including ACIC, ASIO, AUSTRAC and other organisations within this department. In addition to that, I've cancelled the visas now of almost 4,000 criminals in our country who have been involved in the sorts of criminal activities I've just detailed, destroying the lives of families, and involved in the distribution of drugs, with outlaw motorcycle gang members among them. The Labor Party would have you believe that they stand for this too and that they would behave in the way that we have in relation to these decisions if they were in government. But nothing is further from the truth, because we know that when they were last in government, for instance, they took $128 million from the AFP between the 2010-11 and 2013-14 financial years; $30 million and 88 staff from the Australian Crime Commission between 2007-08 and 2013-14; $27 million and 56 staff from AUSTRAC between 2009-10 and 2013-14; and $735 million and 700 staff from customs, resulting in a 25 per cent reduction in sea cargo screening and a 75 per cent reduction in air cargo screening. They did this because they ran out of money. They can't talk about education funding, they can't talk about border protection and they can't talk about dealing with transnational crime because they can't afford to pay for it. They can promise whatever they like, as they always do in opposition, but we know that when Labor get into government they can never deliver on it. Agriculture Industry 61 15:01 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter My question is to the Prime Minister. On Saturday, the Prime Minister confirmed the agriculture worker visa is dead. But today the former Leader of the Nationals said of the same visa: There's no such thing as dead in politics. Prime Minister, is the visa dead, or is the former Leader of the Nationals—or, indeed, the leadership hopeful—correct when he says there is no such thing as dead in politics? 15:02 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The member for Hunter does a pretty good impersonation of the walking dead in politics! He's been languishing over there for I don't know how long. He's tougher than he looks! The seriousness of the question goes to this issue: the challenge facing Australia at the moment, as we go into the harvest season, is to ensure that we have the workers on the farms and in the orchards—whether it is in hydroponic or horticultural areas or wherever it needs to be—to work with the farm producers to ensure we get the fruit off the vine, we can get it produced and we can get it to market or we can get it offshore. That is the challenge that the government is currently facing. That is the challenge that the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources has brought to the government, working together with colleagues across the cabinet. The plan that I outlined on the weekend was fairly straightforward: advise where the jobs are, when they're available, what they're being paid and for how long they're there. That is a very important piece of information, because what we don't want to see, and I would hope the Labor Party wouldn't want to see, is foreign workers or others being exploited on farms through cash payments or illegal working arrangements. I'm sure the Labor Party would not want to support those sorts of arrangements. I'm sure they would want to support a proper process where we can work out where the need for farm labourers is. Where there is a job in Australia, our view is that an Australian should do that job where an Australian is available and fit and ready to do that job. Where an Australian is fit and ready to do that job and they receive an offer to do that job and they walk away, they shouldn't be getting the dole. That's what we think. Where there are genuine shortages in particular areas, on particular farms, we will ensure that we match those jobs up with other workers who can come through the Working Holiday Maker visa program, the Seasonal Worker Program or the Pacific islands labour program, and we will meet that need. With longer term issues around the types of visas which the member has referred to, absolutely: the government has made no decision about not having such a visa in the future. What we need to do right now is ensure that we get those workers onto the farms to ensure that the farmers have the workers that they need. But Australian jobs should go to Australian workers first, and we need to ensure that all those who are working on farms have the appropriate protections and are paid properly and that we're not having illegal workers working on our farms in Australia. Mental Health 61 15:05 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the government is supporting the mental health of young Australians, including many in my electorate of Boothby, through headspace centres? How do running a strong economy and sound budget management ensure that these measures are not placed at risk? 15:05 Mr HUNT 00AMV Flinders I want to thank the member for Boothby, in particular for her advocacy for endometriosis, along with many members of this House, and as well as that for her support for youth mental health and for headspace. She's been accompanied by people on all sides—the member for Chisholm and the member for Franklin. In my first conversation with Dave Sharma, he raised headspace and youth mental health. But this is something which is supported by people on all sides. As she says, it is critical that we have a strong economy in order to deliver these services, which is how we've been able to deliver a $5 billion increase in Medicare funding this year and a $30 billion increase in funding for hospitals and, of course, continue to list new medicines. One of the absolutely critical things that we've been able to do, though, is to support more funding for headspace. Only yesterday, the Prime Minister joined with the member for Boothby and the Leader of the House, who played such an important role in the establishment of headspace, in announcing an additional $51.8 million for headspace services. We know that in any year one in four young Australians will face a mental health challenge, and that means that this issue is of critical importance to every member of this House and to every young Australian. All of us, in our electorates, in our friendship groups and in our family groups, have had to deal with the challenges of youth mental health. Yesterday's funding extends, for the 107 headspace centres around the country, that funding by $39 million. It means an additional 14,000 services a year, 56,000 services over the course of four years. It also provides additional capital for upgrading those facilities. As well as that, it also includes $12.8 million for eheadspace services, which means that young people, when it's the dark of the night and the moment of crisis is with them, are able to seek that help and are able to get that help which can make the difference between tragedy and having a pathway forward. That is why, shortly after I came into the role of health minister, I went with Pat McGorry to Grafton, where there had been a suicide cluster. We saw the need. The member for Page set out the importance of a new headspace service for Grafton, which we've been able to deliver and which I understand has had real impact in helping that local community. These things matter. They can literally be the difference between whether a young person is able to go forward or faces that moment of crisis, so this announcement is about saving lives and protecting lives. Agriculture Industry 62 15:08 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the National Farmers Federation said on Saturday: Industry has been calling for a dedicated Agricultural Visa for over 12 months now. We have been talking to the Government … Evidently they have not been listening. Has the Deputy Prime Minister raised any concerns with you, Prime Minister, about the government's failure to deliver this visa? 15:09 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I'll repeat it again— Mr Christensen interjecting— The SPEAKER 00APG The member for Dawson will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call. Mr MORRISON E3L Our government believes that Australian jobs should go to Australians first. That's what we believe. And we believe that, where jobs are available in rural and regional areas, we must do everything we possibly can to put Australians in those jobs. Where Australians who are on welfare refuse to take those jobs, then we do not believe they should be continuing to access welfare payments, when they are ready and fit and able to do that work. As I just said in response to the previous question, where there is a defined shortage of labour, particularly for the upcoming harvest, we'll be addressing that need with our visa program to ensure that the working holiday-maker visa scheme, the Pacific Labour Scheme and the seasonal worker scheme will be tailored to meet those shortages. And we're very keen for the agricultural sector to work with us very specifically, and we have asked the national farmers and others to assist us in this task, to identify where those shortages are and we will work together to address those shortages. In the longer term, the visa arrangements that are proposed are ones that will be considered by the government but, in the short term, we need to ensure we get the fruit off the vine and that is what we're acting to do right now. Education 62 15:10 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister update the House on how the government is providing record funding to government, Catholic and independent schools, including in my electorate of Berowra? What are the risks and what is at stake if this commitment to providing choice in education is put at risk? 15:10 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon I'd like to thank the member for his question because he knows how important education is to his electorate. He also knows that the government is providing record funding for state schools, record funding for Catholic schools and record funding for independent schools. As a matter of fact, the government is providing a record $309.6 billion investment in recurrent funding to all Australian schools from 2018 to 2029. The government's spending is growing fastest for state schools, at 6.3 per cent per student each year from 2019 to 2023, compared to per student growth of 5.1 per cent for the nongovernment sector. Importantly, this is real needs based funding. It will mean students that need the most support will get the most support. Our focus on this side of the chamber is now turning to results, to outcomes. Money is only the means for us to achieve our goal, and our goal is for every Australian child to have an education that teaches them deep subject knowledge, essential literacy and numeracy skills and gives them the ability to achieve their potential. That is why our government is working with state and territory governments to deliver the reforms that will improve education outcomes. At the recent education council it was agreed to progress the National School Reform Agreement. This will deliver reforms in areas where national collaboration will have the greatest impact and builds on the current national reforms. This includes the creation of a unique student identifier that will allow students, parents and teachers to view lifelong progress in education. This reform will provide an incredible resource for the whole education sector to identify problems and opportunities. Learning progressions will provide support for teachers to teach the curriculum in a way that best suits individual students. Every child will get a year's worth of learning for every year in education. I'm asked: what are the risks to this approach? We all know what the risk to this approach is. It is $200 billion in taxes that those opposite want to put on the Australian economy, which will strangle the Australian economy, which will strangle jobs growth, which will strangle receipts into the Treasury and which will mean that those opposite will not be able to afford to pay for the education that our students so desperately need. Mr Morrison E3L I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 63 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE Invictus Games 63 15:14 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook On indulgence, can I issue, on behalf of all of the House, a very warm welcome to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It's tremendous to have Prince Harry and Meghan here. We hope they have a very pleasant stay in Australia and we also commend them on the reason for why they are here and that is for the Invictus Games. We welcome all of those athletes coming to the Invictus Games. I'm sure they will have an absolutely tremendous time here in Australia. I want to particularly commend Prince Harry for his tremendous initiative in lifting the spirits of every single service man and woman all around the globe. 15:14 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming our visitors. I should also acknowledge, in particular, the Invictus Games. The Invictus Games are a marvellous development and Prince Harry should be congratulated. Our Australian team will be competing. They will do very well and their stories of effort and struggle are completely outstanding. They make us all a bit more proud to be Australian. Congratulations. Honourable members: Hear, hear! DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Department of Parliamentary Services, Parliamentary Budget Office 63 Presentation 63 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, I present the annual reports for 2017-18 of the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Budget Office. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 64 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 7 of 2018-19, Report No. 8 of 2018-19, Report No. 9 of 2018-19 64 15:15 The SPEAKER 00APG I present the Auditor-General's performance audit reports Nos 7 to 9 for 2018-19. Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Presentation 64 15:15 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 64 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 64 15:15 Mr CHESTER IPZ Gippsland I move: That leave of absence for the remainder of the current period of sittings be given to Mrs Sudmalis on the ground of public business overseas. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Committee 64 Membership 64 15:16 The SPEAKER 00APG I have received a message from the Senate informing the House that Senator Steele-John has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that Senator Waters has been appointed a member of the committee. BILLS 64 BILLS Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 64 Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 64

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

Second Reading 64 15:17 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's indeed a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about what I'm sure all of us acknowledge is an extraordinarily important topic, and that is the topic of the quality of care that the elderly in our community receive on a day-to-day basis. The bills that we're debating today are designed to deal with some of these very important issues. They impact directly on the quality of care and the dignity of life of older Australians in residential aged care. We saw, over the past few weeks, the announcement of the royal commission into the aged-care sector. This royal commission will look into the quality of care provided in residential and home aged care for senior Australians, but importantly it will also include young Australians with disability living in residential aged-care settings. We've all in this place seen the many stories on Four Corners, but also, I'm sure, we've received stories and representations in our various offices about the quality of care provided in residential aged care around our electorates. As a community, we rightly expect high standards of quality, care and safety for those in residential aged care and also in home aged-care situations. Our government shares those expectations, and that is the purpose for the royal commission, because it will be about proactively determining what we need to do in the future to ensure those expectations are met. Sadly, evidence to date has shown that problems are not restricted to any one part of the aged-care sector, whether it's the for-profit or not-for-profit sector, large or small facilities, or regional or major metropolitan facilities. The royal commission will look at the sector as a whole, without bias or prejudice, and it will make findings on evidence. Then, as a government and as a parliament, it will be our job to act on those findings to ensure that the care provided to older Australians is at the level that we would expect as a civilised society. Whether you're a senior Australian contemplating entering an aged-care facility or are already a resident in such a facility, this bill in the House today is designed to be of benefit to you. If you're one of the many Australians with a parent, grandparent or other relative who is resident in or contemplating entering an aged-care facility or is an operator of or an employee in an aged-care facility, this bill is designed to benefit you. In 2017, around one in seven Australians were aged 65 and over. We know from the statistics that growth in the number of people in aged care over 65 will occur very rapidly over the years to 2031. It will be roughly twice as fast as the total population growth. In fact, this group has grown in size over that period by 85 per cent, from a bit over three million to nearly 5.7 million people. The highest growth, however, will be in the 75-and-over age group, which is projected to more than double in size to over 2.8 million. These large increases are a result of a variety of factors, including the ageing of the baby boomer group, the decreasing of mortality rates, and the increasing life span. It's also worth noting that since World War II the average life span in Australia has increased in males by 12½ years and in women by 13 years. Of course, as the number of older Australians in our population increases, so does the number of Australians utilising aged-care services and facilities. We are seeing that the range of medical conditions faced by these people is becoming more difficult and increasing the level of care required, particularly for those with conditions such as dementia. This government is fully committed to ensuring Australians in the aged-care system are better cared for, and this bill is an important part of ensuring this. These Australians who have given their lives to building this country deserve to get the quality care that should be expected in a country like Australia. At the heart of our aged-care system, ultimately, these are people and their lives that we are looking after—senior Australians seeking to live out their lives with dignity in environments where they know they are safe and will be cared for with compassion and professionalism, in places where their quality of life is enhanced and, perhaps most importantly, in places they and their families can trust to deliver the high standards of care that every single senior Australian deserves. One of the reasons many Australians go into care is that their families can no longer take care of them themselves. It's for a wide variety of reasons, whether it's busyness with work or family lives—as many of us know, that's the case for many people today—or the fact that families may be living far away from where their parents are living today. This is a way that they can ensure their parents are properly looked after. Other reasons are matters of personal security and safety because they can't look after themselves properly at home anymore. Thankfully, there are many terrific community groups that do seek to help elderly Australians remain in their homes longer, by doing such things as little maintenance jobs around the house like mowing their yards. But ultimately that is not enough to meet their needs; hence the need to move into aged care. This is why we're committed to ensuring that families can rest easy knowing the right standards of quality and professionalism are maintained across the system. This bill gives effect, from 1 January 2019, to the government's announcement in the 2018-19 budget on establishing the new commission. This reform is part of a two-year agenda to strengthen and enhance aged-care regulation in order to protect and assure the quality of care provided to aged-care consumers. The commission's objectives are to protect and enhance the safety, health, wellbeing and quality of the lives of aged-care consumers, to promote confidence and trust in the provision of aged care and to promote engagement with aged-care consumers on the quality of care and services. In the budget, the government announced its response to the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review. Establishing the independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission was the first of the recommendations. The commission will consolidate the regulatory functions currently split across three aged-care regulators in order to improve clarity, regulatory accountability for providers and their staff, and certain rights and responsibilities for aged-care consumers and their families. The bill to establish the commission represents the first stage of a two-stage process of reform. The commission, from 1 January 2019, subsumes the existing functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. It's disappointing, in some respects, that we seem regularly in this place to have to legislate for entities and organisations in our communities to do the right thing by their fellow Australians. Be that as it may, when we do identify these issues it is our responsibility to put in place legislation and regulation to deal with the shortcomings we are seeing in our community. I commend the government for its work in this space and for its ongoing work to ensure that we provide the safety, security and level of care necessary for older Australians, who have contributed so much over the years to our community. The work we're doing both with this legislation and with the royal commission will go a long way, I hope, to dealing with the issues that we have seen articulated in the public arena. I commend the bill to the House. 15:27 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell As previous speakers have noted, Labor supports these bills while expressing our strong concern about the government's slow introduction of this legislation into the parliament. The purpose of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill is to establish the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from 1 January 2019. The new commission will be tasked with helping to restore confidence in aged-care services, given widespread public concern. Whilst this concern was highlighted by last month's Four Corners report, these issues, sadly, aren't a surprise to those with loved ones in aged care or seeking aged care or those working in the aged-care sector. Many older Australians who now need aged care have lived lives very different to mine and to many of us in this House. They grew up in the Great Depression, served in and lost loved ones in the Second World War or, in the case of many postwar migrants, experienced the hardships of war. They worked and raised families in the early postwar years without many of the things we take for granted today. Free universal health care didn't arrive until the 1970s, women earned less than men doing the same work and occupational superannuation was limited to a lucky few—mostly men—until the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in the 1990s, well after many of this generation had reached the end of their working lives. They just had to trust that there would be an adequate age pension and proper aged care to support them later in life. This is a generation who are reluctant to ask for help, even when they really need it, and are even more reluctant to complain when the standard of care falls short of what it should be or what we would expect. It isn't fair that, when the circumstances of day-to-day life and caring responsibilities become too much and they need help, that help isn't there, or the quality of that help or care doesn't meet what we would want for our parents, our grandparents and loved ones. The report of the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, also known as the Carnell-Paterson review, was handed to the government on 23 October last year. It had a focus on quality care. The review made 10 recommendations, one of which was to establish the independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The government has taken a long time to do the work around establishing this new commission, and it has yet to respond to a number of the other recommendations included in the Carnell-Paterson review. The new commission will provide a single point of contact for older Australians and aged-care providers in relation to the quality of care and regulation. It will be responsible for the accreditation, assessment and monitoring of Commonwealth funded and other aged-care services, and for complaints handling. Although these bills would be considered non-controversial, there are a number concerns, particularly the time it has taken the government to introduce legislation into the parliament. The Greens have referred the bills to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, with a reporting date of today. We on this side of the House hope the Greens' actions will not hold up the passage of this important legislation. These bills are a missed opportunity for government to give the new commission stronger arbitrary powers, given the widespread public concern. Labor puts the government on notice that there must be no change to the cost-recovery process and/or fee charges to ensure the ongoing support for smaller providers. Although the advisory council is set to continue, the government is yet to fill three vacancies. Given the responsibility this council has, you would've thought the government would have urgently filled these vacancies. This new agency is due to begin on 1 July 2019, so the government has much work to do to get this commission right. Given the number of times my colleagues and I have raised aged care in this House, I welcome the government's royal commission into the abuse and cover-ups in aged care, but the government can't wait for the royal commission to report. Older Australians need action now. Labor has been saying for a long time that the aged-care system is in crisis. When the Leader of the Opposition said this in the parliament in May, the government likened it to elder abuse. We are relieved that the government is now listening and has changed its mind. The quality standards and reporting system isn't working. There aren't enough aged-care workers, and they aren't given proper pay, respect or support to do the work they do helping others. Last year I received a sad letter, which goes to the heart of this matter, from a constituent, Heather, regarding the standard of care her husband, Reg, received in residential care in my electorate. Heather told me that Reg entered respite at the facility in May 2017 and passed away just 7½ weeks later. When Reg was first admitted, he was well, mobile and cheerful. He had some health problems, but they were managed. His placement was due to his dementia. Heather was finding it increasingly difficult and exhausting to look after him at home and needed a break. One morning Heather arrived at the facility to find Reg in discomfort and pain. Reg was in the same position that he'd been in when she had left him the day before. She called the ambulance herself. When they arrived to take him to hospital, the officers noted that Reg had been lying in a bed of stale urine. Upon admission to hospital, Heather was told that Reg was very sick. He had septicaemia from a stage 4 bedsore. The care and treatment Reg then received while in hospital was professional and respectful, exactly what he should've received at the facility but did not. Unfortunately, the septicaemia did not respond to antibiotics, and Reg passed away four days after admission. His death certificate stated the cause of death as sepsis from bedsores. As Heather said, this should not have happened. The royal commission needs to examine the impact of the government's years of cuts. You don't fix aged care by cutting the funding to aged care. Billions of dollars have been cut from aged care in the last five years. The now Prime Minister cut almost $2 billion in his first year as Treasurer. With three ministers in five years and billions of dollars in cuts, the government has ignored dozens of its own reports and reviews on what is needed to fix the problems we do know about in aged care. I'll now turn to home care packages. There are now 121,000 people on the home care package waiting list, including 95,000 people with high needs, many living with dementia. I have raised a number of examples of the impact of this waiting list on my constituents in this place. There are 774 people on the Central Coast in the queue, almost two-thirds of whom are waiting for high-level packages. These are people like Gladys, who requires in-home care. She applied for support through My Aged Care a year ago and was approved for a level 2 package, but she is still in the queue a year later. Her daughter Robyn works full-time and helps as much as she can, but since she has been waiting her mother has had four falls, the most recent of which fractured her wrist, further limiting her mobility. Gladys is in desperate need of extra assistance around the house and with personal care. I wrote to the minister about Gladys. I do appreciate his assistance, but his response was for the family to call My Aged Care for regular updates. She has had four falls whilst in the queue! When he suggests that people are 'entering' and 'exiting' the queue on a daily basis, sadly we know what that means. Older people are dying before they access an aged-care package. The royal commission should also look at the difficulty older Australians have—and their family members have when trying to assist them—in navigating My Aged Care. It's complex and it's difficult, and for someone in crisis it can sometimes just be too hard. Patricia, from my electorate, entered residential aged care in September last year. It was a crisis, as many of these admissions are. She had been living at home with a family member whose own health problems had become overwhelming, and they could no longer care for her, despite wanting to. Unfortunately, the original income-and-asset summary provided to the aged-care facility by the Department of Human Services incorrectly included the house as an asset, but this was later changed to exempt the home for two years on account of her family member, a disability pensioner, living in the home. What followed was an administrative nightmare. Because the original assessment cannot be re-issued, the aged-care facility charged an accommodation levy that should not apply, and Patricia's life savings were taken in fees—incorrectly taken in fees. Her daughter has faced nearly a year of fighting the facility and the department to have the error fixed. Even with the assistance of my office, nearly five months passed before the issue was resolved, and again I'm grateful to the minister for the assistance of his office in this case. No-one really wants to put their loved one into residential care, and families like Patricia's need support in order to do so. They don't need months and years of distress because the system is broken and doesn't work. We can't call ourselves a fair and generous country until older Australians have the love, care and respect they deserve. As a pharmacist who worked at Wyong Hospital in my electorate for almost a decade, I'm a proud member of the Health Services Union, and I strongly support their Our Turn to Care campaign for better conditions for aged-care workers and the people that they care for. As part of the campaign, the HSU surveyed over 300 of its members. The survey showed that the No. 1 concern of workers, above remuneration, is short-staffing. They said: You've normally got two staff to 35 people including those with chronic needs and palliative care. You're pushed with work, you can't fulfil all your duties in the 7.5 hours. It's not fair on the workers [or] the residents. These are common concerns. These were concerns expressed when I held an aged-care roundtable with Labor's Medicare taskforce, with Dr Mike Freelander and Sharon Claydon, the member for Newcastle. One of the things that particularly struck me and stayed with me from that forum was an older person who was at the roundtable, representing people who were members of a local group for older people. She wasn't at the time looking for care herself, and nor was she seeking care for someone else. But during the roundtable she said that the stories that other people had shared had left her terrified. One thing we need to be very, very mindful of is the impact that this has on older Australians and their families and those who look after them—the fear that they have of entering aged care because of some of the stories and some of the things that have happened. I was proud to stand with my community at the rally at Central Coast Leagues Club recently on the Central Coast to call for more funding and better pay and conditions for aged-care workers. The Secretary of the HSU, Gerard Hayes, told the rally, 'We are creating an existence for older Australians, not a life.' This is just not good enough. Older Australians are at the time of their life where they need care, where they need residential care or they need respite care or they need a home care package, but the support just isn't there. In February this year, I lost my father, who had lived with younger onset dementia. I am very grateful for the care that my father received, both respite care and in-home care. There were many things that my dad and his friends experienced, and I do want to mention the YODSS group—the Younger Onset Dementia Social Support Club. A lot of people are aware of dementia, but they're not necessarily aware of younger people living with dementia. They have particular needs that must be looked at and must be properly funded. Their partners are often working people who are trying to juggle care, whether it's in-home care or respite care, whilst working. There is a particular set of circumstances and demands on families of people living with younger onset dementia. So today I do want to mention YODSS and Bev and Steve of the YODSS group on the Central Coast and the work they do to help support younger people living with dementia. We know that one of the largest groups of people waiting for higher-level packages is people living with dementia. I particularly want to say to those in my community that we on this side of the House are working as hard as we can to make sure that you get the care that you need when you need it. Carers often need help, particularly in crisis, and there is an urgency that this government doesn't seem to understand or hasn't really heard. I call on everybody in this House to work towards better-quality aged care so that people and families seeking care or in care have the confidence and assurance to know that their grandparent, their parent, their loved one is receiving the care that any of us would ask for for someone that we love and care for. 15:41 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's my privilege to be able to rise to support the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 on the basis that we all in this place care about the challenges, the vulnerability and the needs of Australians dependent on aged care. In fact, many of us will know the story and the experience of putting a loved one, in my case a grandparent, into aged care after having lived a happy and full life, sometimes beyond the life of their spouse, in their own home and then having the task of relocating them in their sunset years into the care of others. That's certainly my experience with my grandmother, who currently resides in aged care in Mount Eliza after the death of her husband many, many years ago. Now she is cared for and supported by others. I know that all members here and all Australians have similar stories and experiences. Deputy Speaker Andrews, you know, as I do, that when you entrust loved ones to the aged care system there are many issues that go through people's minds. One is obviously the care and support for person that they are seeking care for. Some of it is about the financial challenges that can come with making sure we support people in aged care. But, critically, at the forefront of everybody's consideration is always the health and safety of their loved one in aged care and the need to make sure that they are treated with dignity and respect and at the standard that we would want at least for ourselves. The task for us as legislators is how we provide a system that provides the highest degree of support, care and guarantee to Australians so that they can rely on the system to care for them. There are a lot of technicalities and legalities around how the system is designed. Some of those challenges are very serious. But at the heart of it has to be a well-regulated sector where people are held to account for their conduct should there be misdeeds or misconduct. Those who are vulnerable need to have a pathway of complaint and need to know that their concerns will be acted upon and that standards that we would wish for ourselves are set for others. This bill is part of a package of legislation seeking to address those issues. The commission brings together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner from 1 January 2019, and it will enable a clearer line of accountability and responsibility to government agencies from those who care for Australia's loved ones. It's a simple measure that is part of what this government is doing to support people in aged care and to address the shortcomings in the system. The recently announced royal commission is in recognition that some vulnerable Australians experience horrific tragedy. Yes, there have been reports from individuals through different agencies over the years. One of the bodies I used to serve on was the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which supports the Nursing and Midwifery Board, and I heard firsthand how sometimes, sadly, there was misconduct or abuse against people who were in no position to defend themselves by those who were responsible for their care. Many members in this place will have seen the, in some cases, horrific stories on recent episodes of Four Corners. Those cases do not sit in isolation. There have been cases that have been revealed before and they tell a worrying tale. That's what the royal commission is designed to address—to turn a light into those dark corners and to make sure that truths are exposed so that those who have turned a willing blind eye will be held accountable. It's part of a broader package of what this government seeks to do to make sure that Australians can have confidence in our aged-care sector. Funding for aged care is at record levels. In 2017-18 alone, aged-care spending is estimated to reach $18.6 billion, and over the next five years funding will grow by $5 billion to $23.6 billion. Some $1.6 billion has been provided to create an additional 20,000 higher needs home care packages since last December. In excess of $50 million has been provided every year for dementia-specific programs. A further $5.3 million has been committed over four years to pilot improvements to care for people living with dementia, with an emphasis on the use of innovative technologies. And that's the point. While dollars and cents do matter, and no-one's trying to pretend they don't—we can always have a discussion about what and how much and whether it should go up or down and whether we should find new ways to spend it—the outcome is what matters. The realisation and the value of the public money spent is through the improved human condition of those receiving care. One of the broader trends, as anybody in the aged-care sector will tell if you talk to them, is that the system where people would go into care for prolonged periods in their twilight years is changing. We, of course, are providing more home care packages so people can stay in their homes longer—to have the choice to do so, to get the care where they want it, to live in the community that they know and love. What's happening is that people are going into aged care later and for shorter periods of time, with much higher care needs. That creates challenges for the system, in terms of design, capital and infrastructure, based on the prolonged periods of time that people stay there. But more critically, when people go in with higher care needs, they face bigger and more unique challenges. The expansion in the need for dementia support services is a critical part of that story, because people often go in, as I said, in their sunset years, increasingly not knowing as much of the world around them, with a declining memory and with an increasing distance to their reality. Our task is to make sure that we have a system that can care for and support those people at that stage of life so that they continue to enjoy not just comfort, though that is important, not just health and safety, though they are important as well, but dignity, not only within themselves but also dignity for their families so that they can preserve the memories as best possible of the people that they love and care about. And that, ultimately, is what this legislation and this government's package of reforms are seeking to achieve. It is, of course, not the end. I'm under no doubt that the royal commission will uncover stories that will shock the nation, because what people will see, as we have seen before, is that, tragically, there are times when people are in the care and assistance of others at no greater or more vulnerable stage of their life and they are taken advantage of by those who should know better. Our task in response is to soberly and cautiously go through the evidence and the conclusions of the royal commission when it is completed. It is not simply enter into a discussion around dollars and cents and think that that will solve all problems because, as I've outlined already, while that may be important as part of the story—and it is—what will deliver the improvements for the Australian people and the aged-care sector is a sense of safety and dignity for their loved ones. More critically, what we can't allow this royal commission to do is cast a dark light, a shadow, over so much of the good work in the aged-care sector done every day because, for every one person who wrongs, there are thousands who do right. There are so many nurses, support staff and carers who every day, through sacrifice or love, turn up in community and commercial aged-care facilities and provide ongoing love and compassion to those people who need that care with the admiration of those they care for, of their families and their communities, who form a central part of the nucleus often of rural and regional communities as well. As I said earlier today, I recently went to the launch of the renovated facilities at Fairway Bayside Aged Care in Sandringham, just like I recently visited Vasey RSL Care Brighton East. These services provide the most incredible facilities for people seeking to age with dignity, support services that are highly attentive to their needs and that not only fully recognise the expectations the community has of them but also recognises the expectations of their clients and their families, and what they deliver is a service that we should be proud of. They should be held up as exemplars. While there are wrongs, there are so many rights, and the same is true of so many other facilities across Goldstein—and, I'm quite sure, across the whole of the country. Our task, as parliamentarians, and as part of the national conversation, is to celebrate their work, to thank them enduringly for what they do, and to uphold the integrity and the dignity of their profession, at the same time as scrutinising those who have not met that standard. Our task is to thank them every day for the incredible work they do to care, to love and to show compassion for this nation's most vulnerable. 15:55 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I, too, rise to add my support to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. The Carnell-Paterson review recommended bringing together the functions of the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. This was one of the 10 recommendations included in the Carnell-Paterson review. As the member for Hindmarsh—which is one of the oldest electorates in the country; I like to call it the wisest electorate in the country, because with age comes wisdom—I hear from constituents regularly who feel that they don't have a voice. They perhaps feel that they have worked all their lives, they've done everything for this nation, and now, in those twilight years towards the end, they are not getting the services that they require or that their loved ones are not receiving the services they require. So I sincerely hope that this bill will go some way to restoring the confidence of aged-care consumers and our senior citizens, in this period when they need these services. Again, right up-front, I would like to acknowledge all the men and women who work in the aged-care sector. They include the carers, nurses, doctors, staff, kitchen staff and cleaners who keep the places going—especially the carers, because this is National Carers Week, which is celebrated between 14 and 20 October. As I said, this bill is designed to provide a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to quality of care and the regulation that will be responsible for the accreditation, assessment and monitoring of, and complaints-handling for, aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care services. The commissioner will be appointed for five years. The commission will regulate all areas of aged-care services, including residential aged-care services, home care services, flexible care services, the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. About 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving some form of aged care, and that care is provided by approximately 400,000 nurses and carers. It's predicted that by 2056 the aged-care workforce will need to triple, and that takes us to around one million workers that will be required to care for and deliver services to the numbers of people—approximately 3.5 million older Australians—who will require those services. Public expenditure on aged care is expected to double as a share of the economy by 2050. Billions of dollars have been cut—as we all know, from that horror budget of 2014-15. But we know that public expenditure is expected to double as a share of the economy by 2050. The Prime Minister, the then Treasurer, cut almost $2 billion in his first year as Treasurer. You cannot take $2 billion out of an industry and not expect it to suffer. Is it any wonder that the system is in crisis? There are well over 108,000 people on the home care package waiting list, including 88,000 people with high needs, many living with dementia. As I've said in this place many times before, and as we've heard other speakers say, in the future we will judge ourselves as a nation by how we treated our elderly. We know that that figure of 108,000 blows out every quarter because there are more people going on the waiting list. A classic example of this is a particular constituent who rang me the other day. We are trying to assist him, and we have written to the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. He is looking after his aunty, an elderly woman in her mid-80s and who is on the list waiting for an aged-care package. She has been on that list for well over six months. She has now deteriorated and needs a higher-standard package, so she has to go through the assessment all over again, and there could be another six-month wait period. So she is waiting for another six months on top of the six she has been waiting for, which takes it to 12. She will deteriorate again before the package is handed to her. We're working with the minister's office to try to assist them and help them. When Philip rang me last week, he was beside himself. He wants to assist his aunty, who has no-one else to care for her and look after her. Talking about the home care packages, there's a big debate about this in terms of people wanting to stay at home. If you speak to most Australians, they wish to stay at home, and with good services and good care packages they can achieve this. Unfortunately, there is not enough to go around. There is a desperate need. The release of the March 2018 data sadly reveals there are now more than 108,000 older Australians that are waiting on that list for a home care package. Many are deteriorating while they're waiting, so the package and the care that they will receive will not be up to scratch for their needs, and they will have to be reassessed and go onto higher packages. The waiting times are completely unacceptable. The numbers that we talk about are absolutely shocking. As I said, it's 108,000 and increasing every quarter. Many of these people are waiting with high needs, and many have dementia. Approximately 88,000 people who have high needs are on the waiting list. It's now clear that the government and the minister have to do all that they can to curb that growing list and do whatever it takes to ensure that people receive the care that's required. We'll need to see a tripling of the aged-care workforce in the next 30 years to provide a high standard of living and care for this growing proportion of older Australians. Are we preparing ourselves for this? Is the government prepared? I'd say no. It's also predicted that the aged-care workforce requirements will need to increase from approximately 366,000 to around one million by 2050. Is the government prepared for this? Are we working towards this? I'd say no again. Since government dumped Labor's $1.5 billion workforce compact and supplement after the 2013 election, we on this side have consistently called for the development of a comprehensive aged-care policy. We know that this government's been here for five years since 2013, and they will have been in government for up to six years before the next election comes. We know that the aged-care crisis has grown and become worse. It's been ignored. We on this side have said that it is an absolute priority that we should fix this. The last budget failed to fix the aged-care crisis. We saw funding for 14,000 new in-home aged-care packages over four years. This is cruel and made even worse by the fact that the funding is coming from within the existing aged-care budget. Those 3½ thousand places a year aren't even enough to keep pace with demand. It feels like this government tries to plug a hole and a great big crack opens and gushes out from another place. We're not dealing with it. It's particularly worrying that the government promised older Australians it would address the waitlist when we know that it will not address the waiting list. We know that the government's promised the world to older Australians waiting on the queue for a home care package. As I said earlier, there are 108,000 people waiting, and every quarter there's another 15,000 to 20,000 going on that list. It was this side of the House that introduced the Living Longer Living Better ageing reforms in 2012. The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said in his budget reply speech that an elected Labor government will make dementia and ageing an absolute national priority. We've seen the government finally concede, after many months of discussions, media reports and newspaper articles, that a royal commission is required to deal with a crisis that has unfolded on their watch. They denied that anything was required, but now they have finally conceded. That's a good thing, and I'm happy to see that it will be based in my state of South Australia. I support the royal commission, as do all of us on this side, but after five years in government every one of those opposite must accept some responsibility for this happening and what's going on in the aged-care system. We can't call ourselves a fair and generous country until we give elderly Australians the love, care and respect that they deserve. After all, they're the ones that built this nation that we prosper in today because of their hard work and sacrifices. What do we get from this government? It's failed to rule out any further cuts to aged care. The Prime Minister was asked this question directly a couple of weeks ago and he declined to rule out cutting further funding from the care of older Australians. Australians are rightly appalled by the shocking stories that we see, the horrendous images on TV, the Four Corners programs and the crisis that exists in our nation's aged-care system, particularly the standard of care being delivered in some nursing homes. Why won't the Prime Minister rule out further cuts to this area? As Treasurer, the Prime Minister cut $1.2 billion from aged care in his first budget. You can't cut that amount of money from a particular area and think it doesn't have an affect. His $1.2 billion cut in the budget came on top of the almost $500 million he cut from aged-care funding in the 2015 MYEFO. This money went out of the aged-care budget and it didn't come back. This cut hits older Australians in residential aged-care facilities. It hits them the hardest, with a 50 per cent cut to the indexation of complex healthcare subsidies. The royal commission must examine the impact of these years of cuts. You don't fix aged care by cutting it; you fix it by funding it. To date there have been more than a dozen reviews. We've had hundreds of recommendations on this issue and they've all been ignored by the government. This isn't good enough. For all of the claims of the baby boomer budget earlier this year, the Prime Minister, then Treasurer, again cut further funding from residential aged care to try and fix the growing crisis in home care that was created by the government by cutting it to begin with. The Prime Minister and the Liberals can't be trusted to ensure older Australians get the services that they need and require. As we've heard from other speakers, the Prime Minister was the architect of those cuts, which have gutted aged care and put the sector under immense pressure. You can't rip out that amount of money, close to $2 billion, from an aged-care system over five years and not have an impact on quality. It's common sense. As I've said, as the representative for an area that has one of the highest ageing populations in the country, I've met and spoken with many constituents and people in the sector, who often complain about the tin-ear approach of the agencies and the way this policy is set up through this government. The government must explain to the Australian people how these continuous cuts to the aged-care budget have contributed to the crisis that we now face in aged care. The Prime Minister, as I said, was then the Treasurer who signed off on all those cuts to aged care in the 2016 budget; then he complains that there's a problem. Can you believe it—you cut and then you complain about it? When you make those cuts, it has devastating affects. The Prime Minister needs to tell them what he did and why he did it and come clean that he did cut aged-care funding. It's on the public record. We argued this point during the last sittings. The Prime Minister said that it was a lie to say he had cut funding to aged care. But all you have to do is look at the budget papers that were signed off by the Prime Minister when he was Treasurer. These cuts that he's denying are right there in black and white on page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2. But we all know that the infighting and the divisions that were taking place would have been their priority instead of looking at aged care and these issues at the time. It's time that the government started doing better on this critical area of policy. I've always said that we should judge ourselves as a nation by how we treat our elderly—the people who have worked hard, the people who can no longer look after themselves, the people who have brought up children, grandchildren and in some cases great-grandchildren. They have kept family units together and have done everything for Australia as workers and as contributors, and now it's our time to look after them. I think it's an absolute disgrace that we don't have confidence in our aged-care systems in place. We should do everything we can to absolutely fix this because these people deserve better. 16:10 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I represent the people of the Lyne electorate, which has one of the greatest aged demographics in the country. We have many aged-care facilities and many residents living at home relying on the aged-care home support package system. I must say that I have visited many of these nursing homes and residential aged-care facilities along the length and breadth of the Lyne electorate. From the north end around Wauchope and right down to Tea Gardens, we have many residential aged-care facilities. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the associated Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 had their genesis in the coalition government's commitment to improving the quality and safety and the standards for senior Australians who receive aged-care services, both residential and in the home care mode. It is very timely, as you know, because of recent events and the royal commission, that these bills are coming through at this time, but the genesis of this happened long before recent events appeared on TV. In fact, our royal commission into the aged-care system was initiated before any of the recent media coverage of this industry. These bills reflect the recommendations of a longstanding review of the national aged-care system's regulatory processes by Kate Carnell and Professor Ron Paterson. In summary, this legislation merges the roles and responsibilities of two organisations and puts them into a unified one-stop shop so that both providers of aged care and people who are consumers—namely, the aged people who reside in these facilities or who receive care at home and their families—will know who is controlling standards and who they are to bring up any concerns with. Currently, these roles are divided between the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency and its CEO, and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. These bills establish the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. The bills transfer the operations of the existing bodies into the new commission. They will also transfer existing members of the Aged Care Quality Advisory Council to the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. The bills also describe the appointment processes for the commission, its council members and the commissioner himself or herself, and the reporting requirements are outlined. They describe how the information can be used or disclosed and what is protected. The commission will commence operating on 1 January 2019. As I mentioned at the opening of my comments, aged care is a large part of the economy of Lyne because it is such a labour-intensive industry. During my time representing and caring for the members of the Lyne electorate, I have stressed the need to increase aged-care facilities across the nation. The mid-north coast of New South Wales has had an ageing demographic for decades longer than the rest of the country. We have a cluster of ageing people, many more than what you see in metropolitan Australia. So I have been very pleased to see a growth in aged-care funding across the Lyne electorate. When I first was given this responsibility, the aged-care combined budget was about $90 million annually. It's now up to $130 million annually. The number of aged-care beds has grown. Recurrent spending has grown. We have had increasing numbers of capital works projects that have been delivered inside the Lyne electorate. Underway at the moment there is a massive expansion at the Pacific Cape facility at Forster, with 144 new high care aged-care residential places. We've had expansion at the existing facility in Largs at the southern end. Over on the coast, at Hawks Nest and Tea Gardens, we've had an expansion at the Peter Sinclair Gardens. In the regions of Taree and Wingham, in the middle of the electorate, the Salvation Army has received an allocation of 80 new places, which will deliver a massive new facility for the Manning Valley. In Wauchope, Bundaleer Gardens, which has been in existence for decades, has received another 40 places for high care residential care. In the aged-care approvals round in the 2016-17 budget, there is an $8.5 million grant to allow this expansion. We've recently fought for and received an $8 million capital grant towards Anglicare's new modern, up-to-date nursing home and aged-care facility at Gloucester. They were struggling to get an up-to-date and appropriate aged-care facility, having the legacy of what used to be a nurses' home, adjacent to the hospital. It is currently straining under the physical limitations of the building because it wasn't really built with aged care in mind. Basically, it was a dormitory for nurses in the old days when nurses trained at Gloucester Hospital. Across the Hunter River, at Raymond Terrace, we have a similar facility that has been announced in these funding rounds. All together, we have made a huge advance across the Lyne electorate. Across Australia, however, long before the recent attention in the media with the royal commission, the minister and the coalition government looked at the required growth in the workforce. They made a fiscal allocation to a workforce development fund. We've also increased funding for multipurpose centres. We have increased flexible multipurpose services, transition care, short-term restorative care and flexible care for the national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander care system. The other large increase has been the home care support packages, and that is really a very significant increase. We know that up until recently there were about 79,000 people receiving home care packages, but in the most recent budget there was $1.6 billion extra, including 6,000 new high care home care support packages and, over the forward estimates, another 14,000 in total, which will address some of the unmet need, because people want to live longer and with better quality of care in their own homes. It's a 20 per cent increase in one year. As I mentioned, we had about 71,000 people receiving home care by March 2017, but now that's up to 85,000 people at the end of March 2018. In rural and remote Australia, we have addressed the reality that the economies of scale are not there, so there is a $40 million pool for capital grants. Across the whole of the nation, the spend in rural and remote Australia is really significant. When we realise how many people in Australia will require residential care or support packages in their own homes at some stage of their life, we can understand why this is such an important issue. We have people living longer because of improvements in modern health care, we've got better nutrition throughout their lives and we've reduced smoking. We have done so much in this space because we realised that we have a huge demand coming forward. The other thing I'd like to make a few comments about is the royal commission. We realised, and Minister Wyatt realised, that there were instances where care was not appropriate. That's why he initiated these inquiries and why he was at the forefront of asking for a royal commission. It has a very large remit. Overall, it's looking at and trying to ensure the quality of aged-care services for Australians. Across the Lyne electorate and even before I was the member of the House of Representatives representing the Lyne electorate, I spent a lot of time visiting aged-care facilities because of my medical practice background. We are looking at the holistic extent of aged care, trying to identify the extent and instance of any substandard care, including, I hasten to say, mistreatment and any other form of abuse, and what the causes are behind any of these systemic failures—if and when they're identified. What actions should be taken? We need to know how to deliver the best aged-care service for Australia's seniors. We're also looking into the care delivered to people with disabilities, including that cohort of people who end up in nursing homes at a very young age. That focus on people with disabilities and younger people in nursing homes is really important. The scourge of dementia will get particular attention. We will look at what future dementia-care models can be used, what is being used and the future challenges in keeping care accessible, affordable and of a high quality all at the same time. There is the context of more people wanting to spend their senior years at home rather than the historical pattern of entering into residential aged care at a younger age and spending four or five years there. Now the average in some areas drops down even to six months, or to three months in some instances in my electorate. In looking at home care support packages and how home care can be delivered, the focus on rural and remote Australia is very important because, as I mentioned, some of the economies of scale don't exist in rural and remote Australia. I think that the need for support from the federal government will be critical to maintain those standards. What Australian communities and families can do to improve aged-care services, and what they're looking for, is ensuring that all services should be patient- or person-centred and that there should be choice for people going into them. The control and the interdependence of those requirements should keep services accessible, affordable, person-centred and high quality. And it has to be sustainable. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, with the increasing numbers of senior Australians and with the amount of money available for all services, with the growth of the NDIS, the growth in the health budget and the growth in the aged-care budget, sustainability and quality are paramount. We can do this by using more technology and by growing our workforce, and also by looking at innovative models of care. I thoroughly support this cluster of bills which will develop a one-stop shop so that both people working in the industry and people consuming the care in the industry will have a clear and transparent process for maintaining standards and for complaining when they aren't met. Aged care should be high quality. It should be accessible, particularly in rural and regional Australia and in electorates like Lyne. But please be reassured that I have fought long and hard over the five years I've been representing and caring for the Lyne electorate that we have delivered the goods in Lyne. There has been a massive growth and it is really well deserved because we have so many good institutions, but we need more physical places. 16:25 Mr GORMAN 74519 Perth Aged care is about people—people who we love and people who are vulnerable. Providing high-quality aged-care services to residents—elderly Australians—and assurance to their families and to those who love them is an essential task of any Australian government. Australia, a rich developed advanced country, should have one of the best aged-care systems in the world, and those who consume the services of the aged-care sector should have absolute confidence that the services they are being provided are of an international standard. Unfortunately, in Australia today, there are three debilitating problems with our current aged-care sector. The Leader of the Opposition highlighted these problems plainly and simply in an interview recently on the national public broadcaster, the ABC. He highlighted these problems that are well known to anyone who works in the sector. Firstly, the staff do not get paid properly. We've got to be honest about that if we are going to grow and build this sector for the future. Secondly, we need adequate ratios of qualified staff, qualified carers, qualified nurses and all of the other health and professional workers who engage with the sector. Thirdly, years of budget cuts have reduced the quality of care and the time available to those who work in the sector to look after their residents. The electorate of Perth is home to some 1,700 residential aged-care places from the Carramar Hostel in Morely down to Leighton Nursing Home in West Perth. The federal government spent more than $110 million in Perth alone on residential care in 2016-17. But to give us some idea of the scale of the problems facing the sector and facing us as a community, while there are 1,700 residential care places, in the electorate of Perth there are some 14,000 people over the age of 70 in the electorate. This is a big challenge and it's one that we're going to continue to confront in this parliament for many years. Aged care has provided two women in my life with dignity in their final years. My great grandmother, Rooke, helped raise my father, Ron. Later in life, Rooke lived in the adjoining house to my home and she was my regular carer when my mother returned to work. I know all too well that older Australians are key to raising and educating the next generation of Australians. Rooke was sharp. She worked in the Australian tax office for decades and was proud of her efforts in being seconded to assist with the administration of Australia's war efforts. In her retirement, while her mind was sharp, she eventually began to have injuries from falls and minor incidents. There comes a point for many families where the burden becomes too much. My dad speaks of the pain that he and his mother went through in having to make the decision to place someone that they loved, who had been such an important part of their lives, into care. Dad describes his first engagement with the aged-care sector as navigating 'a mix of stigma and ignorance' and, at the same time, handling all of the personal guilt that comes when you take a loved one out of the family home into a world where the care is what is available or what you can afford, not always what you need. We were lucky in our family that Rooke found a place that was close to home in a centre that is now known as Aegis St Francis. It was a centre that respected her interests. They even allowed her to form and run prayer groups while she was in what became her final home. She ran the prayer groups as her health continued to deteriorate and she developed dementia, something that affects more families than any of us in this place probably know. For myself—at the time a high school student in year 10 who visited regularly—and for my parents and my grandmother, it was the staff in the centre that made that adjustment manageable, emotionally and practically. I want to thank all of the staff who worked with Rooke at that time. The staff in aged care do heroic work. Rooke had lived with her daughter, my grandmother Pat, since my dad was six months old. Grandma Pat herself worked in the healthcare space, in the administration at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital or, for any Western Australians, 'Charlies'. After her retirement, she lived as an active pensioner, looking after my brother and me, learning tai chi and doing all those things that many people look forward to in retirement. Unfortunately, just a few years into her retirement, she developed pancreatic cancer, but she continued to live at home. For older Australians, living at home takes bravery and determination, but it is for many the best way to live and, wherever possible, it's a right that we should do everything we can to ensure. Grandma Pat required occasional care and was well supported in the home before starting to go in and out of palliative care. Again, to work in palliative care is heroic. Grandma Pat died when I was in year 12. I'm glad I can again say thank you to the people who worked at Silver Chain, in the palliative care and aged-care space, who cared for her when we no longer could. It's because of these experiences and those of hundreds of thousands of Australians that I want to dedicate my contribution on the debate about this bill to the people who work in aged care—people like Simone Walsh, who works in the laundry of an aged-care home in Western Australia. Simone was leaving work one day when she heard the nurses talking about how incredibly sad it was that one of the residents who was passing on had no local family. Instead of just going home, Simone went to the resident's room. Simone sat and held her hand for the next two hours. She was there as the resident passed on, just so that she would not die alone. I think that tells you a little bit about the commitment that people who work in aged care have, not just to their professional job but also to the residents they work with and care for every single day. Another Western Australian, Melinda Vaz, is a worker in aged care pleading for staff-to-resident ratios. Melinda has said that her facility is struggling due to the cuts: We have a ratio of four staff to 31 residents. There is so little time that can be given to each resident. There are no mandatory staff-to-resident ratios for our industry, unlike in hospitals or childcare centres, so some facilities just cut right back on staff. She says that she's aware of one facility where there are 60 residents being looked after or monitored by just one staff member during the night shift. This alone demonstrates the need to expand the conversation we're having today and for the royal commission to look at the need for staff-to-resident ratios if we are to have a sector that meets world-class standards. Again, to those who work in aged care: thank you for working in aged care; thank you for the work you do and for the sacrifices you make. I'm also realistic that the operators in the aged-care sector are under extreme pressure. I've had the privilege to get to know, over a number of years, Graeme Prior, the CEO of Hall & Prior Residential Aged Care, a proud Western Australian company. I've learned from operators like Graeme, people who are passionate about ensuring that every Australian gets the quality of life they deserve. Graeme, in his leadership of Hall & Prior, has shown the true circle of life that aged care represents. I was pleasantly surprised to read, in researching for this speech, about the future of Woodside Maternity Hospital. Woodside Maternity Hospital is where I was born in 1984. It closed and concluded its work as a maternity hospital some years ago. A beautiful building in East Fremantle, it was built in 1897, initially as a residence. It became a maternity hospital in 1951 and is now under a major renovation to become an aged-care facility run by Hall & Prior. This redevelopment will create hundreds of jobs in the construction process and hundreds of jobs when it's in operation, add new aged-care places to the sector and ensure that this beautiful building continues to provide care for vulnerable Australians at the other end of the age spectrum. Graeme Prior explained his business philosophy: 'To me, it is part of what we do—preserving wonderful iconic parts of the community.' I think that comment is as true for the building as it is for the residents and consumers of aged care. I make the point in this debate that aged-care residents are consumers. They are consumers of a service and they deserve all of the rights that are afforded to them as consumers in the Australian marketplace. I note we've got the shadow minister for consumer affairs in the chamber at the moment, and I thank her for being here for this speech. Becoming an aged-care consumer— Mr Falinski interjecting— Mr GORMAN 74519 I also thank her for the important work she does as part of her chamber duty for the operation of the parliament. Becoming an aged-care consumer is currently not an easy process. There are many complex forms, weeks or years of investigation and waiting lists that feel like they can span forever just to get access to essential services that an individual needs. It is at this time that people also begin the discussion about plans for the final years of one's life, juggling the immediate needs of care services and the important decisions about what happens at the end of one's life and how that life may be celebrated by family and friends when someone is no longer with us. In this regard, I want to commend the work of the chair of the Western Australian parliament's Joint Select Committee on End of Life Choices, Amber-Jade Sanderson. The committee's report, released in August, is a carefully considered analysis of the laws needed to ensure people can manage their health care throughout the dying process. I raise this work because aged care is not just one commission, one council, one service provider or one government department. For people to have dignity in their final years it is essential for both state and federal governments to work cooperatively to deliver quality and choice for all Australians. I note that local government should also ensure timely approval of aged-care facilities to make sure that there are enough beds available in local municipalities. The aged-care sector, valued at some $17.4 billion by the Productivity Commission, has more than one million Australians accessing some form of its services with federal funding in this current financial year. That's more than 200,000 people in permanent care and 700,000 people accessing the Commonwealth Home Support Program. The Productivity Commission has issued a very stark and firm call about the need to think about the future of the sector, which is, I note, what the government is doing with the introduction of this bill today. The Productivity Commission said: The Australian population is ageing rapidly, with the proportion of people aged 65 years or over in the total population projected to increase from 15.1 per cent in 2016 … to 21.8 per cent in 2056 … The more alarming news is that by 2056 we will need to triple the aged-care workforce in this country. In other words, our nation will need around one million aged-care workers. That's one million workers delivering services to more than 3.5 million Australians in 2056. In making further comments on this bill, I want to commend the work that Labor's shadow minister for ageing and mental health, Julie Collins, has done. Her advocacy for older Australians and the people who care for them is one of the reasons we are having this debate today. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 will establish the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from next year. The commission will have a significant mission—restoring confidence for aged-care consumers, restoring confidence for their families, restoring confidence for millions of Australians. It will also have an important role in dealing with some of the recommendations that come out of the royal commission. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will, fortunately, provide a single point of contact for aged-care consumers and a single point of contact for the providers as well. I think that's something that will be welcomed by many people who are operating in the very difficult business environment that is aged care. The agency will have responsibility for accreditation, assessment, monitoring, and complaints handling. In other words, it will have its hands full! This will cover residential aged care, home care, flexible care, the Commonwealth Home Support Program and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Flexible Aged Care Program. For this reason I would say that, when the government considers who they will appoint as the first commissioner, it will be a very important decision for the government. There are problems that this commission won't fix: quality standards in the sector are dropping; the reporting system is not working; there aren't enough aged-care workers and they aren't given enough pay; and we have had cuts in the sector. With the sector in crisis, I welcome this piece of legislation, but I will finish my remarks by saying there is much, much, much more to do. 16:40 Mr FALINSKI G86 Mackellar I would like to join the member for Perth in thanking the shadow minister for consumer affairs for being here to listen to this very important speech. Before I arrived in this place I had a business that supplied a lot of furniture and equipment to nursing homes and to the aged-care sector and the healthcare sector generally. It was a very interesting perspective on life and quite a confronting one for a 30-year-old to start a business and see so many people at the end of their lives. In the years between coming to this place and looking after people in so many nursing homes across Australia, I think I saw the best and the worst of humanity. But the one thing I can say for sure is that the aged-care system in Australia has never been better. In thinking back to when I first started out, 15 or so years ago, my first experience with a nursing home was to walk into the UnitingCare facility in Croydon. Before even getting to the door you were overwhelmed with the stench of urine emanating from the facility. To this day, it is something I cannot forget. There were other instances, such as when I pulled into a nursing home in Bathurst one day and saw all the staff in the parking lot smoking. When I went into the facility—it was in the middle of winter—I found all the residents sitting in chairs in the common room of the nursing home watching a fish tank, literally. I remember another incident in which a not-for-profit provider was looking at one of our beds. As I walked down the hall, there were three women—they happened to be women—in three separate rooms screaming for someone to come and help them. I don't know how long they had been there. I still remember their cries of agony as they sought to be helped. That was 15 years ago. I haven't seen anything like that in the last 10 years or so. It wasn't because the facilities didn't have enough money and it wasn't because the facilities were understaffed—in fact, in many instances, quite the opposite. It was because we were coming out of a period in which aged care was seen as the annexe at the back of the local hospital. It was because we didn't treat our tribal elders as human beings, but rather as problems, in many instances to be forgotten. A huge change occurred in 1987 when the then Hawke-Keating government started to allow new nursing homes to be built. There were also the reforms of the member for Pearce and the member for Menzies in the Howard government, which allowed private sector investors to come into the market. As the member for Perth mentioned, providers such as Graeme Prior, who was a good customer of mine, brought a level of service and care to nursing homes and to nursing home residents because he actually cared about the people who were in his home. The member for Perth mentioned that they are not just residents but are actually consumers of these goods. That's why it's so important that we have the shadow minister for consumer affairs here. The importance of that is that when we started treating these residents as human beings who had a choice, the quality and level of care went through the roof. It was an important and critical factor in improving the level of care that older Australians, our tribal elders, got. It wasn't by dint of government regulation. It was by dint of government reform that allowed people to come into this market and to provide a better service. To that end I also have to congratulate the member for Port Adelaide. If the truth be told, the Howard government probably did hold off on a lot of other reforms that the member for Pearce would have liked to have implemented. But the member for Port Adelaide, and then Senator Fifield when he was the aged-care minister, did a lot of important work in terms of providing even further flexibility in this market, which allowed more people to come into this market and allowed more people to have choice. The greatest problem that we have in Australia today is the fact that people, when they need to move into their last home, don't have a choice anymore. They have to pick either from staying at home, which has no longer become an option, or moving into a nursing home that was built in the 1950s, for the 1950s, with attitudes of how people should be treated in the 1950s, because there is nowhere else for them to go. That's not good enough. It's not good enough in the 21st century and it's not good enough in a country like Australia. So when the Labor Party talks about cuts to aged care, know this: what they're saying is that when Minister Ken Wyatt introduced this bill and said, 'We are going to stand up for the rights of those residents. We will no longer allow private sector companies, and for that matter not-for-profit companies, to use our ratings system to rort taxpayer dollars while not delivering the care that they say they are delivering to Australians,' he stood up for the integrity of this parliament, for the integrity of the aged-care system and for the integrity of those people who are in those homes today. Let's be clear that when Labor talks about restoring the so-called cuts, what they are talking about is restoring the rorts that were out of control in the aged-care marketplace, where people were rating people as having a level of care and requiring a level of care that everyone knew they didn't know. We had providers in the Australian market whose business case was that they could better manipulate the ACAR system to ensure they got the highest level of funding that they could possibly hope for. It was a rort. It was taking money from the care of others and putting it in the pockets of the unscrupulous. That's what Labor wants to return to in this entire argument. It's absolutely appalling and they should know better. They should know better primarily for this reason: both sides of this parliament have done a tremendous amount since 1987 to restore the level of care, hope and generosity that our country has always been known for to older Australians regardless of where they are in Australian society. What they're seeking to do is undo some of that bipartisanship for base political purposes. It is absolutely appalling. When they start talking about staff ratios, know this: they're not talking about staff ratios; they're talking about nurse ratios. There are a lot of people in every nursing home and very few of them are nurses, because the care that is provided by those people is unqualifiedly great. It is quantitatively and qualitatively out of this world. Nurses are good at providing clinical care. The carers that we have in so many of our nursing homes right around this country provide a level of care that you could not hope to get anywhere else in Australia. You ask any older Australian today whether they would prefer to be in a ward bed in a hospital or in one of these new aged-care facilities, and out of 10,000 Australians I doubt that you could find one who would say that they would prefer to be in a hospital. The reason for that is primarily the love and care that these staff bring to those nursing homes. The Labor Party wants to rip that asunder. For what reason? For the purposes of appealing to their union mates in the nurses federation. It is absolutely appalling that they would indulge themselves in this level of politicisation of this sector. When you think about it, an older Australian who spends their time in a ward bed in New South Wales in your average public hospital will cost the Australian taxpayer $1,600 or $1,700 for that night, but in a nursing home it's $160 a night, and they will get a better level of care. And that's what they require—not clinical care, but care. That's what this parliament should want. That's what both sides of this House should want for Australians. When you also think about home care versus residential care, in so many parts of Australia, the key is this: that we are spending billions of dollars in providing services to people in their homes. Some of those services are not care-related services. They are gardening, cooking and other levels of care that our home care packages provide, and no-one thinks or would suggest that that's a bad thing. But compare that to the level of care that someone can get in a residential aged-care facility. That includes ensuring that people get their medicine in the right dosages at the right times, that they are properly eating and that they are getting socialisation—because the biggest issue that older Australians are facing, in my electorate and, I suspect, right across Australia, is a sense of social isolation, because they feel that they are stuck in their homes, whereas, in nursing homes and aged-care facilities across this country, a large part of the mission and the purpose that those aged-care facilities have is ensuring that their residents have the capacity to go out and enjoy their lives. And that's why residential aged care is so important. I cannot speak too highly of Thompson Health Care, which has a number of nursing homes in my electorate. They, for example, have undertaken a major project, with the University of Technology and a number of pharmaceutical companies, to ensure that older Australians—who so often find it more difficult to communicate with their carers—are being looked after when it comes to pain, because so many issues that were seen as behavioural issues were actually our fellow Australians, simply put, in pain. These are not studies that are undertaken in public hospitals. These are not studies that are undertaken in every nursing home. Indeed, this is the sort of level of care and innovation that is going on in the aged-care sector in Australia because that's what you get when you have a competitive and innovative marketplace like we have in Australia. That is what you get when you treat people as more than just residents stuck in your nursing home—rather, as consumers who have a choice as to where they can go. This bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, will make it even better for nursing homes and those people who spend the last few years of their lives in nursing homes, because it will ensure that every person who goes into a nursing home can know that they are getting a minimum level of care that is reliably performed, day in and day out. I heard the other day that three-quarters of residents who live in these nursing homes have not been visited by a family member or someone in the last six months. That is just the way that our society is, unfortunately. It's the way that our community has evolved. So, for so many—for three-quarters of those people who are in nursing homes—their families have become the other residents and the staff of these nursing homes. We owe it to them to ensure that they have as much choice as possible. When people have dementia, one of the side effects of the dementia is that people often end up reverting to the language that they first grew up with. We have so many Australians who were born overseas, who end up like my grandmother, who, in the last few months of her life, started speaking in Russian again. If she had not been in a nursing home where the staff were fluent in Russian, it would have been very difficult for her to communicate and for her to be understood and heard and cared for. But because we have a marketplace, because we agree with innovation, because we encourage it and encourage competition, there is a place for every person in the Australian aged-care market to get the type of care that they not only need but want. This bill is about ensuring that older Australians get the care that they need. But the marketplace that we on both sides of this parliament have created, over many years, has ensured that every Australian can get the care that they want. In the minute that I have left, I would also like to mention that we have enormous challenges coming up. Those in the cohort of baby boomers are about to find themselves in that age category where they may consider putting themselves into their last home, being a residential aged-care home. We have challenges around workforce planning and we have challenges around the number of beds that are available. Ask any nursing home provider and they will tell you that the biggest challenge they face is planning and development. But we have created a system in this country that has ensured Australians get a superior level of care in their last few years. It is the job of this House and of this bill to make sure that we give them an even better experience than those who came before them. 16:56 Ms KEAY 262273 Braddon I welcome the opportunity to speak on the member for Franklin's second reading amendment to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. As we know, we have a royal commission into aged care at the moment. And there are reasons for that—very valid reasons for that. But I want to take some of my time to put into context why the issue of aged care is so important to my home state of Tasmania and, of course, to my electorate of Braddon. The recent ABS census has revealed that Tasmania has the oldest population in Australia, with almost 20 per cent of our population aged over 65 years. The census also found that Tasmania's population is ageing faster than the Australian average, so we can get a bit of a picture of why aged care is so important in my state. In my electorate, the ABS has found that the community of Latrobe, which is not far from where I live, saw the greatest increase in the proportion of the population aged over 65 years between the years 2011 and 2016, so those aged over 65 are very concentrated in my electorate. But Tasmanians need—right now and into the future—quality aged care. Rather than support aged care, this government, like all coalition governments before it, has reverted to type. The Prime Minister, as Treasurer, cut $1.2 billion from aged care in his very first budget. That $1.2 billion cut came on top of the almost $500 million cut from aged-care funding in the 2015 MYEFO. This savage cut hit older Australians in residential aged-care facilities the hardest, with a 50 per cent cut to the indexation of complex healthcare subsidies. The previous member seemed very deluded as to what these cuts actually meant to the people in residential aged care. I remember going to Emmerton Park, which is in Smithton, in the far north-west of Tasmania, just prior to the 2016 election. The residents there wanted to hear from the candidates as to their positions on aged care. Sadly, at the time, the then current Liberal member for Braddon didn't bother to turn up. What he would have heard at that point was that there were residents in that facility who were very, very concerned about what those cuts meant to their daily lives. I had one lady who said to me: 'Does this mean I won't get my physiotherapy? That's what's actually keeping me mobile. I don't want to end up with some mobility aid; I want to keep walking, and that physio means I can continue to do that for as long as possible.' She was concerned that it would mean she would not have access to that physio. In fact, that's what happened because of those cuts. And these cuts have continued. In May this year, in the budget, the government announced it would fund an additional 14,000 home care packages. But this money was not new money. This money was taken out of residential aged care. It wasn't actually growing the pool of funding to provide more care for our older Australians but was just shifting the money around. The most recent data shows that there are now 121,000 people on the home care package waiting list. Over a three-month period, that list has blown out by an extra 13,000 people waiting. We hear these stories just about every day in this place and, particularly, the ones who are telling the stories are the ones sitting on the opposition benches, because we're the ones out there listening to people and who actually care about what home care packages mean for them. I was speaking to a lady whose relative, whose mother, sadly, passed away in March. She spent her last days in residential aged care, but she was waiting for a category 4 in-home care package, which was granted to her six months after her death. How ridiculous is that? She could have passed away in her own home with that home care package but, sadly, she was forced to spend her last days in residential aged care. The average waiting time, according this government's own data, for level 3 or 4 packages is still more than 12 months, and the example I just gave pretty much demonstrates that is the case. While the government continues to hide the state-by-state breakdown of this data, a local provider in my electorate has told me that there are more than 3,000 people in Tasmania waiting for a package. Waiting for these packages has a terrible impact on families. I received an email from Karen, who is the daughter of Terrence. Terrence lives in my electorate and Karen lives in Queensland. She wrote to me in absolute despair. Her father had been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease eight years ago and was given a terminal diagnosis of Lewy body dementia. He had been assessed for a level 4 home care package and had been sitting on the system for over 12 months. Karen's mother was Terrence's sole carer, 24/7. He was receiving an emergency level 2 home care package last year, but things got so bad that Karen was ringing My Aged Care, trying to find out what was going on. She was told that he was on a priority list but that it would be another 12-month wait. It got to a crisis point where Karen's mother just fell into a heap; a neighbour found her on the floor of the home, sobbing. Karen had to ship her parents to Queensland to provide them both with the care that they needed because Terrence could not get the level 4 care package that he had been assessed for. The toll on the carers in this scenario under this government was absolutely tremendous and all the hearts of the opposition members here know all too well what this means, because we hear it all the time. Now, Karen is not sure what's going to happen with her dad. She knows that they can't live with her permanently. They're trying very desperately to work out what is going on with his care package, and she came to me in absolute despair. But this is one story of far, far too many. We know the list has blown out by 13,000 people over a quarter and that over 121,000 people are still waiting for the package that they deserve. The crisis in aged care of this government's making is not just confined to these aged-care packages. We've heard and we've seen some shocking stories. I want to share stories of two people from my electorate who have contacted me about the quality of residential care being delivered. I've removed the identity of the facilities to protect the management and staff, because I know they're doing the absolute best they can under the funding arrangement that's in place. Elle from my electorate wrote to me, and her letter is quite long. I'll try to paraphrase it. She wrote: After the recent Liberal leadership fiasco, I've lost any faith in the prospect of the federal coalition government taking action in the interests of elderly people in regional areas, who involuntarily are destined to end their lives in a residential aged-care facility. Which is why I'm writing to you now, in your capacity as my local MHR, asking you to make representations in the Australian parliament on behalf of such individuals. And I'm very privileged to do that on her behalf. She continued: Just under 12 months ago, my then wholly bed-ridden husband was admitted as a permanent resident of an aged-care facility with an ACAT 'high care, complex needs' assessment. Progressively, over the ensuing six months, commendable standards of care and support enabled him to get out and about in a wheelchair for up to 5 hours a day; leaving him nevertheless dependent on carer support for all bed based needs over the remaining 19 hours or so each day. Come January this year, it became apparent that fewer staff across care and related categories were 'on the floor' on weekends and public holidays. At a residents' meeting, the facility manager announced the then pending cuts to staff shift hours and other resources. He advised shifts for personal care staff would be cut by 14 hours per day, inclusive of already understaffed weekend and holiday periods. The facilities manager explained that those cuts were unavoidable given the range and extent of reductions in levels of previously accessible federal government financial assistance to residential aged care. Elle went on to provide me with some of the consequences of these additional cuts imposed by this government. Residents are waiting up to 90 minutes when they need to go to the toilet. There are not enough staff around and no-one can find a staff member when they need one. They're woken at 7 am and left on the toilet for ages while the shower water keeps running. There are lots of stories about residents being left in bed until 1 pm and reports of residents falling because they try to get up and do things for themselves. There are instances of carers in tears when they find their loved ones at risk of getting out of bed themselves and carers clearly under great stress. New arrivals have said that they cry when they get home at night because they can't provide the level of service they've been taught they should. Elle said to me: Please, please do whatever you can to make representations in appropriate quarters and to relevant decision makers. She signs off her letter to me 'Almost despairingly' This is what members of the opposition are hearing day in, day out. I am very privileged to stand here in this place and talk to the government members, although there are only two opposite me now. I'm hoping the minister is hearing this. This is just one sad example, not just of the carers, the families or the person in residential aged care but of those who are taking care of them, the staff in these facilities and what they are facing day in, day out because this government does not care about these people or about our aged-care system. That is due primarily, in my opinion, to the savage cuts that they've made in this sector. Brian, another member of my electorate, is a resident in a facility and he's written to me: I am a constituent in your electorate and a permanent resident of a not-for-profit aged care facility which receives financial assistance from the Federal Government. I am 83 years—wheelchair bound but otherwise intact and very observant about issues and problems surrounding that facility. Early last month— this was back in August— … residents were informed by the facility manager to the following effect: (1) Because of reductions in funding previously available via government assistance, care staff cuts will be necessary on a scale leading to significant reductions in shift hours. We are getting a bit of a pattern here. (2) In the circumstances, management was unable to predict either the impact of such cuts or the extent to which the most vulnerable residents would be adversely affected. (3) Further cuts in staff and resources could well be necessary from financial year 2018/19 onwards. Brian continues: Subsequent experience has shown adverse effects of cuts in staff and shift hours to be significant. I would hope no elected government would intentionally treat its elderly citizens, most of whom have raised families, worked hard, paid their taxes, and/or otherwise contributed to their respective families over many decades, by making budget decisions with such foreseeably adverse consequences. I ask you to make direct, strong and urgent representations to government to act with the compassion and understanding that we expect from our elected representatives. Yours hopefully Brian Hear how he signed that off? Please take note, those opposite, of the way those two constituents of mine have finished their letters to me: 'Almost despairingly' and 'Yours hopefully'. You can just imagine what these people facing. One has her husband in residential aged care and the other is a resident who is clearly observing what is going on. These personal stories time and time again clearly show our system is in crisis. They cannot give up on their members in these facilities and this is why the royal commission is so important and Labor welcomes, finally, this commission going ahead. Why did it take the Prime Minister to get all wound up over a Four Corners report to be galvanised into action? One can easily conclude it was all about getting the politics right and not about the issue. If it was about the issue, the coalition government should have and could have acted sooner, because we've been telling these stories for a very long time. Instead, they've repeatedly ignored the calls from Labor, from families and from stakeholders. Now we have to have a royal commission into aged care and it has to look at every aspect of aged care. But let's not wait until the royal commission finishes; we know what needs to be done. The government is sitting on so many reports. It could actually start fixing the system today, but it's not. Regarding the workforce issues, I had a tremendous opportunity to go to one of the facilities in my electorate, Meercroft Aged Care, and walk a day in the shoes of an extended care assistant. It was very confronting, I have to say. I think we know what takes places when a loved one is in residential aged care, but I saw it firsthand. There was an elderly man getting showered and cleaned up. There was a 40-year-old with Huntington's disease who has a sister in the dementia care ward with Huntington's disease as well. I saw the work that these people do. It's backbreaking work and there are the long hours. The bells are ringing all the time. We know there are not enough people on the floors of these facilities. It was an absolute privilege to go with Elaine at Meercroft—to walk with her and see what she does. I say to every member of this place: do it. Ring up the residential aged care in your electorate, put on your soft shoes and walk around with them, get your hands dirty and meet some of these wonderful residents and wonderful carers who this government has completely neglected. See exactly what it's like to provide that level of care to those residents, but also see what those people receiving that care are going through. I think it would open your eyes and I think it would make members opposite actually stand up and tell the stories of the people in their electorates who are suffering under a system that is severely underfunded. 17:11 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey I rise to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. Aged care is not always perfect, but it is our job here to make it as near to perfect as possible: for our grandparents, for our parents and even, might I say, eventually, hopefully, for ourselves. They, that being our parents and our grandparents—and hopefully us, by the time we get there—deserve our respect. They've earned it. They've built the world in which we live. Aged care, though, will be an ongoing challenge for governments for virtually as long as governments exist. The intergenerational reviews have clearly mapped out the ageing of the Australian population and the demands that will be placed on the taxpayers' dollars going forward. Regardless of that demand and just how difficult it is for us to meet as a nation, we do have to meet it; we are obligated to do so. It is one of the reasons, of course—and I won't get onto this, but the Prime Minister has been saying it quite clearly—why we need to have a strong economy: we need to ensure that we can care for our aged sector, for those who have built this nation, in an appropriate manner. Regardless of how we do that, we need to make sure that good quality infrastructure exists where it is needed and, more importantly, that within that good quality infrastructure there is good quality care: the love, the consideration, the respect and the first-class medical and hotel services that our aged sector deserve. Events in the recent past have turbocharged change in the aged-care sector, most notably in my home state of South Australia with the tragedy, the debacle and the disgrace that surrounded the Oakden nursing home, which was a state government owned and operated facility. It was engulfed in scandal when it was found that the facility was guilty of institutionalised abuse. In fact, residents were, at times, not fed for what was deemed to be poor behaviour. That is beyond belief. It is appalling. Mercifully, that place is now shut. Unfortunately, I think we can be fairly sure that the behaviour that was so bad at the Oakden facility is not confined to just that one facility in Australia. There will be echoes of Oakden found elsewhere. Before I go on I want to put in a plug for aged-care workers, particularly those in my electorate of Grey. I have visited many nursing homes and facilities over the years, and I can't remember a facility where I was not impressed by the strong dedication of the staff and by their care for the residents. When I spoke to the residents, they seemed to almost unanimously speak about what a wonderful place they lived in. The infrastructure is generally good. Often it is excellent, and I'm very pleased to have been to a number of facilities to mark the fact that the Commonwealth has made considerable contributions to enhancing and expanding those facilities. So often it's excellent. Sometimes, though, it is tired and in need of rejuvenation, undoubtedly. But I've found that even in these facilities, pretty much without exception, the staff have had that same loving, caring, respectful dedication to their job. But can I guarantee that every staff member and every facility is doing exactly that? Of course I can't. In fact, if there is one bad apple in the barrel, that's one too many. So I'm hopefully going to find in this royal commission that the facilities in my electorate largely live up to the plug that I've given them. I'll be somewhat surprised if they don't. When I do receive complaints to my office from families that are not happy with facilities, I obviously go to every degree to try and find out exactly what has happened, where fault might lie and what is being done to make sure that those issues are assessed. Sometimes there are two sides to the story, as all of us that come to this place would know. We have to be careful when we're making allegations, particularly any public allegations, that we know what we're talking about. But I work through those situations when they are brought to my attention. I have one that I'm working on at the moment. To come to this bill, the government's aim is to ensure the system is the best that it can be. The bill repeals the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Act 2013 and the transitional provisions related to that act. The bill amends the Aged Care Act 1997 in order to establish the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission and the commissioner to have a one-stop shop, as it were, to ramp up and give more power to this organisation so we can root out any transgressions that are in the system. Hopefully they will not be many. I'm pretty confident there won't be many. But I'm fully aware there were 5,000 submissions to the scoping study. The aim, simply, is to do better than we have ever done before to make the system the best it has ever been. I'm very hopeful that this commission and commissioner will help bring about whatever change is needed to bring about that outcome. I congratulate the minister. He is a very fine gentleman and I think he's doing a very good job. One of the fundamental changes that he's made to the system is to alter the reporting and registration system for home care packages so that for the first time a national government actually knows what the real demand is for home care packages. It is interesting that when I hear the criticisms from across the chamber, the member for Braddon most recently, they know full well that when they were in government they didn't know either what the real demand was for home care packages. It's taken courage for the minister to bring that forward and put it on the table, because now he's getting criticism for not immediately filling that backlog. He's had the strength. He knew what was coming. Our mate Ken's been around the system for a while. He knew very well that this was an understated and unrecognised demand in the system. He's had the gumption to get up and put it on the table and then to go to cabinet and get some extra finance to do something about it—$1.6 billion in the last budget. That's $1.6 billion for 14,000 new home care packages, which will take us to 74,000 by 2022. That's an outstanding result. Well done to him. As he knows, I know and you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Howarth, there is more to be done, because there is still this backlog that this new system has established. He's done other things as well. Very recently he announced the $40 billion funding available for infrastructure grants for nursing homes, and certainly across my electorate there's been quite a bit of interest in that. In fact, as has been stated in this place, we have, at this stage, record funding for aged care in Australia—record funding. I know there is a criticism from the other side that keeps coming up: 'You've cut; you've cut; you've cut.' I don't know what it is about mathematics which suggests a record is not more than we've ever had before. A record, by its very definition, means this is the most money that has ever gone into the system. It's not less; it's more. It's because we are running a strong economy. As I said earlier, I'm not going to give you a long lecture on the economy, but the turnaround has been quite stark, I think, over the last three years or so. It's really picking up a head of steam. It's taking a while to get to my home state—we had a few other issues we had to deal with—but I think it's even starting to filter through there. We're looking forward to MYEFO when it comes around. Certainly the result that came out of last year's budget, the $8 billion improvement, was very good. It gives the government the flexibility to do things about some of these long-term problems, and that's what we've been doing. Now we're having the aged-care royal commission, which the Prime Minister announced last week, to shine the light in. Once again, this is a brave move and not unlike the minister's move, because when a royal commission reports there is some kind of obligation, or at least a public expectation, that the government will act on that royal commission and not just ignore the incredible amount of work that a royal commission does in a certain area. I will be looking forward to that report. I'm hopeful that the task will not be as great as some might imagine, but it may well be. It may well be a huge impost on future governments. But, as I said at the beginning of this contribution, whatever it will be it will be, and we're going to have to meet it. So, with this bill, the minister is putting the blowtorch, if you like, to aged care and making sure that the sector is actually delivering what it is being paid to do. It is being paid by the taxpayer and subsidised by the taxpayer to deliver first-class aged care. We have to make sure that it is doing that, and that's what the new commissioner will do. In closing, before I run out of time, I'll return to a subject that I've touched on in this place before. Peterborough is a town of around about 2,000 people in my electorate. In it's day, like a number of other communities, it had an aged-care hostel that had its own management. Like many other towns, including the one that I come from, we in our wisdom, in the eighties, amalgamated the hospital boards and the aged-care facility boards. It made sense because there are a lot of genuine cross-benefits and a lot of things that you can share. It worked very well until the previous state government in South Australia, which had 16 years at the helm and was thrown out last March, decided that we didn't need hospital boards anymore, and all of us who were on those boards were made redundant. The previous state government inherited a whole swag of aged-care facilities and, as state governments don't see them as their prime responsibility, over the years it didn't reinvest in those facilities. In fact, their ownership arrangements now make it quite difficult for those particular facilities to access Commonwealth funds when it comes to infrastructure grants. This is an ongoing issue in Peterborough, in Cummins and in a number of other communities that I could name. We are at the stage where we need serious reinvestment. I've asked the minister to look at this closely. We've got a new minister in South Australia. I've asked him to look at it as well to see if we can come up with a way—an ownership model or a way of making sure that the bid is adapted to fit the rules—to find some Commonwealth support for these small communities. I can tell you: a town of 1,000 or 1,200 people doesn't need a 65-bed nursing home unit. In fact it would be empty most of the time and go broke very quickly. What we need is the right-sized unit that is attached to the local hospital to give mutual benefits and to make sure you make best use of your staff, with all the things that go with it. But it is unfair not to make an effort to provide that aged care where you have the bones of the potential to do so. People who have lived in a community all their life, given their option, if they have to move out of their own home—and we'll do everything to try to keep them in their own home—would prefer, of course, to stay in the community in which they have lived for all their life and where, hopefully, their family still lives, where they can be visited by their friends and visited by their family. It comes as a great shock to some when they have to move maybe hundreds of kilometres to access the kind of care they need. I understand that there will always be tight spots. There will always be times when we're short of places at the right place for those particular consumers. But, where we can, we need to reinvest in these smaller units, and we need to find a way for them to survive. That's something else that I regularly bend the ear of the minister on: the extra costs of operating these smaller units within country regions. We need once again, as we do with the overall challenge of aged care, to rise to that challenge and find a way for them to survive, to replenish, to renew and to provide a first-class service to those residents of the smaller communities as well. With those words, I will conclude, but I recommend the bill to this House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 I thank the member for Grey. I just remind him too: you have to call the minister by his correct title here. You can't call him 'Kenny'. It has to be the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care. That's just a reminder. Thank you. 17:26 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi I support the comments from the member for Grey and the attention he gave to the extra costs of providing services in rural areas. I too would like to address that as part of my speech. I welcome the government's establishment of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. It's timely and an important inquiry. In my electorate of Indi, every year I undertake a community survey. In the 2018 Indi budget survey, 79.4 per cent of respondents said that the issue of aged care and health was very important to them. The screening of the ABC Four Corners program highlighted totally unacceptable treatment of some people living in residential aged-care facilities and created great conversation in my electorate of Indi. This ABC program showed that there's a difference between our expectation—our want—that people in our community be cared for and what is actually happening in some areas. I'm looking forward to the terms of reference of the royal commission. The commissioners have now been announced, so I'll be really looking forward to encouraging my community to make submissions to that royal commission. However, I don't think we need to wait until it's all done before we start active work on this. There's real, important work that needs to be done around aged-care workforce planning. Approximately 11.3 per cent of Australians aged 70 and over live in outer regional, remote and very remote areas, and residential aged-care facilities in our remote and outer regional areas are generally exactly as the member for Grey has said: small in size. These facilities lack the economies of scale and the scope that are often the case in urban areas, and aged-care costs per person in these settings are much more expensive. So it's this whole sense of: how do we design innovative, creative and effective solutions for our people who live in small country towns and more remote areas? Today, I want to talk about some of the issues that we know exist. We know that cost is a factor. It's not only the cost of providing services; it's the cost of getting people and staff to and from services. For example, in Corryong, if you're going to bring up a specialist from Albury-Wodonga, it's the time and the cost of the travel, the two-hour trip both ways, to get there. That's expensive. But it's also that in Corryong, a small country town, we don't have access to the specialist services that we need, and they have to travel, which it is important that they do. But I'd also like to say that one of the wonderful things about the Corryong community is that it has got such creativity and such innovation in addressing its own problems. It, together with Alpine Health, has done stand-out work under a model called multipurpose provision of services, and I'll talk about that a little bit later. The answers in many instances do lie within the communities, and we need the government then to be an active partner in putting in the resources and the money needed to provide these services. What's been happening in communities like Corryong, which has tried so hard as a community to address its own needs, is government has given it a slap in the face by cutting the services, cutting the extra funding needed to bring specialist allied health people into the community to do the work. For a lot of things, we know what needs to be done now. The knowledge is held and we don't really need to wait until the end of the royal commission to support all this. In my own community of Indi there's a fantastic organisation which looks at the scoping and training needs in rural and aged care. They've set up a network, including Wodonga, Beechworth, Corryong, Tallangatta and Alpine, which is Mansfield, Mount Beauty and Bright. The network is supported by La Trobe University to do a lot of this work together and has so much knowledge. At another time, the minister responsible, the member for Hasluck, came and visited north-east Victoria, conducted a roundtable meeting with the primary partnerships group and talked about the really good models that were already in existence. So we know a lot. But what we don't do is say, 'How do we get the knowledge that's on the ground and link it upwards to the decision-makers at that level?' It's such a big gap, and I think we put the bureaucracy in the middle and make it so difficult. I'm hoping that, as part of the royal commission, definitely, and as part of the commissioner, the job will be to work out how we can bring these two things together. Because there is so much local knowledge, and I hear it when I go around and see some of the wonderful, innovative, creative things that are happening. It's just not reflected up the chain. I want to spend a few minutes of my time talking about some of the wonderful models and organisations that work in my electorate and to say: thank you for your creativity, your innovation, your problem-solving and the wonderful care you give to my constituents. I'm going to name some of them. In Myrtleford there's Barwidgee Lodge. In Mansfield there's Beolite Village and, associated with the hospital, Bindaree Retirement Centre. In Tallangatta, Bolga Court does a terrific job, with a beautiful view overlooking the lake; it's almost like a men's shed where people can build things and do things. They've done a fantastic job in providing, in the most glorious part of north-east Victoria, a really lovely service-provision model. In Wodonga proper we've got Bupa, which operates a more traditional nursing-home arrangement. In Benalla there's Cooinda Village. At Lake Eildon we've got Darlingford Upper Goulburn Nursing Home, and what a fantastic job it does. We've got Estia Health in Wodonga. In Rutherglen, a small country town near where I live, we've got Glenview Community Care Nursing Home—and a special call-out for Glenview. Not only do they provide aged care, which they do really well; they also connect up with the childcare centre just across the road, and they're linked with Indigo North Health and provide fantastic community care for residents. In Bright we've got the Hawthorn Village Aged Care Hostel, which is run by Alpine Health. Down at Alexander, we've got Kellock Lodge, and what a fantastic job the board of Kellock Lodge has done recently in its negotiations with the Anglican diocese—a special call-out to your board and the community there. In Mount Beauty there's Kiewa Valley House. At Tallangatta we've also got the Lakeview Nursing Home, which is associated with Alpine Health. In Benalla we've got the Morrie Evans Wing attached to the nursing hospital. In Myrtleford we've got Myrtleford Lodge Aged Care. In Wangaratta we've got Rangeview Private Nursing Home and we've got St Catherine's Hostel, which does a fantastic job. I was really pleased to take the minister there earlier this year. We've also got St John's Village in Wangaratta. In Yea we've got Rosebank Nursing Home. In Corryong we've got the Upper Murray nursing home. Out at Baranduda, near Wodonga, we've got Westmont Aged Care Services, and what a fantastic model they now provide—all types of care; they're picking up the home and community care and they're now a centre of excellence for the provision of aged care right across north-east Victoria. In Yackandandah, which is where I want to finish this brief outline, is the Yamaroo hospital. The Yamaroo hospital is run by the Yackandandah Health service. If ever you want to see a community that has the most amazing approach to community health, it's Yackandandah. We used to have the old Bush Nursing Hospital, but for a whole lot of reasons that didn't work, so now it's called Yackandandah Health. The nursing home and hostel go with it. They're doing amazing development now. They've found a paddock behind the hospital and they're building specialist accommodation there, integrating it into the community. One of the things I particularly love about Yackandandah Health—they visited parliament recently with their plans for integration of housing and health and care—is the work they're doing with the Totally Renewable Yackandandah project. Totally Renewable Yackandandah is a model of energy generation at the community level. The old hospital, as it's still fondly known, has got this enormous array of solar panels on the roof. I wasn't able to find the figures in time for today's speech, but they now generate so much of their electricity themselves. What I was really hoping to do in my speech is to say that it's really timely to have the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill before the House and it's really good that we've got the royal commission happening, but let's not forget the fantastic work happening in our communities as we speak. I give a call-out to the people providing the care. They give the opportunity of the solutions done at the local level and the regional level to be bubbling up through the system so that we can learn and value-add. I want to finish my talk on the role of the multipurpose service, and the MPSs that operate in Corryong and in Alpine, which are Bright, Mount Beauty and Myrtleford. MPSs were an effort by communities to bring health together into one bundle. There are seven funded MPSs in Victoria. They're funded by the Commonwealth, with support from the Victorian government, to provide the needs that our communities have identified. I think it's a fantastic model, but it sadly doesn't have the support that it needs, so I've been lobbying the various ministers, saying we need to review the funding and review the operation. We really need to bring the MPSs into the 21st century and give them the resources that they need to actually meet the needs of local communities. Corryong is doing that, but it could do with so much more love, care and support. Alpine, in its way, is doing some fantastic work. I would just love to see a lot more attention given to those really good models. My final call-out that I would really like to bring to the parliament is the role that some of those smaller, more isolated community groups have with telehealth. I'm so impressed by an amazing network of telehealth operating right across north-east Victoria. To Albury Wodonga Health, and particularly to the old Wangaratta hospital, now Northeast Health Wangaratta, what a fabulous job you're doing in getting telehealth out into the small hospitals, enabling specialist services and diagnostic services and really using modern technology to make our system work so much better. I call out to the University of Melbourne Northeast Health Wangaratta model and all the partnership institutions that are now working together. Every time I go out to the communities and visit the hospitals or aged-care facilities and see the work they're doing, I'm just so full of pride at the innovation and the technical expertise that our communities can bring to bear in solving problems. Tonight, as I bring my comments to a close, I think we've got an enormous amount to offer in the future as we design healthcare services that particularly meet our needs in rural and regional Australia. We must know that rural and regional Australia are different. It often costs more to deliver services there. Our particular communities have often got a lot to be involved with, and we can do so much if we make better use of them. I would like to encourage all my existing networks to link into the scoping, skills and training needs in rural aged care. To the members of the network providers in north-east Victoria, great work. La Trobe has a centre for rural health, and they're doing some fantastic research work around aged care. So good work, north-east Victoria. I'm really looking forward to being your advocate as we move forward. I hope we can get some action before the end of the royal commission. I hope we can find a way of getting change on the ground now and not wait until 2020 before we actually get the results out of that. I look forward to working with the minister and the opposition as we progress this and come up with some really strong plans for aged care in rural and regional Australia. 17:40 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie It's an old-age lesson that we're all taught as kids: respect your elders. As I was growing up, often my parents would introduce me to someone, and it would always be, 'This is Mr —' or, 'This is Mrs —' and I try to do the same with my own three sons when I'm talking to them; it might be, 'This is Mr Smith,' or, 'This is Mr Vasta,' or whoever it is. It is important to get across to our kids that elders should be respected. That's exactly what this bill is here to do, and I'm happy to speak on it. Australia—as we know, as Australians—is the best place in the world to live. Often, I believe, people don't always recognise it, but it is because of our older Australians, our senior Australians, that we have been left the great country that we have today. It's their leadership that has seen our country battle wars and financial crises and everything else that we've gone through, and come out stronger. Our democracy and individual freedoms are steadfast today because they made sacrifices for our generations; whether they fought in world wars or so forth, we certainly have been left the great country that we have today because of senior Australians. We owe a great deal to older Australians. That's why I, as an individual and as the member for Petrie, and we, as a government and as a parliament and as a nation, need to ensure that they are supported and cared for as they age. So I very much welcome Prime Minister Scott Morrison's call for a royal commission, and I support this bill, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. This bill is one of the most important things that this parliament will talk about this month. The reforms to aged care and the royal commission have started the conversation in the community, and the overwhelming response has been to ensure that we, as a government, do everything that we can to ensure our elderly receive first-class care. At this point, I'll add that it's not just government—the Australian community must do all that they can to ensure that elder Australians receive first-class care. The footage that we saw recently on Four Corners did show horrendous abuse by some individuals in aged-care facilities. It was not only hard to watch; it was heartbreaking. I don't think there's a single person in the country who would watch those videos and not be distressed. This parliament aims to make decisions for all Australians, and, by establishing the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, we are putting in place a framework that will better protect older Australians who rely on aged care. The commission is part of a significant reform in the regulation of aged-care providers. The commission will be responsible for a number of things, including the approval of providers of aged care, compliance and compulsory reporting of assaults from 1 January 2020. Before I speak further on the specifics, I would like to say thank you: thank you to the aged-care facilities in my electorate of Petrie. It's easy to focus on the negative side of aged care, on the problems and the people, and—as we saw a member do earlier—just on the letters from people who have had issues. But there are many Australians who receive great care in aged care. That would be the majority of people in aged care, from my experience in getting around my electorate and seeing the providers and the staff at places like BallyCara in Scarborough, Seasons Aged Care in Mango Hill, Azure Blue in Redcliffe, the Holy Spirit Home at Carseldine or Bridgeman Downs Aveo. In fact, I recently opened Opal aged care in North Lakes. What a wonderful facility that place is. It is cutting edge in dealing with the fact that as our cities grow we have less land—they have gone high-rise in their aged-care facility. It is more like the foyer of a five-star hotel. When you walk into it, that's the feeling you get. It is beautifully decorated, with a wonderful little coffee shop and cafe and a hairdresser as well, and you are greeted by wonderful staff. At the end of the day life is about relationships—the fact that when people walk in the door and are greeted well is important. It is a high-rise facility with wonderful rooms that are spacious and have ensuites. There are very good facilities, such as lounges where senior Australians staying there in aged care can just sit and chat to one another. At Opal North Lakes they also have a dementia unit. I've just finished reading a book on dementia by one of my constituents, Debbie Flack. It talks about her experience with her mother—who has now passed away—and the heartbreak she went through in dealing with her mum, and a little bit about what the member for Grey spoke about before, which is that aged-care facilities have changed over the years in how they deal with people with dementia. The new one, Opal, has certainly done a great job there. I've also visited Beaumont Care, Compton Gardens and St James Terrace—a whole lot of them—to name just a few. During my visits, I have been humbled to hear and see firsthand the work that staff do every day to make residents comfortable and cared for. Since the royal commission was announced by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, I've also started to communicate a little bit further. Whilst I've been to many aged-care facilities in my electorate, I've also started to communicate a little bit more and ask what's actually happening in their aged-care facility. I am talking to the residents there to hear their stories firsthand. I'm not there all the time, but I can visit these places. I would like to hear directly from them, too, and I would like to recognise the staff and the facilities that are doing a great job and doing it extremely well, for which I thank them. But, if there are issues, I would like to hear about them as well. I spoke earlier about the fact that as a government we are trying to do what we can and as the member for my electorate I'm trying to do what I can to respect senior Australians, including when I get out to local schools to talk to primary school kids. I encourage them to spend time with their grandparents, listening to the stories and the wisdom and the knowledge they have gained over 70 or 80 years of life, and beyond. My four grandparents have all passed away, but I remember that in my 20s I would often sit down with them, particularly my nanna Mary, my mum's mum, who was in Zillmere, and talk about World War II, when, during her time in the Army, she operated the spotlights on the Brisbane River looking for Japanese submarines. They never found any. We know they sneaked into Sydney Harbour, but they never found any in the Brisbane River. The stories you get from your grandparents are really important. It was the same when I spoke to my grandfather. Life lessons were passed on. It is very important that grandparents pass that on to younger Australians, which is why I encourage students to do that when I visit their schools. Often people say to me, 'Oh, you're a politician, Luke. Gee you must live a busy life.' You must get that as well, Deputy Speaker Vasta, as you live a busy life. But the fact is that all Australians now live busy lives. Every Australian lives a busy life. My wife, Louise, and I have three sons, a Doberman to walk and a business to run, and Louise is on different committees. Ms Henderson interjecting— Mr HOWARTH 247742 She's busier than I am, Member for Corangamite. Often, people in my electorate live fast-paced, busy lives. The other thing we do is put up six-foot fences, don't we? We get our 400 square-metre block or 600 square-metre block, or we may have a unit. Often, we put up six-foot fences around our homes and we don't always talk to the neighbours. The reason I mention is this is because, as Australians, we live fast-paced, busy lives and we don't talk to our neighbours. I was talking to a lady in aged care the other day and she was saying that she just wished she could spend a bit more time with people. I understand that. They're busy with their work in caring for people. They could chat to them for half an hour, but if you chat to them for half an hour you're probably pushing up the costs for those same people when they are paid staff doing that. That's why I say that as a community and as a nation, we do need to be doing more for older Australians. I would say to people in my own electorate: 'Go and visit your parents. Go and visit your grandparents.' To those schools in my electorate or those community groups—Lions Clubs or Rotary Club; and I met with some ladies the other day from the Older Women's Network in my electorate—I say, 'If you're looking for something to do, go and visit some of those aged-care facilities. Talk to the older Australians in those facilities that I've just visited.' I know that some schools will visit aged-care facilities or visit the local hospital at Christmas and so forth. It is a great opportunity, maybe for kids who don't have grandparents, where they can go and visit some aged-care facilities with the school and talk to those people who just want to chat. Often, many people in aged care just want to be able to chat. They might not be very mobile and they might not be able to get outside—and, obviously, the staff, like all of us now, are fast paced. I just want to make the point that as a government and as a parliament we can do these things, but that the Australian community can do them as well. I think that ministers, shadow ministers and members of parliament should encourage Australians to do that as well. Obviously, I am proud to be part of a government which has introduced this bill. We are ensuring that older Australians are respected, listened to and cared for, no matter what their age or where they live. Whether they're self-funded retirees or on the pension, whether they are in the biggest or smallest aged-care homes, in the cities or in the regions, this bill protects and enhances the safety, health, wellbeing and quality of life for all older Australians in aged care, which is exactly how it should be. The independent commission will make things easier for both residents and providers, becoming a single point of contact in relation to quality of care and regulations. By simplifying the process, any questions, complaints or reports of mistreatment will be, and should be, answered and dealt with quickly and appropriately. By making the commission responsible for regulating residential aged-care services, flexible-care services, home care services and Commonwealth-funded aged-care services, we are ensuring that all sectors of the aged-care sector are governed by the same body. The message is clear: Any person or organisation doing the wrong thing will be found. We won't stand for substandard care, and we have included the option to shut down an operator who is doing the wrong thing as part of the broader reforms. This bill is part of the government's broader aged-care reform agenda, which we announced in the May budget. We have taken steps to improve aged-care regulation and to provide greater transparency of quality in aged care. We have also funded some $22 million to trial specialist elder abuse support services and have begun working with the states and territories to develop a national online register for enduring powers of attorney. We want to provide more choice for older Australians so that they can live healthier, more independent and safer lives. The establishment of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission is an essential step towards streamlining regulations and ensuring that the quality of aged care is upheld across the country. The bill will, hopefully—and I use that word, 'hopefully'—restore some peace of mind for the families of those in aged care. The commission will be a single point of contact for questions, concerns and complaints. All Australians can be assured that this independent commission will not just shuffle paperwork but will work tirelessly to improve and uphold quality care standards across the country. This reform has been shaped solely around those who rely on aged-care services and their families. This bill is for them, to ensure that the health, safety and wellbeing of the consumer is the No. 1 priority in the residences they choose to call home. Our older Australians have made a remarkable contribution to our country. Without their sacrifice, bravery and leadership our country could have been a very different place. It is imperative we support them as we age. That's why I'm proud to support this bill. When I say 'we' I mean all Australians. 17:55 Mr HART 263070 Bass Around 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving some form of aged care provided by around 400,000 nurses and carers. The statistics show that it's projected that by 2056 the aged-care workforce will need to triple. That is, there will be nearly one million workers required to deliver services for more than 3.5 million older Australians, and older people will represent as much as one in four Australians. Any of us can trot out those statistics in this place, but what we need to consider is the personal aspect of this area of policy. It is absolutely true that each of us will, at some stage, require some measure of assistance if we live to an age that requires aged care. Every Australian who requires aged care should receive an appropriate level of service that is safe and clinically appropriate. We shouldn't have the circumstances which have been recently identified on Four Corners and other public controversies with respect to the quality of aged care. This is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and it's something that really does move beyond us as the people's representatives standing here in parliament. There needs to be concrete action to ensure that safety, quality and dignity in aged care is maintained. Public expenditure on aged care as a share of the economy is expected to double by the 2050s. It is obvious to me that the aged-care system is in crisis. The fact that the aged-care system is in crisis should be obvious to any reasonable observer. But, when Labor first raised this issue, when we pressed the issue, as I might say we must when calling any government to account, we were heavily criticised by the minister. Now, as I said earlier today, this crisis is recognised implicitly with the calling of a royal commission. Billions of dollars have been cut from aged care in the last five years by this government. The present Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, cut almost $2 billion in his first year as Treasurer. There are now 121,000 people on the home-care package waiting list. It is telling that when I first wrote this speech I included the figure of 108,000 people. Between when I drafted this speech and now there are a further nearly 15,000 people that are now added to waiting list. The list include 88,000 people with high needs, many of them living with dementia and other high-care requirements. More than a dozen reviews and reports, including hundreds of recommendations, still sit on the minister's desk without being actioned. Three different aged-care ministers across the governments of Prime Minister Abbott, Prime Minister Turnbull and now Prime Minister Morrison have had the responsibility for this for the last five years, but in my submission they have failed to undertake any real reform across this vitally important ageing portfolio. As I indicated earlier today, I've spoken on a number of occasions on motions moved by my good friend and colleague, the shadow minister for ageing and mental health, Julie Collins, the member for Franklin. Those motions criticised the government for its delay in releasing important information on the government's progress in addressing the home care waiting list. As I said earlier, in my opening, each of us should have a real interest in this policy area. This has a direct impact upon the dignity of vulnerable older Australians. The purpose of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 is to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from 1 January 2019. The commission will be responsible for the accreditation, assessment and monitoring of aged-care services and Commonwealth funded aged-care services, and for complaints handling. The role of the commission is to protect and enhance the safety, health, wellbeing and, importantly, quality of life of aged-care consumers and also to promote confidence and trust in the provision of aged care and to promote engagement with aged-care consumers about the quality of care and services. This is all particularly timely, given the appalling vision that we saw on the Four Corners reports over two weeks. It's appropriate for us to ask: what is the government's record with respect to this important area of public policy? And, more broadly, what is the government's record in supporting and funding regulators? I say that this government's record in supporting and funding regulators is bleak. This is a government that called the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the 'tough cop on the beat'. We now have a royal commission highlighting every day failures not just in regulation but in general law enforcement. This government's unfortunate record of incompetence extends across multiple portfolio areas. What use is a philosophy that drives to cut what is described as 'red tape' when that regulation is properly required to maintain public trust and confidence, public trust in safety and consumer protection in multiple areas, whether it's finance or it's aged care? The undeniable fact is that the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will have a significant task in restoring confidence and trust in the provision of aged care—and this is before any evidence is taken with respect to the proposed royal commission and indeed before any terms of reference are agreed or published. Aged care has been a policy area which, in the past, has attracted a significant level of bipartisanship. Labor introduced welcome reform with its Living Longer Living Better reforms. Those reforms were designed to deliver important benefits to older Australians, reforms that included more support and care at home; better access to residential care; increased recognition of carers, particularly those from culturally diverse backgrounds; more support for those who suffer from dementia; and, of course, better access to information to assist in the planning and delivery of care. It's important for all of us to understand that the central philosophy driving policy was that of consumer-directed care not just providing greater choice for older Australians as to the care they wanted but also delivering independence and support to live at home for as long as possible. There was a growing wave of outcry from the public about the quality of care that older Australians have received, particularly with respect to residential aged-care facilities, even before the revelations from the Four Corners story. This was first highlighted by the investigations around elder abuse and neglect at the South Australian Oakden facility. In response to Oakden, there was a Senate inquiry. This in turn triggered the government to commission a review which is better known as the Carnell-Paterson review. The review was then handed to the then Turnbull government in October 2017. Labor supports the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. They should be considered non-controversial, but there are a number of concerns. Firstly, it's taken nearly a year for the government to introduce legislation into parliament in response to the Carnell-Paterson review. The bills are, in my view, a missed opportunity for the government to give the new commission stronger arbitrary powers, particularly given the level of public concern in relation to service providers. Although the advisory council is set to continue, the government has yet to fill vacancies on the advisory council. Labor will put the government on notice that there must be no change to the cost-recovery process and/or fees to ensure the ongoing support which is necessary for smaller providers, in particular in regional Australia, which is where I represent. The government has also not addressed the policy area with any success, which is evident from the significant level of public concern about the aged-care sector. As I said earlier, more than a dozen reviews and reports, including hundreds of recommendations, still sit within government and on the minister's desk without being actioned. It might be said that the government has proceeded to cherry-pick rather than deal with the reports and the reviews in an holistic manner. The lack of response in relation to the reviews and reports in relation to any reform fits a disturbing pattern of inaction, incompetence and cover-ups by successive governments. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have shown a complete lack of commitment to the Australian aged-care system by cutting billions of dollars from the aged-care system. The aged-care system has been used as an ATM to try and prop up the budget, with significant cuts in support to the industry, and there have been denials that there was a cut in the first place. That is what this government does: it consistently argues that it is delivering additional funding year after year—that is, in raw dollar terms—and it says it can't be accused of cutting health, education or the funding available to aged care. In this particular case, they've been caught out with their hands in the till. The aged-care funding instrument was cut by $1.2 billion. This means a cut to services to vulnerable, older Australians. It's absolutely obvious to me that standards in the care of older Australians have slipped under the weight of these cuts, in particular with the lack of supervision and attention to standard. I, like every other representative in this place, I'm sure, receive many complaints and requests for assistance from constituents who are attempting to navigate the aged-care system. My constituent Estelle came into the electorate office to express her frustration at the system. She lives with her elderly mother and provides care to her. Her mother cannot get into a nursing home because she owns a small farm. To make matters worse, Estelle has been told that there is no palliative care available to her mother 'because of funding constraints'. Estelle told my office that she's looking forward to a change of government and a better approach to aged care. I've also been speaking to Malcolm, who regularly visits a friend, Neil, in an aged-care facility in Launceston. Neil is recovering from a broken hip and requires physiotherapy as part of his recovery. Malcolm was horrified to learn that the only way Neil could get access to this treatment was to pay $75 per hour to a private physiotherapist. That is because the facility where Neil is a resident no longer has the funding to offer physiotherapy and other allied health services to its residents—a direct result of this government's $2 billion worth of cuts to aged care funding. I've previously brought to the attention of the House concerns raised by Diana, who lives in a small town, Bridport, within my electorate. She despairs at the state of the My Aged Care website, saying that it should be a 'research tool for older Australians, not an advertising platform for providers'. She pointed out that, despite the fact that she lives in a remote seaside village and the fact that she finally received an aged-care package after an extended wait, according to the My Aged Care website, she has in excess of 80 providers who might provide services to her in Bridport. This is more than are available to a potential consumer in Hobart or Canberra. The reality, of course, is that there are few providers available to her, despite what that website reports. I also spoke to Michael from Launceston after the facility where his mother is a resident tried to increase her accommodation fees by 60 per cent following a refurbishment. Clearly, there are real concerns with respect to safety and quality within the aged-care sector. There are many services that are doing very, very well, but we need to ensure that there's not just the rhetoric of being a tough cop on the beat and that the government actually follows through. 18:10 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo When the Prime Minister announced the royal commission into aged care, he said that instances of older people being hurt by failures of care simply cannot be explained or excused. I agree with the Prime Minister. I've spent months listening to stories about aged care from my community and the nation, both the good and the bad, but the footage captured in the Four Corners program that aired a couple of weeks ago was indeed heartbreaking. This system is not working. Just for the Four Corners story, more than 4,000 Australians were willing to share their stories in relation to their care experiences. The Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 purports to protect the safety, health and wellbeing and quality of life of aged-care residents. It is a noble aim, but I think it will take a lot more than this bill to achieve that purpose. I am pleased that the government has announced a royal commission into aged care. It is my hope that this commission will give families the opportunity to share their experiences. Healthcare workers can share their concerns and providers can outline their plans for change. There is a wealth of experience that the royal commission can draw upon from academics, industry experts and staff with many years of experience. My hope is that we will listen to what they have to say about the sector and how they hope to change the system for the better. I know I have benefited from the knowledge of people like Peter Vincent of Aged Care Matters and Ian Henschke of National Seniors, whose insights and genuine passion for reform are something that I value and values that I share. Similarly, Victoria Traynor and her team from the University of Wollongong have worked tirelessly to establish a framework for aged-care nursing competence. While the framework is still in its early days, the results so far demonstrate the benefits to residents and providers of investing in professional development for those working in aged care. As I've said before, we must ensure that we are listening and acting on the stories of families and residents. For too long families and residents have been too afraid to share their stories. I also recognise the efforts of the minister and his active role in aged-care reforms, not only with the bill before the House today but also with those that have already passed, such as the Aged Care (Single Quality Framework) Reform Bill, and of course the forthcoming royal commission. The issues facing the royal commission are wide-ranging and intertwined. It will need to review an uncertain workforce, complex funding arrangements, training and education shortfalls, accreditation and compliance issues and consumer expectations. This cannot be done overnight. We need to allow the royal commission sufficient time to complete this comprehensive investigation, but it is equally important that we do not allow the royal commission to delay or derail existing plans for improving the quality of care for our older Australians and things that we can do right now in this parliament. The Prime Minister said: The royal commission will be in addition to, not instead of, the actions we are taking. I intend to hold the Prime Minister to that statement and I will continue to push for consumer-centric reforms to the aged-care sector to ensure we have transparency in staffing. Residential care experiences differ widely and the share of expenditure spent on staffing differs from place to place. I'm led to believe that anywhere from 45 to75 per cent of income that a home receives is spent on staff. That is an extraordinary difference, and it must be looked at. We must have transparency about how our residential care homes are run, how much is spent on food, how much is spent on hands-on care and activities and wellbeing. With that in mind, I turn back to the bill before the House today, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. The department said this bill is the product of the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review, consultations with the Aged Care Quality Advisory Council and extensive roundtable discussions with the sector. Broadly speaking, the commission is in effect the end product of a merger between the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, known as the quality agency, and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, known as the complaints commissioner. The new commissioner will bear primary responsibility for ensuring that our aged-care sector is one that puts the wellbeing of our older Australians first and that the quality of services provided is in line with community expectations. The new commissioner will in turn be supported by an advisory council, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council, which will include members with 'significant expertise in relevant fields'. The commissioner will also be supported by a chief clinical adviser and an expert clinical panel to seek out and receive clinical advice where relevant to the role of the commission. The commission's powers will extend to all Commonwealth funded aged-care services from residential care to in-home care. As of 1 January 2020, the commission will be responsible for the accreditation, assessment and monitoring, and handling of complaints processes. I want to pause here and draw attention to the fact that, currently, it is the government that is responsible for providing or revoking accreditation of aged-care providers. The minister is the one who ultimately makes the determination as to whether a provider should be granted a licence to operate and, in turn, receive ACFI funding. And yet now, in the midst of this turmoil, that responsibility is suddenly being transferred from the minister's office to an outside agency. That, I find concerning. The government says that this bill is a necessary structural change to improve how the aged-care sector is regulated. But what has actually changed? How can passing overall responsibility from the minister to the commissioner be an improvement? I always felt that the buck stopped with the minister. If the buck stops with the commissioner, I feel that is a retro step. I acknowledge the government's efforts in recent months, including the recent consolidation of quality standards and the efforts to uphold those standards through stronger enforcement provisions. But this new commission reads more like a change of stationery rather than a structural change of the aged-care regulations. For example, let's look at the proposed regulatory functions of the new commission, and the obligations it can impose on providers. There is no real change. It still requires providers to have a written plan for continuous improvement in the quality of care they provide and it still enables audits to be carried out in specified circumstances. Now these are all clearly good things. But my point here is this: these provisions were already in place when the maltreatment and abuse were taking place. These provisions were already in place when families, like those featured in the Four Corners story, were left with no other option but to covertly record the distress and the suffering of their family members. These provisions were not enough to protect our vulnerable older Australians then and they are not enough now. What is needed now is greater transparency and accountability. As I stated previously, this is the aim of my private member's bill. And I believe now, more than ever, this parliament should put aside the finger pointing, put aside playing politics with this and work together to deliver the outcomes that Australian families expect and deserve. I cannot see how transparency in nursing homes and in our aged-care facilities is anything but a good thing. 18:18 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Although the bills before us today are considered noncontroversial, it is important to stand up and make a few statements, particularly on behalf of constituents in my electorate, in relation to aged-care quality and safety. I do have to express my disappointment that, again, the government is creating another commissioner. Whilst we on this side support that, what this government hasn't done is create the framework that is required, invest in the staff that are required, invest in the skill development that is required to ensure that we have quality and safe delivery of aged-care services. It's another bill to create another commissioner, but a commissioner is at the tip of the iceberg and we're yet to see the real body of reform work that needs to happen. This government has failed so many times to get on with the really tough work and the tough reform that's required. We do need to really look at aged care and act quickly. I too want to acknowledge the workers who spoke up bravely to Four Corners about what they were seeing, experiencing and witnessing on a daily basis in the facilities in which they work. Thanks again to the families and to the people in those facilities for speaking publicly. It's not easy, when you're somebody that works in a centre, to speak publicly to the media about what is occurring in your workplace. Not only are you putting your job on the line by speaking publicly and raising an issue but you're also exposing the real vulnerability and weakness within your own workplace. I've met many aged-care workers—not just people who work in my electorate but also those in the unions that represent aged-care workers, like the HACSU members, the United Voice members and the ANMF members—and what they all have is pride about where they work. For them, it's a calling, a vocation. They truly, deeply love working with older Australians and working in aged care. When they have been to parliament to speak to members—it is disappointing that members of the government did not meet with these workers on the many occasions on which they came—they spoke to us about how it's our turn to care. They spoke to us about how they are low paid and they are undervalued in their work, which they are. They spoke to us about how some of the agencies and organisations that they work for only spend $6 a day on food for residents. They spoke to us about the problem with not having correct staffing ratios at work. They spoke to us about what happens when somebody calls in sick or if somebody's on leave and they're not backfilled. They spoke about how that compromises their ability to deliver quality care. In a recent media release put out by United Voice, they said how devastated they were by the revelations about the aged-care sector, but, unfortunately, that they're not new. Like many members of United Voice, they are placed in situations that lead to poor care on a daily basis. If that exposure weren't enough—if it weren't enough for workers who've come forward to this place to raise their issues—then surely the constituents who have called electorate offices would shock this government into more urgent action. We need to do more than just create a commission in relation to tackling the crisis in aged care. We are facing yet another inquiry as the unions, workers and family members have said. Whilst we support the royal commission and the work it will do, we also believe that there is enough out there now that the government can be doing more. We've held lots of inquiries into aged care and we've known that there will be more and more older Australians entering aged care for quite some time, yet we are still failing to do the body of work that is required to ensure that we have quality care. Critical to quality care is making sure that we manage high workloads, unpredictable hours and the lack of support for carers when they're performing their roles. Funding cuts have had a huge impact on aged care and aged-care delivery services. Inevitably, when you cut funding to aged care, it is borne by the workforce. The workforce shoulders the cost when you cut. It's common, it's really unfortunate and it shouldn't happen. In community services and in the health and community sector, when governments cut funding like this government has done in almost all of their budgets, organisations are told that they have to deliver the same amount of care with less money. They shave off corners. They cut from budgets. They cut day programming. They cut back hours. If somebody's sick, they're not replaced, putting more and more pressure on workers in these facilities. One of the comments made by a WA aged-care worker is: I want things to change for old people. I have been in aged care for 15 years and working with dementia patients for the past 13 years. We're all heartbroken at times because we can't give the people what they want. We have dementia residents coming up to us and saying: 'You don't have time to talk to us.' We get trained to take them through their day—now you rush them. I think that that comment really hits to part of the problem. There's no quality that's allowed to be included when people are now staffing in aged care. There was, once upon a time, when the aged-care worker was the best friend, the person that they could have a laugh with, when they were able to chat—when they were able to be human and engage with the people that they cared for. These days, their rosters have been so cut back and they're forced to look after so many extra residents that there's not even time for a simple hello and goodbye. Another worker said: I have worked out that from 7am, if we gave 15 minutes for residents' showers and 20 to 25 minutes for residents who use hoists and allowed an hour for breakfast, we would finish our last resident at 2.15pm. Again, this is speaking to the pressures of trying to get things done quickly. I've had people in my electorate come and speak to me about when staffing levels are low. If they're at one end of the facility and the buzzer goes, if they don't have enough staff on, if somebody takes a fall, they could be there stuck on the ground for anywhere from 40 minutes to an hour whilst they try to help the other resident. Literally, the way in which some of these facilities are being staffed is in case nothing goes wrong. That is a terrible way to run aged-care services because, as we all know, as we become older, something does go wrong all the time, so having the extra staff there is critical to help. It's also about quality of life. Like many, I go to aged-care facilities. I enjoy the 'walk a day in my shoes' when I walk around and I talk to the residents and meet with them. The days that they enjoy are the days where they've got activities and they've got theme days. We have the Melbourne Cup coming up, so many residential facilities in my area would have a theme day. There are sporting colours theme days, their singalongs, their craft days, the days where they have schools—and particularly a lot of the VCAL students—come in to do work in their organisation. Our Catholic college partners with St John of God in their aged-care facilities to facilitate a real work placement experience. But these programs can only occur if they have enough staff on the ground on the day. Workloads are high, as I said. About one in 10 workers in aged care has two jobs. That's double the national average. I'll just state that again: one in 10 aged-care workers has two jobs. Partly it's because they're only on part-time rosters or casual rosters, but the other main reason why—and this is what the workers tell me—is that their wages are so low. Their wages are so low that their full-time work or the work that they do in aged care doesn't actually pay the bills, so they take up other caring jobs outside aged care to try to subsidise their income. The other problem we have in this sector is that, unlike, say, the early childhood education sector, there is no national quality framework that exists. Only about half the staff working in the aged-care sector hold a certificate III or a certificate IV qualification. They are barely paid the minimum legal wage, and often salaries are just above the minimum wage. We know through working through industry and through talking to the workforce that we need to work collaboratively, together, to see a similar national quality framework introduced. The staff themselves want to upskill. The staff themselves want to be more engaged. They want to have the skills to be able to deliver the care that they know that their residents require. The statistics speak for themselves: 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving some form of aged care provided by about 400,000 nurses and carers. I know that there has been a lot of talk about looking at ratios. I do support ratios; however, I believe they need to be in a broader context. We can't just talk about nursing. We need to look at making sure that we've got ratios where we are reaching the complex care that's required. Every facility might be slightly different. There needs to be a discussion about what a safe ratio for dementia care is. What is a safe ratio for high care and low care? When I get out and speak to some of the facilities in my electorate, there's a really stark difference between the not-for-profit community aged-care facilities and public aged-care facilities through Bendigo Health and then the for-profit facilities. In the Macedon Ranges, there is a Bupa facility and there is RM Begg, which is a locally based not-for-profit facility. That not-for-profit facility is the place of choice for many people; however, they have a very long waiting list. They have extra staffing time and staffing hours. I'm told that it's a wonderful work environment to work in, but they acknowledge openly that they're slowly going broke under the current funding model. They're simply not adequately remunerated by the current system to continue the quality of care, and they don't want to compromise care. Meanwhile, up the road, Bupa—which is making profit and delivering a return for its shareholders—gets constant complaints from the GPs in the area, from the residents in the area and from the staff that work in the facility. There are regular reports of there not being qualified nurses on, that people who are sick aren't replaced and that programming has been cut, and there are questions about the quality of the food. We are at a crisis point within our aged-care system: which model of care do we wish to deliver? We are a society that will be judged, and in this place here we are judged, on how we treat our older Australians. They deserve dignity and respect in their elder days. They deserve to be in places where they do feel at home, where they do feel included and where they are respected. They also deserve a workforce that is well paid and respected, and which has the resources that it requires in order to do its job. So I'm hoping that the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will actually make strong recommendations to this government on how we can fix our aged-care sector. We need to make sure that we do get policy back on track in this area. After the funding cuts from this government in many of their budgets and the impacts that those have had on this sector, the very least that this government could do is not just to create the commission but to restore the billions of dollars that they've cut. This would help the workforce to skill up and deliver quality care, and it would help facilities to deliver better programming for the residents that live in their facilities. It would also give more peace of mind to family members. It's one of the hardest things at a listening post: to meet a family member when they've just had the heartbreak of losing one of their older relatives. There are some of the horror stories that they share with you, about how there was not the dignity and respect for their loved one in their final days, or that they passed away in pain because there was nobody on shift to administer the medicine that was required or that they feel their loved one died of neglect or starvation—as one person put to me—because the food was so inadequate and not something you would serve to anyone, let alone to our older Australians in aged-care facilities. People have a right to be concerned about what's happening in our aged-care institutions, and whilst this commission, which has been a long time coming, has been established, it's a little bit of work in a lot of work that needs to be done. 18:33 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018. Like my Labor colleagues, I agree to support the bills but want to note the strong concern that we all share about this government's slow response to introduce this legislation to the parliament. Today has been a day of listening to speaker after speaker on that side of the chamber, the government members: a cacophony of pathos to camouflage a complete lack of action in this space. As a nation, we should judge ourselves by how we treat our elderly. For all that older Australians have given our country throughout their working lives, they deserve respect and dignity. Recent revelations in the media confirm what Labor has been saying for a long time: that the aged-care sector is in a state of crisis. Like many local residents who have contacted me, I was appalled when I watched the shocking stories on the ABC Four Corners program. The investigations at the Oakden facility were equally disturbing yet occurred some years ago now. Like many, I was particularly shocked by the standard of care being delivered in some residential aged-care facilities. There has been a public outcry for action on the quality of care older Australians are receiving in residential aged-care facilities, and rightly so. Our older Australians in residential aged-care facilities deserve so much better than what we've seen on our television screens. They deserve dignity and they deserve to be cared for as if they were being cared for by a loved one. It is clear that the current regulatory framework that should be protecting older Australians is not working. Current reporting mechanisms are overly complex and accessing information about complaints is equally difficult. These bills are an opportunity to restore faith in the aged-care sector. However, the government has unfortunately missed the mark yet again. There are around 1.3 million Australians currently receiving some form of aged care, provided by around 400,000 nurses and carers. It is predicted that by 2056 the aged-care sector will increase to around one million workers, with 3½ million older people requiring care. The legislation before us today is in response to the Oakden investigation and a Senate inquiry which triggered the government to commission the Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, known as the Carnell-Paterson review. The report of the review was given to the Turnbull government on 23 October 2017. We stand here today, in October 2018, with a piece of legislation in front of us that will respond to some of the elements and the recommendations from that review. These bills go some way to responding to the 10 recommendations of the review, to establish an independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from 1 January 2019. I stand here today when I was to speak on this some three weeks ago. But of course this legislation was pushed off the agenda, pushed back a further three weeks, and we're going to try and establish a commission by 1 January 2019. It is October and the legislation is still in the House and is yet to go to the Senate. In the context of recent public concern, the commission will be tasked with restoring confidence in the aged-care sector. It will create a single point of contact for all aged-care consumers and providers of aged care in relation to quality of care and regulation. But it will take an extraordinary effort by those opposite to see it formed by the projected date of 1 January 2019. The problem is that this government is too busy fighting within itself to focus on looking after older Australians. We have had five long years of watching inaction on that side. Their lack of action in relation to any reform in this space is disturbing. As the member for Bendigo outlined, we do not have a framework on which to measure the care that is being given. We have not done the hard work to reform aged care to ensure that we're getting quality, especially given that there are dozens of reviews and reports sitting on the minister's desk that have been blatantly ignored. Saying that the government has not acted in any regard would in fact be somewhat misleading. They have acted: they've slashed funding from the aged-care sector. There has been nothing but funding cuts over the past five years. It began in the 2014 budget with the dementia supplement cuts, which signalled the slide that we've now witnessed for five years. The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has tried to deny it multiple times over the past couple of months, but in his first year alone as Treasurer he was responsible for cutting almost $2 billion from the aged-care sector. The system is in crisis and those opposite need to take responsibility for it. I remember after the 2014 budget visiting one of the local not-for-profit aged-care facilities to hear how they were going to struggle without the dementia supplement, how they were concerned about the increasing number of dementia suffers with high needs, and how they were going to struggle to meet those residents' needs and they were going to struggle to explain to their families why that was the case. That was some time ago now, and they are still struggling. The government values older Australians so little, it seems, that the minister for aged care is not included in cabinet. I would suggest that's a direct result of why this particular area has seen such savage cuts. It is deeply concerning that, in response to the aged-care crisis, the Liberal government have shown no compassion, just funding cuts. Inevitably, the result of these cuts is that the standard of care for older Australians has declined. We now have before us an agreement around a royal commission that is set to wind up in 2020. It is important that the royal commission shines a strong light on the quality, or lack thereof, in the system. It needs to look at the reasons for the appalling treatment occurring under current guidelines, legislation and the funding model. The commission should be given scope to look at the impacts of cuts and the changes to the ACFI on the current aged-care facility system. It should explore the impact of the lack of home-care packages and the subsequent impact in early entry into the aged-care system. It should look at the workforce, training and quality that has led to the outrageous practices that we have seen. The other side of the aged-care system is the home care packages. Again, in this space we are seeing an absolute mess from this government. Time and time again, the lack of packages has been raised by the member for Franklin and many of us on this side in private members' business. Time and time again, we've complained about reports and data being held back as the numbers on the waiting lists rose. The home care package mess is another failure to add to the Liberals' record when it comes to the aged-care sector. It says a lot that the member for Cook, Scott Morrison, approved a multimillion-dollar taxpayer funded advertising campaign encouraging older Australians to access home care packages, whilst the waiting list for home care blew out to 121,000 people. The $8.2 million advertising campaign was the single biggest advertising spend in the 2018 budget. This campaign not only wasted millions of taxpayer dollars which could have been used to fund the home care packages but also gave older Australians false hope of their chance to accessing them. What we know is that there are now 121,000 people waiting for home care packages. Of those people, 95,000 are waiting on the list with high-care needs, many with dementia. The blowout in the list means that older Australians are waiting, in some instances, more than two years before they can access a home care package that they have been approved for. The result means that people are going into aged-care facilities earlier than they would otherwise have needed to. This is irresponsible, not just in terms of quality; it's also financially irresponsible. We know about the cost blowouts as people enter aged care earlier than would have been necessary. This year's budget provided funding for a mere 14,000 packages over a four-year period. Three thousand five hundred packages per year is woefully inadequate when you consider that, in the past three months alone, the waiting list has grown by 13,000 people. While any money for the aged-care sector is welcomed, the provision of 14,000 packages over four years, when the waitlist is sitting at over 121,000, is disgraceful and says everything that is wrong with the policies of those opposite. The issue raised by the member for Bendigo, thankfully, is around the workforce. The government is yet to commit to any funding to the Aged Care Workforce Strategy Taskforce. In the next 30 years, the aged-care workforce is expected to increase by 300 per cent, so we need to get this right now. The government's hands-off approach is failing not only the sector but older Australians who are reliant upon it. After they came into office in 2013, the Liberal government dumped Labor's $1.5 billion workforce compact and supplement. Labor will continue to advocate for a comprehensive workforce development strategy to address issues of training, staffing levels and an ageing workforce. The government is failing to ensure that the aged-care sector has staff that are adequately skilled and equipped to care for our rapidly ageing population. That is not to diminish the work of the many carers and nurses I have met who work in this sector. To a large degree, those I have met are caring people. They are committed workers, tarred with an uncaring brush because of the images that we have seen on our television screens. I have met with aged-care workers and they have shared their stories about the real impact of funding cuts on the work they do. Their stories horrify the broader public—they do not meet the community's expectations. They speak of having little time to spend with residents, no time for conversation. There were tears when I met with workers in the western district. There were tears for how their role has changed and has impacted on the quality of life of the residents they care for. They talked of how heartbreaking it was not to be able to sit with someone while they drank their cup of tea. They spoke of the time pressures of having to get so many people out of bed and showered and dressed for the day. Aged care should not look like it is being institutionalised. Aged care should look like care. The bills that are in front of us today will establish a commission that was called for 12 months ago. The royal commission will shine a light on things, but we know now what many of the issues are. We know that there are issues in terms of staff ratios. We know that there are issues in terms of the quality of care. These things need to be addressed immediately. In contrast to the crisis caused by the Liberal government, Labor has a strong track record when it comes to ageing reform. In 2012, Labor introduced the Living Longer Living Better ageing reforms. In May this year, in fact in the budget reply, Bill Shorten said that an elected Labor government will make dementia and ageing national priorities, because it is the right thing to do—to make sure that older Australians have the dignity and respect that they deserve in aged care. I know how often members on this side, and those opposite, are being contacted by people concerned about either the level of the home care package that they are likely to receive or the treatment of loved ones in aged-care facilities. I have heard many of those opposite raise these issues in this place, and I've also heard them come back and tell us how they had gotten ministerial intervention around a home care package for a level 3 or 4 resident in their community. Ministerial intervention is not good enough in this space. We need to act and we need to act now. Beyond the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, there needs to be action taken before we see the end of the royal commission. We cannot wait until it is concluded before we start implementing changes to fix this sector, which is in a state of crisis nationally. The government cannot ignore the situation any longer, as they have with previous inquiries. Elderly Australians deserve to spend their twilight years in a dignified way. They deserve to have care in the institutions in which they are living. They deserve to have people working with them who care for them, who have time in their day, who are receiving a decent rate of pay and who have high-quality training. We need to increase the expectations for every—every!—facility to ensure that the quality of care that we would want for our own parents is being provided for every elderly Australian. 18:48 Mr KHALIL 101351 Wills I rise to speak on the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. Deputy Speaker Hastie, you know that we support the royal commission into aged care, as, of course, do the vast majority of the public—there was a 240,000-strong petition to that effect. But it should not be an excuse for inaction on the issues that are facing the aged-care sector today. I've received emails, phone calls and letters—hundreds of them—and I've visited constituents of mine who have shared with me their struggles with the quality of their own aged care and that of their family members. As the need for high-quality and transparent aged-care services expands, we must act now. We must address these issues and support the quality of care that older Australians should be receiving. This bill goes some way to doing that. The impacts of understaffing and underfunding are real—we've heard about that. The ones who get the short straw as a by-product of those shortcomings are our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones. That is not to mention, as the previous speaker has, the nurses and aged-care workers who look after them. There are around 1.3 million Australians who are currently receiving some form of aged care. This care is being provided by around 400,000 nurses and carers. There clearly are not enough carers and nurses to do the job, and the ones who are doing the hard work on the ground aren't given enough pay, respect and support. Their role is critical in the care of our older Australians and will become increasingly important as the numbers increase, so we have to act now. We have to implement long-term solutions to this growing and demanding issue. It is projected that by 2056 the aged-care workforce will need to triple to around one million workers to adequately deliver the services for more than 3½ million older Australians, who will represent one in four aged Australians who will need that care. The recommendations from a Senate inquiry and the subsequent Carnell-Paterson review following the investigations into elder abuse at the Oakden facility in South Australia have led us to this point, but it has been slow, halting and fumbling. We are extremely concerned about the government's dithering response in introducing legislation into this parliament. We are concerned that the government have yet to respond to many of the other recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review. We are concerned that the government have known about this review and the recommendations since October 2017. That was a year ago. What is the hold-up? The government only decided to act when they watched, or heard about before watching, the harrowing Four Corners series, the first part of which aired during the last parliamentary sitting week. The sharing of the personal experiences of families and residential aged-care facilities suddenly made them wake up to some of the problems that were right before their noses the entire time. But the Carnell-Paterson review is not the only review that has sat untouched by the government. There have been more than a dozen reviews and reports, and there are hundreds of unactioned recommendations. There can only be one sad answer to this dithering, this slowness. Clearly, unfortunately, the coalition government are too busy fighting amongst themselves, day to day, to actually do their day job, to drive long-term reform and to make the necessary changes to address the issues in the aged-care sector. What they've managed to do, just barely, is fit in what is pretty much a piecemeal—piecemeal in nature—process. I recently visited the Ethnic Communities Council in my electorate to speak and participate on a panel at its forum on the aged and those on the aged pension. A lot of the discussion included the challenges faced by culturally and linguistically diverse pensioners in particular—the rising cost of living, access to health care, maintaining active lifestyles, mental and physical health in retirement, but also the additional language and cultural challenges faced by those pensioners from very diverse backgrounds, some of whom migrated to this country in the fifties and worked all their lives helping build Australia. Really, these challenges are shared by all ageing Australians. The forum took place on the Monday after Scott Morrison's ascension to the position of Prime Minister. The slowness in addressing these issues could be an indication, maybe, of another reason besides the infighting—that is, his philosophical view towards the elderly. As I was researching that speech, it was interesting to read what Scott Morrison had said about those elderly constituents— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Order! The member will refer to— Mr KHALIL 101351 Sorry Mr Deputy Speaker—what the now Prime Minister— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247742 Thank you. Mr KHALIL 101351 at the time the member for Cook, had said in the past when he was a freshly minted Treasurer. In 2015, he had made comments stating that the aged pension should not be regarded as an entitlement for all. This is a fundamentally flawed view of the social contract that binds pensioners with the government. These are pensioners who have worked 40, 50, 60 years, paid their taxes and made their contributions. There is a contract that binds them with the government, and that is that the government has a responsibility to provide them with their pension. I was quite shocked by the philosophical position that was put by the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister. In my mind the Prime Minister's philosophical position on this is a big part of the problem that we're facing right now. As Treasurer during the Turnbull government, he then outlined his vision for an overhaul of the country's retirement income system, by both reducing expenditure on welfare payments and limiting the amount of revenue foregone through tax concessions. I have a fundamental difference of opinion with this philosophical position. As I said, there is a binding contract between the elderly Australians, pensioners in this country, who deserve, after all of their years, decades, of hard work and commitment to this nation, that they are looked after by the government. It is not an entitlement; it is not welfare; it's part of the social contract. I said to the pensioners and the aged in my electorate of Wills, 'The pension is not a privilege. It is a right which you have worked for and which you deserve.' And this principle applies to aged care as well. Its provision is of fundamental and existential importance to millions of ageing Australians. The government may have abandoned the proposal to raise the pension age from 67 to 70, but I would say let's not be fooled by the new Prime Minister. He may be the new Prime Minister of Australia, but there is a track record there of wanting to make cuts to social welfare payments and of seeing the provision of these aged-care services and the pension as a form of welfare. Some of these policies are lifted out of the right-wing think tanks that we know of, like the Institute of Public Affairs. Let's look at the contrast. Labor has a strong track record of support for aged care. The Living Longer Living Better reforms were delivered by Labor in government in 2012 and 2013. These reforms were designed to deliver important benefits to older Australians. They included more support and care at home, better access to residential care, increased recognition of carers and those from culturally diverse backgrounds, more support for those with dementia and better access to information. I think it is a truism. I mean, it is obvious, but I will say it again: Labor has always prioritised health care, especially for those working and living in aged-care facilities. It was Labor that was responsible for the historic reforms in 2012. Opposition leader Bill Shorten committed in his budget reply speech that a Labor government, if elected, would make dementia and ageing a national priority. The fact is we are in a mess because, for years, the coalition government have been slashing funding to aged care repeatedly. It is only now that they claim to have some concern, but they continue to fail the public on aged care. In the Turnbull government, Sussan Ley was health minister and little if nothing was done to progress the LLLB reforms. The current Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care—a portfolio clearly not valued enough to be included in the cabinet—has also struggled to progress any of those reforms. Three different aged-care ministers across the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have had carriage of these reforms for the past five years and have failed miserably to do any real reform across the ageing portfolio. How can we call ourselves a fair and generous country if we continue to treat elderly Australians without the respect that they deserve? The system is in crisis and it is no wonder. You can't fix aged-care support and support our ageing population and our healthcare workforce by slashing funding. It just doesn't work that way. When you cut funding, you make it harder; you make it more difficult for those in aged care. The government's lame attempts in the 2018-19 budget were woefully inadequate and they've admitted this themselves. Data released from March 2018 sadly now reveals more than 108,000 older Australians are waiting for a home-care package. These numbers are shocking and the government made a much touted—by themselves—commitment to 14,000 home-care packages over four years. That's a drop in the ocean and nowhere near the number that is needed. It is not just inadequate; it is actually an insult to older Australians. This is only worsened by the fact that it's not even new funding. It was pulled out from another part of the budget. It was found in the same bucket and re-allocated. The government puts older Australians and their families so low on their list of priorities that they did not even commit to increase funding to keep their promises to address the waitlist to access these packages. What a sad reflection on the government—self-centred, fighting themselves, unable to focus on the needs of older Australians. Whatever light this government held up to itself as a government that would be concerned for the ageing is now covered in darkened ashes. The government created the aged-care crisis. The government then ignored the aged-care crisis, and the government and its budget failed to fix the aged-care crisis. Labor, when we were in government, recognised the national crisis in the aged-care system and offered practical policy and reform to make change. But things have actually got worse over the past five years under the coalition government. Inaction has been the catchword, and it's clear that a royal commission into the abuse and cover-ups of neglect in the aged-care sector is absolutely necessary. At least we can agree on that across the aisles—we can agree that we need the royal commission. So we, on this side, wholeheartedly support the royal commission into aged care. It must examine the impact of the years of neglect, the years of funding slashed from those who need it most, and the Prime Minister's, Mr Morrison's, own attacks when he was Treasurer, when he cut almost $2 billion in his first year. I've had many recent visits, and many visits over the two years that I've been an MP, to residential aged-care facilities in my electorate, and I've heard firsthand, from the workers and the residents, of the difficulties that they face. I support their campaign around funding, as to increasing the ratios in the system and the staffing issues generally. Fixing these issues will undoubtedly improve quality of care for some of the most vulnerable members of our society and concurrently improve the conditions of some of our least appreciated workers. But, as I said earlier, the royal commission can't be an excuse for inaction by this government. The purpose of these bills that we speak on today is to restore confidence in the delivery of aged-care services to those in aged-care facilities—those with family who reside there and those who work there. Despite the minister for aged care receiving the 'A Matter of Care' strategy more than two months ago, the government has actually sat on it and has only just released that strategy. It is yet to make any concrete commitments to increase funding to support the aged-care workforce in the 2018-19 budget. How does the government expect to drive reform without providing that additional funding? How does that happen? Labor has called on the government to heed the important advice of the chair of the report, John Pollaers, and implement the workforce strategy in full to meet the growing demand. We've seen that the public has lost confidence in the safety and quality of the delivery of these services. That is why this bill seeks to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, starting on 1 January 2019, that will take this restoration of confidence as its primary task. The government, frankly, has a lot of work to do to get this right—to get the commission right; to make it available to support the public as soon as possible—and they're taking far too long to do the work to establish it. We, on this side of the House, hope that the Greens political party, as to referral of these bills to the community affairs committee, will not further hold up the passage of this extremely important legislation. The government is still yet to fill three important positions on the advisory council, and you would think that these would have been filled by now if the government were as concerned as the public are on this issue. Under Labor, there was a clear plan within our reform package. That was achieved largely through a bipartisan approach, and we're proud of that. So we hope that we can work together again to ensure that these issues in the aged-care sector are addressed, because these older Australians are so important, given the commitment to and the sacrifices they have made in this country, to help build it and to give us the wonderful future that we have before us. 19:03 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I would like to indicate, at the beginning, in speaking to these bills—recognising that we're dealing with two cognate bills—that I support the amendment that has been moved by the shadow minister, but I also indicate that I think, as many of my colleagues do, that, if that amendment is to not succeed, these bills need to be supported. That is because we are in a really critically important time for the aged-care sector. In my electorate, this is certainly one of the most pressing issues that I and my staff deal with on a regular basis. These bills before us, the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, are enacting some of the recommendations of the Carnell-Paterson review of aged care. In particular, the first bill is establishing a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, intended to be operational from 1 January 2019. That will bring together quality assurance and complaints procedures in the aged-care sector. That's obviously as a result of the review. It's a worthwhile thing to do. But we do have some concerns about the aged-care sector, and I want to touch on those in general. First of all, I want to say that while this bill is definitely a move in the right direction and is a response to an important review it's now in the context of the agreement to establish a royal commission into aged care. There is no doubt in my mind that the royal commission will hear very significant and important evidence from across the nation and from all of our communities about some of the things that are a real challenge to us in looking after our elders as a nation. I commend the fact that that is to proceed. Having said that, it is also critically important that the things we already know are not left to languish whilst the royal commission occurs. There are actions that government could take, such as the legislation before us today, that can be progressed in order to make sure that we provide better care, love and attention to the elders of our community. I don't think that anybody in our community would expect any less of us in this place. So, in that context, I want to talk about two particular areas where it's one thing to have a quality and complaints procedure but where we also need to get the other aspects of service delivery in place. One of them is around funding and delivery of services and the other is around workforce and providing for the future, given that we know this is a space where we'll need to not only improve quality and skills but increase staffing levels—the numbers of staff that will be required to do the job. Why this is so critically important, and why I think that so many of us on this side of the House wanted to speak on the bill, is that we've got elders in our communities, many of whom are living much longer and much healthier lives. They're active and participating in all sorts of activities, often now for decades after retirement. Certainly it's not something that our grandparents' or great-grandparents' generations would have anticipated post-retirement, but it's a reality. And that's a great thing. It also means that as a result of being more healthy, more active and more engaged, it's now becoming the case that most people are often going into what we used to consider a more common experience—residential aged care—when they're at the very critical end. So they go in with very complex challenges and problems and need much more professional and qualified care provided to them. Dementia is a major issue now, as are complex health problems. People living longer means that at the end of life we are more likely to have the culmination of many of those impacts of ageing happening. It also means, obviously, that for quite a lot longer in life people will be looking to stay in their own homes—and we know from health outcomes that that's a much better thing for people to do. I think there has been a very strong bipartisan view that being able to support people to stay in their homes longer is a really good thing; it's a good policy aim. It's certainly a big part of what drove Labor's reforms in government, in the Living Longer Living Better reforms, to make sure that people were supported to do that. What frustrates me and my community at the moment—and I've spoken about this in the chamber before, so I'll just touch on it here in this debate—is the fact that post the change of government in 2013 we have seen successive cuts to funding in the aged-care sector. Certainly I was made well aware by many of the providers in my electorate—and I'm sure other colleagues found the same in their electorates—of the massive changes that were made to the funding instrument and the implications of that cut across the sector. And that continues to be the case. Before the last budget the government had put out a whole lot of stories in the media about how there was going to be a big aged-care boost in the budget. Like many in my community, I was anticipating that it would come through, because, in particular, home care packages have been a real issue for people in my electorate. We know that people are being assessed as needing the most high-level package—a level 4 package—which means that they need the highest support to stay in their own homes, which, consequently, means that if they don't get that support they are much more likely to have to move into the residential aged-care sector. Just from a purely economic perspective for government, it's better—because it is more efficient and cheaper—to keep people in their own homes. Residential aged care per head is a much more expensive proposition. This is being frustrated by the fact that there are over 100,000 people waiting for care packages across the nation. In my own area, there are over 1,000 people who have been assessed as needing it but who are waiting. I will just remind the House that those published public figures about people who are waiting for a care package do not include people who have been assessed for higher-level care and then put on an interim lower-level care package. You might need a level 4, but there is a wait for it, so, in the meantime, the government puts you on a level 2, which is, obviously, a lower level of support. The reality of that impacts another group of people for whom I think this legislation, and the whole issue, is so important: families, loved ones and carers. I cannot tell you the number of times that I've had family members in tears talking to me and my staff, waiting for a home care package to be delivered. The reality is that most families who have an elderly relative are in one of two situations. Some people are working themselves, so they have the stress and worry about being at work all day when they've got an elderly relative in their own home: not being able to pop over at lunchtime and check on them, or, if they ring and they've got a problem, not being able to duck over to see them. This puts enormous stress and pressure on people. And that, obviously, has productivity implications for people in the workplace. Getting this right would have a really important economic flow-on for those workers in our communities who have caring responsibilities in families. Often, people are not only are working; the way our demographics are these days—people not having families until much later in life—they often have kids of their own that they're also juggling in terms of child care and school commitments and so forth, at the same time that they're dealing with older parents and family members. So this is a huge issue in our community, and it's an enormous stress on people, particularly when they've got a loved one who they know has been assessed and is entitled to support, but it's taking up to a year to get that for them. Imagine that you are a son or a daughter of an elderly person in that circumstance, where you're trying to work, you're trying to support your own family, you love this person and you're trying to do everything you can for them, and for month after month that pressure continues on you even though that person has been assessed as entitled to support. It is unacceptable, and the measly 14,000 places that were in the last budget barely make a dent on that long waiting list—and the funding for that came out of residential care funding anyway; it wasn't additional money. So this has real implications not only for our loved elders in our community but also for their families, their work colleagues and the businesses that they work for. The third group of people who I want to talk about in terms of the aged-care sector are the providers. By that, I mean the aged-care providers who are caring, quality providers. In this environment, with what's happening, they really are going to have a hard time of it too. It's very unfair to those providers to be put under the pressure of funding cuts and also under the pressure of delivering quality services and trying to match those up. I'm very conscious in my own area of providers who were running particular programmes to really give some quality of life to residents and who, through changes to the funding instrument and so forth, were not able to do a whole lot of things that they really wanted to do. I want to acknowledge them in this situation. Most significantly, I want to acknowledge the aged-care workers. These are just amazing people. I'm sure all of you in the chamber will have visited aged-care providers in your own area. You would know that, by and large, they are women, but increasingly more men are working in this sector. You would know how deeply they care for the people that they're working for—their residents or older people that they're visiting and providing services to in their homes. It's just an amazing aspect of this sector—how deeply dedicated the workforce are. But they're not supported well enough. That means some challenges for us around a female-dominated sector's pay rates—certainly Labor's had something to say about how we get better in that space—but also around training and development. The job is becoming more complex; it requires higher levels of skill. Part of that is also about resilience and about helping people get the skills and knowledge they need to feel competent and, therefore, confident in their work and not stressed by it. It also goes to sheer numbers. We're all ageing. It's one of those industry sectors that's unlikely to take a downturn. We're all going to hit that point and we are going to need a huge increase in the number of people working in the aged-care sector. It has already been a challenge for many providers to recruit people. It's hard to get young people to see the sector as a viable long-term career option, although it is one and it provides great opportunities. They're seeing a sector under stress, under pressure and underfunded, without appropriate recognition of skills or support through upskilling and retraining, and when people look at that it's very hard to encourage them to come into the sector. We have to get much better at workforce planning. I do think it was a great error by the Abbott government, when they were first elected, to abolish the over $1 billion workforce strategy that Labor had put in place alongside the reforms. I think it was very short-sighted. I want to acknowledge that I attended a forum with many of those workers in Wollongong in June. Our local Labor councillor, Arthur Rorris, spoke, and so did Gerard Hayes from the Health Services Union as well as locals Amanda Hampton, Karen Singh, Lisa Walker and Lyn Martin, who between them have decades of experience in the sector. The thing that they were there for wasn't about their own educational opportunities or their own pay rates; it was about their despair and about making sure the system delivered for the people they loved and cared about and the clients that they were working with. It was just inspiring to hear that dedication. I want to pay huge respects to those workers and say to the whole parliament that we need to do better. Many of the people I have spoken about are carers, and in my final 20 seconds I want to acknowledge it is National Carers Week. The website's up and running, and I encourage people to support a carer. Go and have a look at the website and support National Carers Week. 19:18 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I want to start by acknowledging my thoughts are with the families, friends and loved ones who have had their parents or loved ones affected by some of the stories that I've been hearing today and those we have seen in media over the last few weeks. Aged care is a policy area that needs urgent attention due to the fact that Australia has an ageing population. Around 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving aged-care services provided by approximately 400,000 nurses and carers. It is projected that the aged-care workforce will need to triple by 2056—that is, around one million workers will be required to deliver services for more than 3.5 million voters. Older people will represent one in four Australians. Public expenditure on aged care is expected to double as a share of the economy by the 2050s. Right now, there are over 100,000 people on the in-home-care-package waiting list, including 88,000 people with high needs, and many of those are living with dementia. This demonstrates the high demand and rapid growth of this sector. When Labor were last in government, we understood the need to act quickly, and we are still aware of the need for urgent attention. Due to the fact that Australia has an ageing population, the ageing-policy area is a rapidly changing environment. Labor made massive reforms to the sector, delivering the Living Longer Living Better reforms in 2012 under the then minister, the Hon. Mark Butler. The Living Longer Living Better reforms were designed to deliver important benefits to older Australians. Those included more support and care at home; better access to residential care; increased recognition of carers—and I pay tribute to carers, as this week is Carers Week—and those from multicultural and diverse backgrounds and also for our First Nations people; more support for those with dementia; and better access to information. The main focus was about consumer-directed care that would give older Australians not only a greater choice about the care they wanted but the independence and support to live in their homes for as long as possible, preferably until they passed away. There was a clear plan for the Living Longer Living Better reforms, and Labor delivered a massive aged-care reform package that provided $3.7 billion over five years. Labor legislated these reforms, and we funded them. And then something devastating happened for the aged-care sector three months later. The LNP Abbott government was elected, and then the attacks on aged care commenced. The very worst thing about the current LNP government is that the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care is not included in cabinet. Three different aged-care ministers across the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have had carriage of the Living Longer Living Better reforms over the last five years, and all have failed have to do any real reform across the Ageing portfolio. The former Minister for Health and Aged Care, Sussan Ley, did little or nothing to progress the reforms. The current minister, Ken Wyatt, has also struggled to progress the Living Longer Living Better reforms. More than a dozen reviews and reports, including hundreds of recommendations, still sit on the minister's desk without being actioned. The reports have all been there, sitting on the minister's desk. Instead of responding to them with compassion, they have responded with cuts. Arguably, the worst thing that this LNP government has done to the aged-care sector is the massive cuts. The LNP have cut billions of dollars from the Aged Care Funding Instrument and have dumped Labor's $1.5 billion workforce compact. Under Scott Morrison's watch as Treasurer, the aged-care budget was used as an ATM to try to prop up the budget. He cut approximately $1.2 billion from the aged-care sector. Now, as Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has tried to say that he hasn't made any cuts. Allow me to enlighten the Prime Minister, who seems to have forgotten that he was Treasurer and apparently cannot read his own budget papers. The budget papers are very clear. Under 'Aged care provider funding' on page 101 of Budget Paper No. 2 from the 2016 budget, it states: The Government will achieve efficiencies of $1.2 billion over four years through changes to the scoring matrix of the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) that determines the level of funding paid to aged care providers. It's there in black and white. How inept can one honestly be? You cannot rip $1.2 billion out of the aged-care system and not have an impact on the quality of services. The aged-care industry bodies warned at the time of the 2016 budget that the cuts would result in reduced quality of standard of care. And—no surprise to anyone except the LNP—that is exactly what has happened. It was always going to be inevitable that these massive cuts would, sadly, lead to reducing the standard regarding the care of our older Australians. Care for older Australians is fundamentally a human right. The LNP seem to be too busy fighting amongst themselves instead of focusing on what truly matters. The lack of response in relation to any reform fits a disturbing pattern of cover-ups and inaction on aged care from successive LNP governments. The aged-care workforce is expected to increase by 300 per cent in the next 30 years, underscoring the challenges and opportunities to get this right. But how does the LNP government react to this rapid growth rate? By cutting vital funds to the sector. The current situation in the aged-care sector can be no surprise to this government, and the responsibility for this demise rests solely on its shoulders. But, instead of responding with critical funding, it has responded with denial and a royal commission. Personally, I back the royal commission, as does Labor. After all, it is Labor that has been saying for some time that the system is in crisis. It was only in May that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, said this in the parliament, and the government likened it to committing elder abuse. So it is a positive step that the LNP have changed their minds and are finally listening to people who use aged-care services, and workers, because the issues are blatantly obviously. In Townsville I have set up an aged-care reference group, and that group and members of the wider community have raised a number of issues. Firstly, the staff don't get paid properly. Secondly, the ratios of nurses and support workers to patients, and the skill mix of staff, need to be addressed. I think there needs to be a discussion about the ratio of qualified people to residents, and about the care that those residents need in the aged-care facilities. Are there enough nurses? Are there enough doctors? Do we have the local pharmacist involved? Can we get GPs to visit aged-care facilities? These are all questions that need answering. Thirdly, regarding Prime Minister Scott Morrison's cuts to aged care, you can't cut billions of dollars in funding to residential aged-care facilities—supporting people with high needs and complex conditions, like high-care dementia—and expect a better result. Fourthly, is the cost of access. I am hearing lots of stories about people feeling ripped off in retirement villages. Fifthly, is, importantly, My Aged Care. Accessing My Aged Care is simply a traumatising experience for many elderly people—apart from the fact that many elderly people are not computer literate or do not even own a computer. When my father was extremely unwell and living in a residential aged-care facility, he was being transferred to hospital and my mother had a fall and broke her pelvis whilst walking with him to the ambulance. If that was not traumatic enough, when she was eventually discharged from hospital, she also needed a visit from the aged-care assessment team, because she needed an assessment for support services. The nurse visited and spent five hours with my mother, doing the assessment on line. At the conclusion, she hit the 'submit' button, and the entire assessment disappeared from the screen. The long and the short of this story is that she had to redo the assessment at a very traumatic time in her life. The only reason she had a nurse visit was because she had just been discharged from hospital and she needed immediate support. My mother had family to support her in this process. The question for me is: what happens to older Australians who do not have someone to support them? My mother-in-law got her appointment for her assessment after she died. The My Aged Care process needs immediate attention. There have been several inquiries into the problems in the aged-care sector, which the LNP government has not acted upon. If we are going to be serious about a royal commission, then the entire system must be included—the cuts, the reports, the inaction, everything. The royal commission must look at all aspects of aged care. It must look at the long-term sustainability of the sector, the workforce and the quality of care. It all must be investigated. The workers in the aged-care sector work really hard every day. They are on very low wages. Sometimes they are low-skilled workers, and sometimes they are highly skilled individuals who are not receiving the remuneration they should because they are working in the aged-care sector. They need to have their say as well. The workers I have spoken to want to feel proud they work in the aged-care sector. They want to go home feeling they have done a good job and have had the time to properly care for the older Australians in their care. As a nation we want to encourage people to work in the aged-care sector and we want to ensure that this royal commission takes a long-term view, and not just a rushed short-term look at some systemic issues. Most importantly, the royal commission must allow for and encourage older Australians to have their say—as well as their loved ones and their families. They must feel safe to make complaints without fear of repercussions. If the government is ever to rebuild faith through the royal commission process, then it is vital that older Australians and their families have their say. But it is also critical that we do not wait until the end of the royal commission before we take action, because we know what action needs to be taken. The LNP government cannot use the excuse of a royal commission before they commit to take the necessary action to fix the sector in its immediate crisis. Older Australians and families cannot wait. The LNP government must act now on the things we know are wrong with the system. The reports are available and the reports say that the cuts are having a detrimental impact on the quality of care offered in aged-care facilities. Now it is time for the government to step up, say they are sorry and restore the funding that has been cut. You don't fixed aged care by cutting funding. You don't fix aged care by not funding it. You certainly don't fix aged care by delaying action. That is really at the heart of what has happened to the aged-care system. That brings me to the bill at hand. The Carnell-Paterson review recommended bringing together the functions of the Aged Care Quality Agency and the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner. There are 10 recommendations in the Carnell-Paterson review. The purpose of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 is to establish a new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission from January 2019. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 102 ADJOURNMENT Macarthur Electorate: Infrastructure 102 19:30 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I often speak in this chamber on the need for state and federal governments to provide adequate levels of infrastructure to meet the needs and demands of the ever-growing population of Macarthur. The reality is that my community, and indeed other areas of western and south-western Sydney, are experiencing exponential growth in population. This brings with it benefits but also certain problems. In the last few months we've heard much talk and discussion of population growth in the rapidly growing metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane et cetera. In Macarthur we're witnessing very rapid development, with old farms being converted into entire new suburbs virtually overnight and new homes cropping up every day. Literally thousands upon thousands of people are taking up residence in Macarthur, moving into suburbs such as Gilead, Campbelltown, Oran Park, Gregory Hills, Leppington, Catherine Field, Emerald Hills and Willowdale, to name just a few. These growing communities are filled with great people who have decided to call Macarthur home, and it's my pleasure to represent them all in this place. Many young families, in particular, are moving into the area with young children, having decided that our community is the area where they want to raise their children and make a life. They've moved to Macarthur seeking out opportunities in employment, business and education and just to have a better life, with a desire to find a thriving community to call home. I'm working hard to secure better outcomes for these people and, indeed, for future residents of my community. However, time and again I've lobbied for the appropriate level of services and infrastructure to be established to meet the present and future demands of my community. We are experiencing exponential growth and it's necessary that essential infrastructure is established now, not later. The reality is that these residents have been let down by national government and state governments for a long time. It's not sufficient for incumbent governments to continue negating all responsibility in these areas. We are already behind and falling further behind in transport, education and health services. Our schools are at breaking point. Some of the infrastructure is 40, 50 and 60 years old and really breaking down as I watch. I can only hazard a guess at how bad a state we'll be in over the next few decades unless something is done. There have been really very terrible attempts at public relations exercises to inform my population of how much infrastructure is being provided, which has clearly not been the case. The City Deal promoted by the Turnbull government really was a very bad, politicised outcome for my community. Transport is terrible and getting worse. The federal and state governments have not provided a rail link from my community to the new Western Sydney Airport, considered essential by all public transport and airport consultants. Our train timetable has become so much worse that it now takes 20 minutes longer to get into the city from Campbelltown than it did only 12 months ago. We have been failed by state and federal governments. We have been presented with a group of spin doctors' documents that have failed to recognise the importance of providing proper infrastructure for these rapidly growing communities. Immigration has been good for our community in many ways, but state and federal governments have failed to understand the importance of providing infrastructure for these communities now, not later. I'm very disappointed in the response of the New South Wales state government, in particular, who can spend billions of dollars on reproducing stadiums that are not needed and will be used very little by Macarthur residents, instead of proper public transport and proper funding for our schools. I'm very disappointed in the federal government's City Deal, which has been very bad for Macarthur and Campbelltown in particular. I'm very disappointed in their planning documents, which have removed all responsibility for planning from the local community and given it to developers and the moneyed few of the inner city and the north and east of Sydney and very little to Macarthur residents. It's a very poor outcome. It's not sufficient for our state and federal governments to say they're doing the right thing when they're clearly not. I've made many, many representations, as have my state colleagues, to the federal and state governments, highlighting the concerns of my constituents and the need for urgent action. Time and time again my concerns have fallen on deaf ears, with the Morrison government and the Berejiklian government now treating the Macarthur region with contempt. I've written to the minister to come and see the core infrastructure— (Time expired) The Briars Sporting Club 103 19:35 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid In August 1918 in Burwood, in my electorate of Reid, 11 boys aged between nine and 13 met in an Appian Way backyard chook shed and started a club. This was the humble beginning of a club that this year celebrates its centenary. The name of that club was The Briars, a name taken from the first president's house. In the early years, like most boys of that area, sport was absolutely everything, and they organised and took part in athletics and swimming carnivals and played cricket and rugby amongst themselves. The Briars has always been a family club, as parents and friends helped organise and guide these boys in the early days. In 1922 The Briars played in their first competitive cricket competition, followed in 1923 by entering a local rugby competition. The club's original premises on George Street, Burwood was leased in 1929 and, following the club's incorporation, finally purchased in 1950. A steady growth in sporting club membership continued throughout the ensuing years. The nature of the club and its social activities closely reflected the social mores of the day. In the early years, a library, debating, lectures and plays were put on by the members, always under the guidance of their parents. Things became difficult during the 1930s Depression, and the club's sporting activities were constricted to basically cricket and rugby. No fewer than 157 of the 187 members at the time enlisted in World War II, with 16 of those making the ultimate sacrifice. In the post-war years, the club's membership, activities and major sports expanded. Hockey was introduced as a major sport in 1946 and squash in 1956. Throughout its history, promoting the benefits of amateur team sport was paramount. Up until around 2005, it was completely run on an honorary basis. It was also unique in that, to become a full member of The Briars club, it was a prerequisite for a member to complete two playing years consecutively in a major sport. Although individual club sports have won many premierships and some members have even represented their country, with the Wallabies in rugby and Olympians in hockey, successive The Briars administrators have always emphasised the importance of participation in sport in a sporting manner. The later years of the last century and its rapidly changing social and economic environment presented The Briars with its own challenges, and the club had to adapt to accommodate these. Women's and junior sports were embraced, with hockey leading the way. In 2005, The Briars club amalgamated with Greenlees Park Bowling Club, initially to become The Briars at Greenlees and now called Briars Sports. This combined club has seen a rapid expansion of sporting membership and now has an expanded sports offering, including men's and women's lawn bowls and both senior and junior netball, which my daughter Analise has played. The club now boasts not only extensive licensed club facilities which cater for the whole family but also sporting opportunities in six major sports for players aged under eight to 88 plus. Today, as The Briars club celebrates its centenary, it has come full circle: it again has more young people than adults playing sport under The Briars' banner, just as it did when it was set up in 1918. It boasts a total of 1950 active sporting members—750 seniors and 1,200 juniors. To Brett Howle and his committee and to the amazing three brothers, John, Gerard and Paul, who have become great mates, it has been a privilege and an honour, not just for my family to be members of this club but to come back as a member of parliament to re-invest in Rothwell Park—which is the spiritual home of Briars cricket and rugby, and a field on which I played junior rugby at St Pat's in Strathfield in the under-11s—and rebuild the grandstand with the help of support from the Minister for Sport. I look forward. I enjoyed their centenary dinner in August. We have a cricket game in two weeks, postponed from last Sunday, where I'll conduct the ceremonial coin toss. To 100 years of Briars sport and to the local community, here's to the first hundred. I look forward to hopefully seeing a lot more of the next hundred to come. Jenkins, Mrs Annapuranee 103 19:40 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I rise today to place a spotlight on the case of a missing mum, missing wife, missing partner and missing Australian citizen, Mrs Annapuranee Jenkins, also known as Anna Jenkins. Anna and her husband, Frank, are both constituents of mine in Glenelg South. I first met with Anna's family back in February this year. Her husband, Frank, her daughter, Jen, and her son came into my office in Glenelg and began to tell me about Anna and her situation. Fast forward to October and the family has still not been reunited with Anna. In fact, unfortunately, she has not been heard from in quite some time. Anna first went missing on 13 December last year on the way to visiting her sick 101-year-old mother, based in an aged-care home in Malaysia. Mrs Jenkins took an Uber from her dentist to her mother's nursing home, some 15 minutes away. She then stopped near an orphanage, four kilometres from her destination. The Uber driver has subsequently helped the family investigate the path that was taken. The last known footage taken of Anna Jenkins was taken at a hotel in Penang, Malaysia, on a Wednesday, in December 2017. There have been similar cases with elderly people disappearing, but there are two differences with this particular scenario. No. 1: Anna's bank account has not been touched. No. 2: there's been no demand for money or a ransom from anyone claiming to know where she is or to have her. This has also been known to occur in this area. I've written to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on two occasions. I'm still waiting on a response to my July correspondence. I'm hopeful that it will arrive soon with some answers about what the Australian government is doing and how they're liaising with the Malaysian authorities. I ask anyone: if you're watching or listening to this speech and you'd like to help the family or you know anything about her disappearance, please go to the Facebook page that has been set up by the family. They've got a Facebook page, an Instagram account and GoFundMe page to help fund the search. A Google search for 'Anna Jenkins missing' will bring up a number of articles, newspaper reports and media reports with further information, including photos and links to the case. As you can imagine, travel to Malaysia is expensive. So far, the family has raised over $15,000, but the funding that has been raised is quickly drying up. The family has co-opted the services of a private firm called Panoptic Solutions to help do some of the groundwork in Malaysia, but they've also come up empty-handed. We know that, in the week before her disappearance, Mrs Jenkins went for a walk and collapsed, prompting a two-hour search before security guards found her at a church. Unfortunately, on this occasion her phone was left at the hotel. Her handbag, which she had with her, has not been recovered. With the anniversary of her disappearance quickly coming upon us in a couple of months, I'm hopeful that the department of foreign affairs here in Australia and the minister are providing the maximum amount of assistance available to this family. When it comes to Australians missing overseas or in trouble, we should always do whatever we can, and do over and above what is necessary to help. I'm sure the Minister for Foreign Affairs is doing whatever they can and would strongly agree with me. The family have gone to great lengths to keep Anna in the media, including multiple interviews in media outlets, including The Advertiser, Sydney Morning Herald, A Current Affair, Daily Mail and many other media outlets in Malaysia and The Indonesia Times. You can imagine the toll this has taken on the family—sleepless nights, anxiety, gut-wrenching pain. The family is close and is keen to get answers as to what happened. I know what I would want to do if a member of my family or a member of anyone I know's family disappeared without a trace—you would never give up looking. I know most of us would never give up looking. Tonight, I pass on my sincere thoughts to the Jenkins family. I hope Anna returns to Adelaide soon. I look forward to an update from the Minister for Foreign Affairs soon. But you can imagine the pain this family is going through, so we wish them all the very best and hope that something turns up very soon. Roads 104 19:45 Mr LAMING E0H Bowman You can imagine the frustration in an outer metropolitan seat like Bowman as residents attempt to get road improvements to address the increasing congestion in one of the fastest growing cities in the developed world. South-East Queensland, that 200-kilometre city, is absolutely reliant on adequate ways of reaching areas of employment. As an outer metropolitan city with just four routes into Brisbane, these routes are incredibly important to locals. Three of those four routes are state roads and there have been promises from the state Labor government of an investment of $1.5 billion in infrastructure. But where that money is, no-one has any idea. These roads have been quantified for the degree of congestion measured by numbers of minutes per kilometre in peak periods. The numbers aren't good. I'm not going to pretend that it is any worse than Sydney or Melbourne, but Brisbane is used to having approximately a 40-minute to one-hour commute from the outskirts of the city. Even that number is now starting to blow out. It is a very serious matter and it makes immigration a key issue of debate in that neck of the woods. In our particular case, we have Victoria Point. Just this week, another 231 townhouses were approved on one of these major routes with no promise of any form of road upgrade to match the additional population moving to that area. You have the invidious situation of a state regional infrastructure plan that is determined by the state government, and the council just becomes a referee with a whistle, applying the rules but really unable to make any decision based on adequacy of infrastructure because, the minute they do refuse an application, it goes straight to the Planning and Environment Court, where costs are borne by the ratepayer. It is a very, very difficult area. No-one is going to pretend that all of a sudden South-East Queensland will be building infrastructure prior to population, but the people of Redlands can clearly see they are not getting their fair share of what the state government should be doing. We have a roundabout on Wellington and Shaw streets, and the $3.5 million federal commitment in 2016 to upgrade that roundabout has just been refused by the state government, which said that even with the money they are not going to do the job. So the state opposition, just last year, committed another $5 million to that very same project and even then they said, 'We're sorry. For the $8½ million, we are not going to do that upgrade either,' which is an enormous frustration to locals who wonder just how much they have to put in the pot before the state government will take up this project for a very, very frustrating intersection for locals. Just 12 months ago, a state Labor MP said, 'Vote for me and vote for Victoria Point bypass.' No sooner was that MP elected than the promise was actually a feasibility study. Of course, you can't drive on a feasibility study. So it was a promise of a half a million dollars to look into the problem. We can see where that's heading, a further three years of further delays. I had to direct through council upgrades to basically make the Victoria Point bypass become a reality. So now it is federal money directed through council, through our annual commitments to councils around the country, that is funding this Victoria Point upgrade to take traffic off this congested part of Redlands, where these 231 townhouses are being built. The Redland Bay to Cleveland route is a very frustrating route as well. The council said, 'Out of our pockets, we will use ratepayers' money to upgrade this road that no fewer than 11 times narrows from two lanes to one and back to two, depending on where development has occurred and where infrastructure has enabled it to be upgraded. Imagine that: 11 congested bottlenecks going from two to one lane and back again. So the council said, 'We'll fund it—the state road—as long as it's paid back by the state government down the track.' There was no agreement either. There is an evolving frustration that we have this almost impenetrable state government when it comes to road infrastructure. But they seem to be happy to build bigger bus stops. They have no problem with bus stops. So what we get are fabulous, elaborate, delicious artistic impressions of bus stops with draping hanging gardens and beautiful bus stop waiting areas, but nobody seems to realise that, between bus stops, you actually need a road. Buses use roads as well. They don't just hop or levitate or float from bus stop to bus stop. With this emerging Labor preoccupation with public transport, they think they can actually stop investing in roads and just basically build larger bus stops. That reality will become clearly obvious with the incredibly important arterials, which are the routes through to Mt Gravatt, the main Old Cleveland Road route to the city, the Cleveland Redland Bay Road north-south route, and the Beenleigh Redland Bay Road route. It sounds repetitive, but they are all roads that need to be upgraded. It leaves the fabulous suburb of Redland Bay as the largest populated area of Queensland that you can leave by only one lane. We can do far better than this, but it will require the Labor Party in the state of Queensland to the come to the party. Democracy 105 19:50 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin For me, the scariest sentence uttered by a politician in recent times wasn't said by Donald Trump, nor by Senator Hanson. It was British MP Michael Gove who said, when campaigning for the Brexit referendum, 'People in this country have had enough of experts.' In saying that he effectively pushed away an argument he didn't want to participate in. He changed not just the subject but the terms of the debate, such that the ramifications of the UK leaving the EU, or staying, became a question of feelings, not a series of issues that could be debated on the basis of some agreed facts. Of course, when the votes were counted, Gove was proven right. Reactionaries in Australia, both in this parliament and outside of it, have embraced Gove's message. It is shaping our politics and diminishing our democracy. Most obviously, this has distorted what passes for our debate on climate policy. Last week, the Minister for the Environment blithely dismissed the IPCC's special report, suggesting that the world's leading climate scientists had got it wrong. This seems like the logical end point of a conversation in which the views of the member for Hughes are inflicted on us almost without pause. Gove's insight was to tie a real sense of frustration in the community to his way of thinking. Insidiously, he suggested that rejecting expertise is a way for people to take back control over lives that seem out of control. For too many Australians, formal politics is frustrating—frustratingly pointless, they might say. Decisions that shape their lives are removed from them. They've been told there are simply no alternatives to neoliberal prescriptions. We have taken important decisions out of the hands of elected officials and there is an appetite for more of this. And if it's said that these processes are what have delivered 27 years of consecutive economic growth, this simply adds insult to the injury experienced by those Australians who aren't benefiting. Absent the growth story, this is at the core of Donald Trump prevailing over Hillary Clinton. Commentators on the right have taken to disparaging what they call the politics of grievance, but this really is the core of their reactionary populism, not its antithesis. They have abandoned the battle of ideas, placed it in the too-hard basket. So, in place of a shared political conversation, we face the prospect of drifting towards divergent discussions, each built around a distinct set of facts and experiences—another side of contemporary US politics and not something we should be anxious to emulate. We need real policy debates. We need them to be opened up to all of us in order to make clear that there are real choices to be made in Australian politics, with real consequences. A strong democracy needs to be anchored by a shared understanding of what it is we are talking about and deciding on. A big part of this involves harnessing expertise within our Public Service and beyond it, putting some shape to our national political conversation and allowing disputes over facts to be meaningfully worked through, if not always resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The work of experts matters, but it must inform and illuminate, not be seen to be adjudicating, much less closing off options. We also have to bring into the conversation the lived experiences and concerns of all Australians. This can't just be through our parties, the news media and civil society, though all of these matter. It requires changes to the practice of politics. A recent speech by Ben Rimmer in the City of Melbourne, 'The ethics of gravity', provides a pathway through what he describes as the unsatisfactory state of contemporary political debate. He asks whether we have sufficient regard for the importance of underlying human experience, knowledge and capacity. Mr Gove's example suggests we haven't. His argument, in effect, is that these can't be brought together with expertise—that the type of national political conversation I've been talking about cannot, or perhaps must not, happen. He is wrong. Ben Rimmer speaks persuasively about building human connections as an imperative. He is right. We do have to grapple with the challenge of filling in the gaps between people and processes. In a personal and moving way, Mr Rimmer ponders the extraordinary capacities of frontline health workers and the critical importance of their perspectives, as I'd see it, in combination with the more abstracted views found near the top of the Public Service. There is no necessary conflict between experts and the rest of us—quite the reverse in fact. Complex policy problems don't come with simple solutions. None of us could possibly be equipped as a decision-maker or as a citizen to form considered views on all those questions that concern us. We have to rely on the work of specialists, but this does not mean delegating our values or our vision to them. We have to be honest and direct about this, and about what this means for those with expertise in a positive sense—enabling and informing a rich and inclusive national political conversation. It is through such a conversation that our competing visions for Australia can engage Australians. Let's not give in to Mr Gove's cynicism and let's not sell Australians short. What they've actually had enough of is politics without purpose or possibility. In a healthy representative democracy, we shouldn't hide from informed debate. We need to encourage it and to see how our ideas shape up through a testing democratic process. It's revealing that it's the Conservatives who seem so determined to risk this. Berowra Electorate: Schools 106 19:55 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra I'm proud of the 51 government, Catholic and independent schools in the Berowra electorate. The schools come in all shapes and sizes, from Middle Dural Public School, with fewer than 30 students, to Oakhill College, with 1,600 students—the largest Catholic school in the state—to Cherrybrook Technology High School, the largest high school in New South Wales with 2,500 students. Cherrybrook tech is the same school which the 2018 Australian Local Hero, Eddie Woo, made famous for his approach to mathematics. All 51 schools are staffed by hardworking teachers who do a fantastic job and who are support by dedicated parents who take an interest in their children's education. As a new father, I'm extremely fortunate to have a network of high-quality schools in my area. When my son grows up, like other people in Berowra we will have an abundance of choice when it comes to selecting an outstanding school for his education. We are coming to the end of the school year, and I'm looking forward to attending as many presentations as the parliamentary schedule permits and to presenting awards to outstanding students who have achieved excellence, who have shown improvement and who have contributed to their school community. At this time I'm also thinking about the students who are soon to sit their HSC exams across the electorate. I want to wish them the best of luck as they go through this challenging rite of passage and as they make plans for the next phase in their lives, whether it's further education in higher education or vocational education or preparing to enter the workforce. Over the last decade, the issue which has consumed the public debate on education has been about how our schools are funded. Since the Menzies government, the Commonwealth has provided the lion's share of public funding to non-government schools while the states have provided the funding to government schools. Historically, the Commonwealth has done this because the non-government school system alleviates pressure on the state system while providing choice for families and increased competition in the education sector, which ultimately raises standards across the board. The Gonski review suggested that the Commonwealth needed to play a larger role in funding all schools. I welcome Minister Tehan's recent announcement on school funding, which will guarantee more families a choice on their education options. A vibrant, fully-funded non-government school sector ensures that parents retain the choice of where to send their kids to school. Our government is providing a record $309.6 billion in recurrent funding to all Australian schools from 2018 to 2029. Our government remains committed to better school-funding arrangements. We will provide an additional $3.2 billion over 10 years to non-government schools identified as needing the most help from 2020 to 2029, with an additional $170.8 million available in 2019 to give funding certainty. A further $1.2 billion will be provided for a fund to address specific challenges in the non-government school sector, such as schools that need help in improving performance, and to deliver choice for communities. The government's spending is growing fastest for government schools, at around 6.3 per cent per student per year from 2019 to 2023, with a growth rate of 5.1 per cent for the non-government sector. So the government funding is growing much more quickly. One of the greatest differences between our government and the Labor Party is education policy. For decades, Labor's policies have been dictated by militant teachers' unions. These policies are often influenced by whatever fad is sweeping the union movement at the particular time, rather than by what will best equip students to succeed in the wider world. Labor's view is one-dimensional. They believe that more money thrown at the teachers union will massively and miraculously improve education. And while Australians are being beaten by Kazakhstan and Slovenia in international testing, Labor has nothing to say about failing standards and performance. Indeed, some in the Labor movement want to abolish the very exams which help us determine the health of our schooling system. An absolute focus on funding and Labor's false class war between government and non-government schools won't help Australia to educate our children in a way that will propel them to succeed in a globally competitive world. Technological advancement, globalisation and increasing mobility mean that our children aren't competing against the child in their class or in the school in the next suburb, but rather against children across the world. Our children need the skills to be competitive on a global stage and highly adaptive to keep up with shifts in technology. The rise in technology and artificial intelligence is impacting on the types of jobs required in the future. We can get too carried away with these notions. Many of the jobs we see today will still be needed in the future, but our education system will need to adapt. Our government policy remains focused on putting students first. We seek to deepen students' subject knowledge, to improve literacy and numeracy standards and to enable students to achieve their potential, and we've made considerable progress since coming to office in 2013. I believe that the policy legacy of the Liberal Party is these measures that the country needs for our students to succeed in the future. The SPEAKER 00APG It being 8.00 pm the House stands adjourned until 12.00 pm tomorrow. House adjourned at 20 : 00 NOTICES 107 NOTICES

Monday, 15 October 2018

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 109 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Geelong: National Disability Insurance Agency 109 10:30 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio It was a year ago that I stood in this place to talk about how important a decision it was for Geelong, back in 2013, that the NDIA would be based in Geelong. It was a difficult time for our city. Ford had just decided to stop building cars in Australia, and Alcoa would shortly decide to close its Point Henry smelter. The Labor government knew the challenges faced by our city, and we had a Prime Minister who knew that the decisions that that government made could make a real difference. That's why the Labor government created the Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund, which has delivered almost $30 million and over 850 jobs in our community. That's why the Labor government built the Geelong Ring Road, funded the Regional Rail Link and invested in Geelong's stadium, library and heritage centre development. That's why the national headquarters of the NDIA is based in Geelong, bringing 450 jobs and a new building that is changing Geelong's skyline as we speak. That's what it looks like when you have a government that listens to community needs and does the work to address those needs. A year ago, in that speech, I talked about how important it was that the leadership of the NDIA be based in Geelong. At that time, the CEO of the NDIA had indicated, in Senate estimates, that he was spending about a day a week in Geelong—that's all. There were unconvincing answers about where the senior leadership of the NDIA were based. It was made clear that the NDIA's actuary was based in Sydney. A year later, exactly what's happened in terms of where the senior leadership of the NDIA are based and whether they're based in Geelong remains unclear. The member for Corangamite has a role here. She is yet to advocate for and win a single notable project for our region. She stoked people's hopes on Land 400 and let them down. It was false-hope peddling of the worst kind. In the lead-up to the last federal election, there was a $20 million announcement—of what, we were not sure. After the election, that morphed into the idea of a city deal. There was an announcement earlier this year with no actual substance. But then the state government supported $150 million worth of projects under the city deal. When the Shorten Labor opposition proposed through its city partnership program that it would support those projects, creating almost a thousand jobs in the Geelong region, the member for Corangamite appeared to walk away from it. The member for Corangamite will go to the next election promising the same city deal she promised at the last one, with no progress being made. Not only has she done that but she has been part of a government that has made decisions that have made life in Geelong harder—a massive loss of manufacturing jobs and, just when people need it, attacking the social safety net that people require. On the question of the NDIA, the member for Corangamite has no excuses. There is no state Labor government or federal colleagues to shift blame to. I know that she's part of a government which has failed to recognise that our community exists but, in this instance, she has ministerial responsibility for this—no fudging, no-one else to blame. It's time that she made sure that the NDIA leadership are based in Geelong. Aged Care 109 10:33 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid In the 12 months campaigning as a candidate pre-the 2013 election, in the hope of winning the seat of Reid—obviously an extremely culturally diverse seat—I heard time and time again from the constituents there of the need for aged-care facilities that were empathetic of culturally and linguistically diverse communities. I know that Deputy Speaker Vamvakinou would know this from her background. After being elected, it was great to hear from Dr Abdurrahman Asaroglu at the Gallipoli mosque, in early 2014, that the mosque, in Auburn, had acquired a significant parcel of land next to it and had turned its attention to building a culturally sensitive aged-care facility for the Turkish community and other Islamic communities in our patch of Sydney. We lobbied the then minister, Minister Fifield, extensively. At the end of 2015 or early 2016, we secured a $10 million capital grant as well as some 86 bed licences. The Turkish community in Auburn went to work immediately. It was, indeed, a great thrill yesterday with Minister Wyatt—a great mate of mine, who jumped on a plane and came across from Perth the night before—to open this outstanding facility, the Gallipoli Home. Already, quietly over the past few weeks, 40 residents have moved in. There have been additional beds put in. It will ultimately be home to 102 local Turkish elders. This facility, under the magnificent stewardship of Dr Abdurrahman and the mosque board, will offer outreach to the local community—far broadening the reach beyond what was originally envisaged. It was also a fantastic occurrence that yesterday signified 50 years to the day that the first plane load of Turkish immigrants arrived in Australia in 1968—at 5 pm on that Sunday, to be precise. It was a really fantastic coincidence, which was obviously chosen on purpose for the launch. I would like to, again, thank not just Dr Abdurrahman but the boards that we have dealt with over the past three to four years. It's a real thrill. I mentioned in my maiden speech my desire—and when we all get here we do try and set out what we stand for and what we hope to deliver. This has been an amazing delivery for the community—the irony of which is that I lost that part of Sydney in the last redistribution. That said, they've never made me feel anything but part of that community, and yesterday was no exception. Congratulations to all involved. It was a thrill to be with you, and I look forward to seeing you again soon. Religious Freedom Review 110 10:36 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner As a high schooler of the 1980s, I remember repeated taunts about anyone who seemed to be the slightest bit gay or lesbian. The idea of being homosexual was thought of as abhorrent and was used to attack students and teachers alike. It is a mark of how far we've come today that both sides of politics are now united in the view that exemptions allowing religious schools to discriminate against children on the basis of their sexuality should be removed. I'm enough of a believer in Burkean representative democracy that I don't need polls to tell me what to do, but I still can't help noticing today's Fairfax-Ipsos survey showing that three-quarters of voters oppose laws allowing religious schools to select students and teachers based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status. That majority also holds among coalition supporters, Labor voters, Greens voters and One Nation voters. It is a significant shift for the Prime Minister, who just a few days ago, after the Ruddock review was handed down, was stating that it is existing law and that the coalition was not proposing to change those arrangements. Labor believes we can use this goodwill to go further and remove the exemption that would allow a teacher or a school staff member to be sacked or refused employment because of their sexual orientation. This is, in our view, something that puts this parliament in step with the broader community and recognises how far Australia has come on LGBT+ rights. In the ACT we have an openly gay Chief Minister and, when it came to marriage equality, 74 per cent of Canberrans voted yes. Canberra hosted Australia's first same-sex marriages five years ago when the Legislative Assembly voted to legalise marriage equality in a brief window before those marriages were overturned by the High Court. Yet Senator Seselja failed to vote for marriage equality, despite the overwhelming support for that measure from Canberrans. In a jurisdiction which is clearly very progressive on the issue of discrimination against openly gay teachers and students, I say to Senator Seselja: what will you do on these measures? Will you stand with your community in opposing discrimination against gay teachers and students? Will you stand against discrimination, or will you, again, do as you did in marriage equality and not vote the way the Canberra community supports? Great Murray River Salami Festival 110 10:39 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I'm very pleased to talk about Euston's very first Great Murray River Salami Festival, which I attended on Saturday. Euston is a small town on the banks of the Murray, in the south-western New South Wales shire of Balranald. Euston and its sister town of Robinvale, across the border, are home to a large population originating in the southern Italian province of Calabria. The area was a soldier settlement area after the Second World War and saw post-war migration by many European, mainly Italian, migrants, who moved to the area, where they remain today. More recently, the two towns are becoming known for staging some signature events, including the Almond Blossom Festival, the lunar new year and mid-autumn moon festival, and now the Great Murray River Salami Festival. I really want to pay tribute to the Euston Club and its manager, Guy Fielding, who I met twice, I think, at the Griffith Salami Festival, where he and his team were doing their research on bringing a similar festival to their club and their town but doing it slightly differently, as of course they should. They did, and it was amazing. We were on the banks of the Murray where the Euston weir means the river is high and beautiful with a great expanse of space. Markets came mainly from Mildura but also from the surrounding towns, with crafts, with beer and with gin. There was the deck of the club in the background with music and bright sunshine. So many people were celebrating the culture. It was really, really special. I should go through the winners. There were four categories. Northern style is traditionally made with the use of pork and a blend of spices, including pepper, cinnamon, cumin and nutmeg, as well as garlic. The winner was Ross Marr from Robinvale. Southern style includes pork, chilli and pepper paste and/or fennel seeds as flavouring. The winner was Felix Liparota from Euston. The bastardo style includes any ingredient other than pork—some say its blasphemy to make salami from anything other than pork, but I did see some venison salami there—and the winner was Peter Heath from Nichols Point near Mildura. In the children's category, the winner was Alexis Katis, who is nine years old. Her score would have placed her second overall. With an estimated crowd of between 1,500 and 2,000 people—2½ times the entire population of the town—I'm sure that the organisers will declare the event a great success. I know that they are planning another one for 2019. As we know, lots of incredibly hard work goes into planning such an event, so, once again, well done to the Euston Club. We look forward to many more salami festivals to come. Longman Electorate: Events 111 10:42 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman After many, many months of hoping for rain to help the farmers in my electorate, finally our prayers have been answered and the rain has come. But, as they say, when it rains it pours, and it's been pouring for quite some time now. There is seemingly no end in sight. I understand there was a fair bit of rain last night as well. For the most part, of course, rain is welcome. It helps support our primary producers in places like Elimbah, Moorina and Rocksberg and helps reduce the risk of bushfires in really susceptible areas like Ningi and Beachmere. But sometimes having so much rain means that events that you were really and truly looking forward to are cancelled. It happened to me yesterday when the Bribie Island Emergency Services Expo was postponed because of the amount of rain we've had. This event takes place every year, and it's always a fantastic event. Thousands of people stop by to see everyone from the SES, the police and the ambulance to the rural fire service come together and demonstrate what it is they do. This means plenty of demonstrations: anything from surf lifesaving to fire rescuers. It means plenty of fun for the whole family, who can get up close with fire trucks, army vehicles and other high-tech rescue equipment. Just as importantly, it means that we get an opportunity to thank personally the people who keep our communities safe, for the very important and often very dangerous work that they do. I'd like to make special mention of Graham Gibb and everyone from the Volunteer Marine Rescue organisation on Bribie Island, who host the expo every year, and every year outdo themselves. The VMR do some absolutely commendable work for our community, helping to ensure that people stay safe in the beautiful Pumicestone Passage. I'm very grateful for the work that they do. I'm proud to have helped them last year secure a $10,000 grant to refurbish their rescue vessel, the Bribie 3. While the expo was rained out, on Saturday the Hairdresser With Heart event went ahead. I'm looking forward to visiting Michelle at her salon. The program launch of the Woodford Folk Festival happened on Saturday night. We're looking forward to that over the Christmas and new year period as well. We had some events that didn't get rained out that were very welcome in our community. I understand the emergency services expo has been postponed. An alternative date will be announced soon. I encourage everybody to get along to, hopefully, a sunny day and a great event. Taxation 111 10:45 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney There can be no doubt that every Liberal member of this parliament is here to back hardworking Australians, particularly small and family businesses. The announcement last week by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that small, medium and family businesses will pay less tax sooner, because this government is delivering tax relief five years earlier than planned, backs those hardworking, aspirational Australians. That's tax relief for more than three million businesses that employ nearly seven million Australians. That builds on the first stage of the company tax relief already delivered in May last year. It is great news for WA and for Tangney. In Tangney, 15,552 small and family-run businesses will be left with more of their own money in their own pockets to invest in their businesses to grow and to employ more Australians. These businesses will have a reduced tax rate of just 25 per cent and unincorporated businesses will have a 16 per cent tax discount five years sooner. This is common sense: when small and family businesses don't have to pay so much to the government, they invest it in their employees, in new equipment and in growing their business. It's good news for hardworking Australians, particularly younger Australians. More than 100,000 young people got a job in the last financial year. This is the strongest growth in youth employment in Australia's economic history. One million jobs have been created since the Liberal government was elected in 2013. This number will only get bigger with policies like this that encourage investment and that encourage small businesses to grow and to employ more Australians. Tax relief sooner continues this government's continued support for small and family businesses, including the $20,000 instant asset write-off, which continues to be extended, and the simplified pay-as-you-go instalments, which remove the risk of overestimating or underestimating your PAYG instalments and the penalties that may apply. Simpler BAS is estimated to save each small business an average of $590 per year, and we've abolished $5.8 billion worth of red tape. This government's Personal Income Tax Plan will make personal income tax lower, fairer and simpler. Small and family businesses can always trust this government to back them. It's a fair go for those who have a go. This government is lowering taxes for small- and medium-sized businesses sooner, because they employ half of the people who go to work every day in this country. Our economic plan is working. Fast-tracking tax relief for small, medium and family businesses is an important investment in hardworking Australians, their families and our country's future. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 112 10:48 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt Last week I hosted the first of Labor's banking royal commission round tables in Western Australia to give victims of banking misconduct a voice. I heard from farmers who were taken advantage of by their banks. I heard from small business owners and people who went to borrow money from their banks, trusting the advice they received, only to end up in financial ruin. I heard from victims of domestic violence whose former partners took financial advantage of them which resulted in devastating emotional and financial trauma—trauma that was facilitated by our banks. Those banks continue to do nothing to help. The Prime Minister personally voted against a royal commission more than 20 times, while the Liberal government held off a royal commission for more than 600 days. When they finally did see the light, they gave the commissioner only a year to undertake the mammoth task this inquiry has become. That one year has meant that only 27 real-world examples were presented at royal commission hearings, leaving more than 9,000 stories untold. The royal commission didn't even make it to Perth. That's why Labor have taken matters into our own hands. We, in Labor, are holding these forums, because we want to hear from real-world people affected by banking misconduct. We want to hear the stories of how banking rip-offs have ruined people's lives. We believe it's only through hearing these stories that we can make appropriate policy decisions to make sure we hold the banks and their executives to account in the future so we can make sure misconduct like this can never happen again. It is important to hear the stories of these victims so that we can put them directly to the banks' CEOs. We had the first opportunity to do that at the end of last week when the CEOs from the Commonwealth Bank, Westpac and the ANZ sat before the House Standing Committee on Economics and one by one were forced to admit and apologise for their catastrophic failures; forced to admit that it takes a royal commission to tell them charging fees to dead people shouldn't happen; forced to admit staff were tampering with Dollarmite accounts of children; forced to admit fairly compensating customers for the banks' wrongs is not merely a distraction; and forced to admit their systemic failures, some from 15 years ago with customers still awaiting compensation. Hearing the stories of these banking victims was important because we believe they deserve a seat at the table in working on cleaning up the sector. They know better than anyone the changes that need to be made to ensure people won't suffer the way that they have ever again. I will continue to fight for victims to have their say, and I will do everything I can to protect Australian businesses and consumers from this appalling misconduct by our banks. The eventual recommendations of the banking and financial services royal commission can only be truly understood and properly implemented by a government and a party that see them through the eyes of the victims, and that's what I and the Labor Party will do. Groom Electorate: Taylor's Removals 112 10:51 Dr McVEIGH 125865 Groom Last Wednesday, we celebrated 100 years of the Taylor's Removals business in Toowoomba. It was hosted by Ray and Madeline Taylor and the fourth-generation managing director, Melissa Taylor, a leading businesswoman in the industry and in our region. This was truly an event to stop and recognise their impressive history in our community and also the impressive history of so many family and small businesses over the generations who continue to lead our local economy. This is a business that has employed so many locals over its four generations. It is, therefore, a significant reminder of the importance of small and family business to regional areas like Toowoomba and the Darling Downs and, of course, our nation's entire economy. This Chamber would do well to continue to remind itself of the importance of small business efforts and of enterprise and job generation of the many family and small businesses throughout the entire country. I'm, therefore, very proud of this government's plans to bring forward tax relief for small business and that this, reportedly, will be supported by those opposite. Whether it's the start-up in 2018—Taylor's, Toowoomba, 100 years ago—or our celebrated big businesses here in Australia that started small, small business is indeed the lifeblood of our economy. Taylor's, Toowoomba, was inducted into the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce Hall of Fame just a few years ago. As I said, it's led by current managing director, Melissa Taylor, the first female managing director in the company's history. Melissa is very much a leader in our local business community, and she's recognised as such, and she's also recognised as such in the industry in which she operates. Melissa and her husband, Nivard, are leaders not only in our social fabric in community and in business, as I've said, but also in cultural and charity pursuits. As I discussed just recently with Jo Sheppard, the CEO of the Toowoomba Chamber of Commerce, the sorts of relief that we want to support Taylor's and other small businesses with are so important. There are well over 16,000 small businesses in our electorate of Groom. I, therefore, take this opportunity to congratulate the Taylor's, an important business—Ray, Madeline, the extended family, Melissa and their staff—on this significant achievement. We wish them all the best for the next 100 years—'Taylor's: the smoother movers'. Ballarat Electorate: Telecommunications 113 10:54 Ms CATHERINE KING 00AMR Ballarat I rise today to talk about mobile black spots in my electorate. Those of us who live and work in regional Australia, in areas such as my electorate of Ballarat, understand, much more than others, the importance of functioning mobile phone services. The government has recently opened round 4 of its Mobile Black Spot Program, and I've requested some feedback from my community as to where they see the areas of priority are. One of the first emails I received was from Stephen Lord, from the Rural Fire Brigade CFA in Rowsley. He told me that his brigade area is almost entirely within a black spot area and that, as a rural area, members of the brigade relied on their mobile phones for communications in the event of any incidents. Being in a mobile black spot, can lead, and has led, to delays in their ability to attend incidents in a timely manner. Sadly, my electorate is not immune from bushfires. As recently as the summer of 2015-16, we experienced fires. In emergency situations, almost 70 per cent of calls are made from mobiles. So it is not only those emergency workers, many of whom are volunteers, but also community members who are affected by the lack of mobile phone coverage. I've also received feedback from community members in Blackwood, Dales Creek, Mount Egerton and Wattle Flat—all areas that would benefit from improved mobile coverage. Whilst we've improved mobile coverage in Blackwood, there are still some areas that are not covered. Although the benefits of improved mobile phone coverage during emergency situations are clear, we also need to remember that mobile broadband is becoming the standard means by which many people access government services. Something as simple as reporting your income to Centrelink can end up taking hours for people who are forced to report through the call centre due to a lack of access to mobile broadband. We want people to move to our region—it's a beautiful part of the world that we live in—but they need to be able to set up their businesses and be able to work from home. Mobile broadband is very much part of that. In the 2016 federal election, Labor pledged to match coalition funding for black spot programs. Labor has been pretty critical, frankly, of the government's approach. We know that 75 per cent of the locations announced in rounds 1, 2 and 3 were either in Liberal or National Party seats. I certainly hope round 4 is not reflective of that seat bias. I certainly hope that we continue to see some attention to the mobile black spots in my own electorate. I look forward very much to putting those communities forward for improved mobile coverage and also working in government—if we are fortunate enough to do so—with the member for Whitlam on how we can further improve mobile coverage in regions like my own. Centenary of Armistice 113 10:57 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay This year marks the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War. Australia's involvement in the First World War began when Britain declared war on Germany on 4 August 1914. At a time when Australia's population was less than five million people, 416,809 men enlisted to serve in the Great War, during which more than 60,000 were killed and 156,000 were wounded, gassed and taken as prisoner. Every year on 11 November, Remembrance Day, which marks the end of the First World War, we honour the service, bravery and courage of every Australian who served in the Great War and we remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation. On 11 November 1918, the Germans accepted the terms of armistice that ended the First World War. In 2018, 100 years later, our nation commemorates the Centenary of the Armistice through a range of community events and memorials dedicated to all those who served in the Great War. In Wide Bay, six community organisations will share in almost $50,000 through the coalition government's Armistice Centenary Grants Program to honour the service of men and women from our region. I'm pleased to confirm the Cooroy Pomona RSL Sub Branch has received $10,330 to hold a First World War exhibition at Cooroy Memorial Hall. Cherbourg Historical Precinct Group, the Ration Shed, is using a $2,700 grant to install six locally designed timber poles and plaques, including photos from World War I, at Anzac Memorial Park. The Maryborough Military and Colonial Museum will spend $5,000 on a display case to exhibit World War I memorabilia at the museum. The Mary Valley RSL is using their $15,000 grant to install a granite commemorative memorial book at Kandanga Cemetery, acknowledging the local men and women who served during the First World War. Each applicant has put great care and thought into how best to show their community's appreciation for the sacrifice of those who helped secure our nation's freedom in war. I congratulate the organisations for their work on these projects that will preserve our local history for future generations. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 114 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day 114 11:00 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I 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. Chris and I were really excited about our first pregnancy. I had passed the no-go zone after a year of being on Roaccutane for adult acne. You have to sign a disclaimer that you will not fall pregnant while you are taking it or for a period after you have taken it. Chris and I were also really excited about my first ultrasound. We were really excited about seeing what was causing the changes to my body in such a short period of time. We were really excited about acquainting ourselves with what we looked forward to being a future member of our family. We were really excited about seeing that little heartbeat. Back then—and I'm not sure whether it's the same today—you had to drink what seemed like litres of water to have a full bladder for the ultrasound for the best vision of the baby. I did that and when I went to the ultrasound my doctor told me that my bladder was too full, so I went to the toilet. When I came back from the toilet my doctor told me my bladder was too empty. After the optimal amount of water, I lay there eagerly awaiting that first vision of the baby. I was eagerly awaiting the clear read on the baby. The doctor got a clear read, and I strained to see what he was seeing. Then he paused, looked closer and turned to me and told me that there was no heartbeat—that the baby was dead. That was it. That was the language he used. He then told me to get dressed and meet him in his office to discuss an appointment for a D and C. That was it. That was the language he used. After I got dressed and we worked out a time for the D and C I left his rooms. I left his rooms without any offer of support, without any offer of support services and without any offer of sympathy. That was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, when I was trying to fall pregnant and trying to keep my pregnancies, the rate of stillbirth was more than 2,000 babies a year—six babies a day. Twenty years on the rate of stillbirth is still the same—more than 2,000 babies a year—six babies a day. Pregnancy loss carries with it countless misconceptions—that it's uncommon, that it's caused by stress or even that it is the fault of the mother. Pregnancy loss is more than just an unfortunate blip on the radar or a sad detour on the way to a successful pregnancy. For many parents the death of a much-wanted baby is a life-altering tragedy that rips away hope of a happy ending. According to Miscarriage, Stillbirth and Newborn Death Support, one in four confirmed pregnancies tragically ends in a miscarriage. Today is International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Today. Today is an opportunity to talk about pregnancy subjects that are usually avoided or are taboo—things like miscarriage, stillbirth and infant loss. In 2015 Samantha and Aaron were expecting their first child. Sam's pregnancy was what they call a low-risk and textbook pregnancy. She was 24. It was her first pregnancy. She was fit and healthy. Sam always had a feeling that something wasn't quite right. On 14 November 2015 Sam went to the hospital with severe pain in her feet, an intense feeling of sickness and a headache. She was monitored for a few hours and then she was sent home. The next day Sam woke up and her baby didn't move in the usual 'good morning' way. Sam went to the hospital again. At 37 weeks pregnant Sam was told that her baby no longer had a heartbeat. Evelyn Louise Isfahani was born sleeping on 16 November 2015. Stillbirth still remains the leading cause of death in infants, and the cause of at least one-third of all stillborn babies remains unknown. Yesterday, Labor's shadow minister for health announced that, under a Shorten Labor government, Labor will invest $5 million to fund prevention and research programs in an effort to spare families the unimaginable heartache of losing their babies, and I say thank you. Finally, I want to express my sympathies to all the families who have suffered a miscarriage, a stillbirth or an infant death. I encourage Australians on this day and every day to speak openly about these topics so we can remove the stigma and give families the vital support they need. I want to thank Steph Brimson, who's part of my team, who has been a tireless advocate on this issue, and I encourage her to continue her quest for support for these families going through such tragedy. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT Is the motion seconded? Ms O'Toole 249908 I second the motion. 11:05 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I thank the member for Canberra for her advocacy on this very important issue, for moving the motion today and for sharing her very personal story with us this morning. It's a very brave thing to do—and we probably don't do it enough in this place—because it does make a difference when all of the women and the families sitting out there see you talking about these sorts of things. It gives them hope that, first of all, we understand and that we're working on things that really matter to them. As a lot of people in this place probably know, the member for Canberra and I are very passionate about supporting women's health around reproductive issues, and we have already done a lot of good work together on endometriosis, where we have achieved significant outcomes for women in a very short space of time. While our male colleagues can understand these issues, they don't personally physically go through them, so there is a difference that a woman's perspective does make on these sorts of things, as the member for Canberra has just very bravely outlined. I'm pleased to speak on this issue today, because stillbirth awareness is a critical issue for us to educate women, families and the medical profession about across Australia. This awareness and education has the potential to save the lives of unborn babies. My understanding of this issue has been helped by the South Australian organisation Still Aware. I want to pay tribute to their incredible advocacy on stillbirth awareness today. Claire Foord founded Still Aware because of her own deeply personal and tragic experience. In February 2014, Claire and her husband welcomed a baby girl, Alfie. Alfie was stillborn at term without explanation. Alfie had no illness and no identified issues, but she was born still. Despite her indescribable grief, Claire decided she would do everything in her power to prevent other women from suffering the tragedy that she and her family suffered. Now, as CEO of Still Aware, Claire works tirelessly to ensure other mothers do not have to go through the same loss. Still Aware is a not-for-profit organisation that aims to raise awareness of the occurrence of stillbirth and what prevention strategies can be used by expectant mothers. It also provides support to families who have lived through this terrible tragedy. 'Stillbirth' is defined as the death of a baby beyond 20 weeks gestation. Sadly, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, around 2,200 babies are born still in Australia every year. This is about double the number of road fatalities. While we all know about road fatalities and how to prevent them, too many women don't know about stillbirth. Too many women don't know about the risk factors and signs that could save their unborn baby's life. At the moment, there's no mandatory educational training for clinicians and no mandatory information provided to women when they're pregnant. Educating expectant mothers on the signs to look for, including reduced fetal movement or unusual fetal movement and safer sleeping positions while pregnant, could help save an unborn baby's life. The message is very clear: if you are concerned about your baby, don't wait—seek medical assistance immediately. International experience suggests that it is possible to reduce the instance of stillbirth through education. In Norway, mothers monitoring their baby's movements daily in the third trimester, which is 28 weeks onwards, resulted in a 30 per cent reduction in stillbirth. In New Zealand, a 30 per cent drop in unexplained late-term stillbirth over three years coincided with the introduction of midwives providing sleep position advice to pregnant women as part of their antenatal care. This work was supported by the findings of three studies which showed that, when a pregnant mother sleeps on her back, the risk of stillbirth is increased. Here in Australia we haven't seen these sorts of declines in stillbirth rates, and I believe it is critical that we do. I was genuinely shocked to learn that, over the past 20 years, there has not been a decline in the number of babies born still. I'd like to acknowledge the work that Still Aware and the Stillbirth Foundation do to promote education, awareness and research about stillbirth in Australia. The government is committed to supporting those affected by pregnancy and infant loss and to improving infant and maternal health outcomes. In this year's budget, we announced nearly $18 million for the Maternal Health and First 2000 Days research program. I note the opposition's announcement yesterday on stillbirth and I will look very carefully at their proposal. I will continue to work with the Minister for Health on behalf of all women and families so that we can reduce the rate of babies born still here in Australia. 11:11 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I too thank the member for Canberra for moving this very important motion on pregnancy and infant loss. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the parents and families who have lost a child or children in pregnancy, infancy or at birth. I acknowledge your loss in this place and pay my respects and sympathy to you and your families. I also acknowledge First Nations women and their families whose babies were taken from them and, in many cases, they never saw these children again. This is an issue that is very close to my heart. The loss of a child at any stage of pregnancy or infancy or at birth is unbelievably painful for the parents, other children, extended family and close friends. I am sure that there is not a day that goes by that we do not think about the children or child that we have lost. Far too many families grieve in silence, and that was my experience. It was not because I did not have a family that was very supportive around me. In those days, losing a baby during pregnancy was really not discussed or even thought of. In fact, I doubt that I have ever properly grieved for the baby that I lost in pregnancy, because there was no opportunity to do so. Life simply went on. I came home from hospital, had a day off and went back to work. I am talking about 34 years ago, but that does not mean that I don't often think about the child. I wonder whether it was a boy or a girl and what he or she would have looked like. So opportunities like today, Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, are very important and are welcome in our communities. It is very pleasing to see that times have evolved and the loss of a child is now talked about openly and we 'Walk to Remember'. In October 1988 President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the month of October as National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Month in the United States. The former President made a very poignant point when he stated: When a child loses his parent, they are called an orphan. When a spouse loses her or his partner, they are called a widow or widower. When parents loses their child, there isn't a word to describe them. International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Awareness Day allows parents, families and communities to officially stop, remember and come together. Each family's experience is unique, because, as human beings, we are all very unique. In a society where we have expanded lines of communication from carrier pigeon to the multiple modes of Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, emails, text messages and mobile phones, in all of these communication methods we have somehow lost the art of actually personally reaching out. I remember attending the Sands Walk to Remember in Townsville for the first time and being hit by emotions that had been deeply buried. Yes, life does go on and, yes, we did already have two other healthy, beautiful children, and in time we had another healthy child, but we also lost a child that we knew absolutely nothing about. The only time our third child was referred to was when I fell pregnant with our last child and I was asked how many pregnancies I had had. Thankfully, as I said, in today's world we talk much more openly and we hold our memories in our hearts. The love that we have for our lost babies will live forever in our hearts. Yesterday I, along with many other parents and families, attended the Sands Australia remembrance walk in Townsville. I congratulate Linda Adams, who brought Sands to Townsville in 2006 and has dedicated a huge amount of time to Sands in our community. Marie Dueble, Loretta and Janice coordinated the ceremony with the help of a wonderful team of volunteers. This ceremony provided a healing experience for the parents, siblings, families and close friends who attended. It helps us heal by seeing we are not alone. It helps us heal by talking to each other. It helps us heal by providing support and guidance, and, importantly, it helps us remember the loved ones that we have lost. I want to thank Sands Australia for the tremendous work that they do and continue to do for other parents just like my husband and me. I commend Labor for its announcement on the weekend. We will invest in research to assist in reducing the number of babies that are lost in infancy, at birth or in pregnancy. In 2018 we certainly should not be losing the children that we are currently losing. It is a journey that you would not wish on any person. I am very pleased, I must say, after 34 years, to be with people who are speaking very openly about their experiences and are supporting each other. 11:15 Ms STANLEY 265990 Werriwa I acknowledge and thank the member for Canberra for moving this motion, and I thank her and the member for Herbert for sharing their stories of their babies. Today is International Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day. Today, and each day that follows, six families will grieve the loss of a stillborn baby. More babies will fight for life in neonatal intensive care units around the country, where the issues or infections that they were born with will become insurmountable. Tonight candles will be lit to acknowledge bereaved parents and provide support in their loss. The number of little lives lost each year tells the story of families affected by the loss of a baby or a pregnancy. We estimate that one in four pregnancies results in miscarriage. In 2016, 2,849 lives were lost to stillbirth or within the first four weeks of life. This issue is even more prolific among Indigenous Australians. They are almost twice as likely to experience the loss of a baby due to stillbirth or neonatal death than the Australian population at large, and this rate has not moved for the past two decades. Furthermore, culturally and linguistically diverse Australians also experience stillbirth and neonatal loss at a higher rate than the general population. In 2013-14, nearly 35 per cent of all stillbirths that occurred in Australia were born to women who were born in countries other than our own. Given these statistics, I commend the Senate for establishing the Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education. This committee will inquire and report on the future of stillbirth research and education in Australia. I acknowledge the work of Senator Keneally in highlighting these issues, and her daughter Carolyn's importance to her family. For families of the future, we must do everything that we can to reduce the number of babies lost. We must educate families about steps that they can take to improve pregnancy outcomes. We must properly fund critical research into why stillbirth still happens. We must ensure that we take the opportunity to gather data wherever possible to better this critical research. This is why Labor announced that, if a Shorten Labor government is elected, it will invest in driving down the stillbirth rate in Australia. Labor will fund prevention, education and research programs that will make a critical difference in saving lives and sparing families the unimaginable heartbreak of losing their babies. When the Senate select committee delivers its report, Labor will consider further measures. These include developing a national stillbirth strategy to ensure that this issue is addressed with comprehensive policy measures. Today is about recognising those families for whom there is someone missing to celebrate birthdays, Christmas, graduations and all those special family moments. Today is about supporting parents and grandparents, and mums and dads too. Today is about recognising their loss, which is rarely spoken about. Talking about their feelings and concerns will help families better cope with the future that lies ahead. The Senate select committee submissions tell us that it's not only grieving mothers who are impacted when a baby is stillborn. Stillbirth is especially difficult for fathers, who are often expected to hold things together and suppress the pain they're feeling. Stigma is a cycle. Vulnerability and trauma on this issue should not be things that families feel they need to hide. As a caring and compassionate society, Australia owes it to the families who have lost children to step up and discuss how we can do better. We know that having a conversation around regular infant movement dramatically reduces the risk of stillbirth. We know that taking women's anxieties seriously during pregnancy has a positive impact on live births. And we know that naming stillbirth as a risk to women between 18 and 24 weeks dramatically increases awareness, vigilance and, ultimately, prevention. Today though is also about recognising those groups like Sands Australia, the Stillbirth Foundation and Red Nose that work tirelessly to support families and develop solutions to improve the numbers of little lives lost every year. It is only recent changes that have allowed babies in New South Wales that were stillborn to be registered by Births, Deaths and Marriages. This official recognition has helped to raise awareness of the scale of the issue, but, more importantly, it helps families and communities recognise the baby's existence was important. I would like to express my sympathy to all families—dads and mums, grandparents, siblings and friends—who've been touched by today's recognition. My family recognise Michael and Meaghan, who are still a very special part of our family. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 00AMT There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement 118 11:21 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's my great privilege to be able to get up and speak on this motion, because the TPP-11 is one of the great achievements of this government. When it comes down to it, and anybody who was there would remember it, once there was an abandonment of the TPP by US President Donald Trump there were so many people who said: 'Let it go. It doesn't matter. We're not prepared to stand up for Australian jobs or workers or opportunities, because there simply isn't the international appetite to progress this.' Frankly, that was particularly coming from those opposite. What we then saw was Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, and Malcolm Turnbull, the then Prime Minister of Australia, come together to say, 'We are going to deliver this deal for Australia, for Japan, for the countries in the Asia-Pacific region.' They were completely countercultural; they were scoffed and mocked by those who simply thought they understood trade policy better because nobody could understand Asia except the Labor Party. They went on and delivered to the world one of the most historic regional trade agreements ever; amongst 11 countries in our region, they've built the foundations of economic governance across the Asia-Pacific. The TPP-11 is a foundational building block in the economic opportunity and security that will deliver for this country in years to come. And not only did the coalition government deliver; they did it against a backdrop of the scoffing, the snarling and the sneering of our political opponents, who simply wanted to go with the fashion and the tide. And what is the outcome? What we know is that in 2017 nearly one-quarter, or 24 per cent, of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $92 billion, went to TPP-11 countries. This is set to grow, and will continue to grow, as tariffs tumble and as we see reform and opportunities through increased market access for so many goods and, critically, services under this agreement. Recent modelling undertaken by economists in Brandeis International Business School and John Hopkins University shows Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to national income by 2030—an incredible opportunity and incredible growth for the Australian people. But let's not think about this just in terms of big numbers, though they are. What those numbers translate to are jobs. What those numbers translate to are new opportunities for Australians to get a step up on the economic ladder and create pathways to be able to live full and successful lives. That's why the Minerals Council of Australia released modelling that was conducted for Australian industry associations that found: Australian workers, jobs and business will benefit significantly from the … (TPP-11) trade agreement, with increased national income, exports, investment and wages … Critically, what this agreement does is not only provide the foundation for those sectors of the economy where the vast majority of Australians work but also where Australia can actually compete. We can compete because we're competing on the basis of skills and in areas of high technology, high education standards and high proficiency, particularly in the space of services. Coming from the great state of Victoria, where education services are our biggest export, this agreement provides the market opportunities for us to grow that potential through access to Australian universities and vocational institutions to deliver education services, including online educational services, amongst the countries that are covered. This provides the pathway to see Victoria thrive and grow further. It isn't just in education services. Financial services are another big export opportunity not only because of Australia's integrity and our financial system but, more critically, because of the legal underpinnings that make it such an attractive destination for capital with guaranteed market access for investment advice and portfolio management services, and collective investment schemes as well as insurance for maritime shipping and international commercial aviation and freight. These may not be sexy headlines that make the front page of the paper, but they make a material difference in terms of our capacity as a country to continue to drive the uninterrupted economic growth that we have enjoyed. For thousands of Australians who go off and study law every year, there'll be new opportunities to work in TPP-11 countries. It'll be the same for engineers and for those in transport and logistic services. The opportunities are endless. They're based on the horizons, and there is no limit to the bounds of what this great nation can achieve. 11:26 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith There's no doubt that trade benefits the Australian nation and improves living standards for our citizens. As an island nation, Australia is better off because of the trading relationship that we have with our neighbours and the world. It's produced higher living standards than most other countries throughout the world. Labor has a very, very proud record of reform that's boosted trade and investment, and created jobs and increased the incomes of all Australians. Going back to the Whitlam government and that great legacy that they left, it was a beginning which opened up our economy in the wake of the sleepy years of previous Liberal administrations by reducing tariffs. There were massive reductions in tariffs that made our economy more competitive at that time. That was followed up by the legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments. Again, after very little reform in the Fraser years, the Hawke and Keating governments made a massive difference to the strength of the Australian economy, particularly through multilateral trade. We all know that they reduced tariffs; they opened up our economy to competition, particularly in service sectors; and they introduced Austrade. It was the Hawke government that established Austrade—that outreach for Australian businesses hoping to trade overseas. And they did this with cooperation from the union movement to ensure that the benefits of trade were shared equitably, that workers increased their skills and, importantly, that incomes of all Australians continued to grow during that period when we were liberalising our trading environment. Labor ensures that when we do these sorts of things the benefits of trade are shared equally amongst our citizens. We all know that Australia has a massive opportunity in terms of the development that is occurring on our doorstep, within our vicinity, in Asia over the course of the next few years. It's forecast that Asia's middle class will triple to 1.7 billion people by 2020. As more people move into the middle class, they develop a thirst and a hunger for better services. They move away from traditional manufacturing based economies—based on lower wage levels and producing products that can undercut other competitors—and an agricultural society to a consumption based one where services begin to come to the fore. So products like agricultural products, aged and healthcare services, education and tourism services are going to boom in Asia over the course of the next few decades. Australia is uniquely positioned, with our proximity in Asia, to capitalise on the economic opportunity through trade that will come with our Asian neighbours. We can do this through increased investment in Asia and increased trade, and that will grow our economy and create jobs. Other nations are aware of this and they're developing strategies to capitalise on this opportunity that is occurring in Asia, but, at the moment, Australia, as a nation, does not have an economic strategy to engage with Asia and to put ourselves in a position to capitalise on its growing middle class. That is why Labor has developed the future Asia strategy—to ensure that we capitalise on these economic opportunities within our region, to grow our economy and to increase living standards. We've announced some of the elements of that strategy around improving economic opportunities, including increasing Asian literacy on Australian boards and tapping into the great Asian diaspora that live in Australia. We've said that we'll implement the 10 key recommendations of the Varghese report into India that seems to have been left on the shelf by this government. We're looking at internships between Australian companies and Asian companies. All that revolves around improving economic opportunities and trading opportunities in the Asian century. We'll do this by making sure that all Australians benefit. We won't sign agreements that have ISDS clauses in them, because we know that they disadvantage Australia. We won't waive labour market testing for contractual service providers, because we know that those sorts of clauses disadvantage Australians. We'll establish an Australian skills authority—an independent labour market testing body to determine genuine skills needs and to restrict temporary work visas so that they're only available where there is a genuine skills gap. We'll introduce more transparency and accountability around our trade agreements through the JSCOT process and an independent national assessment to ensure that any trade agreement that Australia signs up to is beneficial to Australians and benefits all Australians in our economy. I urge all our members to support the bill that's been introduced by the shadow minister for trade. 11:31 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby I'm delighted to speak on this motion today, because our government is doing so much to support and encourage small and medium businesses across Australia. Just last week the Prime Minister announced that our government will deliver its tax relief five years earlier than planned. We are fast-tracking our tax cuts to support the more than three million small and medium businesses that employ nearly seven million Australians. In my electorate of Boothby, these tax cuts will support more than 14,000 small and medium businesses to invest and employ. Our changes mean that small and medium businesses will have a reduced tax rate of just 25 per cent by 2021-22 and unincorporated businesses will have a 16 per cent tax discount sooner. In addition to getting the tax rate down, we have extended the $20,000 instant asset write-off, first introduced in the 2015-16 budget, for a further 12 months and we have lifted the small business entity turnover threshold from $2 million to $10 million. We are doing these things because we know that lower company tax supports more investment, higher productivity, more jobs and higher wages. Our plan gives Australian businesses a fair go, and it is an important investment in the future economic growth of our nation. Of course, we know that a strong economy means we can guarantee the essential services, like education and health care, that all Australians need. Our tax cuts are not the only action we are taking to strengthen our economy. Our government is also ensuring that Australian businesses and Australian farmers have access to more global markets so that we can create new jobs and keep our industries strong. Under our government, we have established free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, and this week we are ratifying the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded. The TPP-11 will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. These 11 countries have a combined GDP of more than $13.8 trillion and close to 500 million consumers. For the very first time under the TPP, Australian exporters will have preferential access to two of the world's top 20 economies in Canada and Mexico. The TPP is good news for our economy, farmers, manufacturers, service providers, small businesses and exporters. In 2017, nearly one-quarter of Australia's total exports worth nearly $92 billion went to TPP-11 countries. This can only grow as tariffs are eliminated under the TPP. The TPP-11 will provide guaranteed levels of access to services, including in the education, financial, transport and logistics, mining and health sectors, as well as improving regulatory regimes for investment—notably in mining and resources and telecommunications. In addition, this agreement will deliver benefits across the board, including for beef and sheep farmers, dairy producers, canegrowers, sugar millers, grains exporters, cotton growers, wool growers and winemakers. This will be transformative in my home state of South Australia, given the importance of agriculture industries like beef, wool, lamb, grains and, of course, our fabulous wine industry. In my own electorate I have the wonderful Patritti Wines in Marion, which is Australia's only family-owned suburban winery. It is exactly the sort of business we want to see benefit from the TPP-11 through increased access to a range of markets. The story of Patritti Wines is really quite extraordinary. The winery was started by an accidental migrant to Australia, Giovanni Patritti, who landed in Adelaide in 1926 instead of landing in America, where he thought he was going. Being a fabulous migrant and with a fabulous migrant story, like so many, he made the best of his situation, and, 90 years later, Patritti Wines is a very successful family-owned and operated winery that is recognised not only for its wines but also for its non-alcoholic grape juices. Patritti has been able to take its fantastic wines and juices to the world, particularly into Asia, and our government's commitment to the TPP will support its focus. It is critical that we ratify the TPP as soon as possible to lock in the forecast benefits and provide every opportunity for our producers and exporters to secure new market access for amazing family-owned businesses like Patritti Wines in my electorate. Our government will continue to pursue a trade agenda that, together with other measures like tax cuts for small and medium businesses, contributes to a strong economy and creates Australian jobs. That's our plan and that is what we are delivering. 11:36 Mr KEOGH 249147 Burt The Labor Party and the labour movement have a proud record of reform that has boosted trade and investment, created new jobs and increased the incomes of Australians. This proud history goes back to the days of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. We've done this because we know that, as a trading nation, Australia's economic success is underpinned by our ability to sell our goods and services overseas. Key to this is making sure we make the most of the continuing rise of Asia. Two in every three dollars we make from trade comes from Asia, and this is likely to increase in the years ahead. We need to grab with both hands the opportunities our Asian neighbours put forward to us. When we were last in government Labor entered Australia into negotiations on the original Trans-Pacific Partnership. As we know, Donald Trump withdrew the United States from that agreement earlier this year, effectively killing it. Its replacement, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, is much smaller, and many of the more contentious sections of the original TPP as we knew it have been suspended. Labor believes that all trade agreements should be the subject of independent economic modelling. However, the coalition has refused to do this. Fortunately, the Victorian Labor government has commissioned independent economic modelling of the CPTPP. This independent economic modelling indicates that this agreement will deliver modest economic benefits in the short term and has the potential for more economic gains in the longer term. The independent economic analysis concludes that, while the agreement does not benefit all sectors equally, critically, no sector or business would be worse off as a result. There are also potential strategic benefits to this agreement, as building stronger trade ties between the countries in our region helps to make us all more secure. However, there are things in this agreement that Labor has concerns with, in particular the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement provisions and the waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. The community doesn't support these clauses either. Yet these same clauses have been included in other trade agreements signed by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. Labor has made it clear that if we win the next election we will not sign trade agreements that include ISDS clauses and we will not waive labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. In addition, a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will remove these provisions from existing trade agreements including this one. The new New Zealand Labour government has shown how this can be done, negotiating bilateral agreements with four countries to remove the application of ISDS clauses in the CPTPP that was agreed by the previous conservative New Zealand government. The same approach can be used to reverse the waiver of labour market testing for contractual service suppliers. We do not support the inclusion of ISDS, as it has given foreign corporations rights in Australia that even Australian companies do not have. We also believe that before a carpenter, an electrician or a plumber is brought in from overseas, employers should be required to ensure that there are no Australians who can do the job. This is why a Shorten Labor government, if elected, will establish an Australian skills authority, an independent labour market testing body to determine genuine skills needs and restrict temporary work visas so that they are available only when a genuine skills gap cannot be met by local workers. This authority will work in consultation with industry, unions, higher education and TAFE sectors as well as state and local governments to project Australia's future skill shortages and train Australian workers for those jobs. Fortunately, the agreement does include the eight core ILO conventions. This is a step in the right direction, although there is still more work to be done there. Labor is also committed to improving the way that trade agreements are negotiated. Under a Shorten Labor government, if elected, the role of the parliament will be strengthened by briefing the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at the conclusion of each round of negotiations and providing it with the government's statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback. We will also legislate to establish a system of accredited trade advisors from industry, unions and civil society groups who will provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreements during negotiations. Public updates on each round of these negotiations will also be provided and draft texts released, where feasible, in the interests of transparency. Labor will legislate to require an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement before it is signed in order to examine the economic, strategic and social impacts of any new trade agreement that may be implemented. But we don't have to wait for a new government to see these policies implemented. A private member's bill is now before the parliament. If passed, it would implement some of these policies so we can work towards a fair boost to trade and investment in Australia now. 11:41 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I thank the member for Forde for bringing forward this important and timely motion. Allow me to start with a simple proposition: free trade is good. The more nations we can trade with, the more nations we can export to and the more goods and services we will have access to. Free trade also fosters friendship between countries. History has taught us that countries that trade with each other don't fight with each other. However, we are seeing on a global scale the tensions that arise when countries retreat towards protectionism and the damage that this can do to all parties. We must stand up for the principles of free trade and openness. Trade has contributed one-quarter of Australia's economic growth over the past five years, with one in five jobs being trade related. The government will continue to pursue its firm commitment towards a free trade environment that has helped deliver an enviable record of economic prosperity and growth, job creation and a high standard of living. At a time when there is a questioning of the value of the international rules based approach to trade—an approach that has had bipartisan support in Australia and has underpinned our growth for decades—the TPP-11 is an opportunity to demonstrate our support for open, liberalised markets in the Asia-Pacific. The TPP enshrines these principles between 11 countries across the Pacific—Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam. These countries are our friends. Some could easily become our rivals if we do not work to foster our relationships. There are countries with which we have comparatively little trade, but that will increase exponentially when this treaty comes into effect. The TPP-11 is one of the most comprehensive trade deals ever concluded. It will eliminate more than 98 per cent of tariffs for 11 countries, with a combined GDP of more than $13.8 trillion and close to 500 million consumers. Australia's farmers, manufacturers, service providers and small businesses—all exporters—are the big winners from this FTA because it will be easier to sell goods and supply services in a free trade area that spans the Americas and Asia. In 2017 nearly one-quarter of Australia's total exports, worth nearly $92 billion, went to TPP-11 countries. This will continue to grow as tariffs tumble under the TPP-11. The TPP-11 is the first regional trade agreement to contain a dedicated SME chapter, which encourages small and medium enterprise participation in government procurement in TPP countries. The agreement also creates common, transparent trade and investment rules among TPP-11 countries, making it easier for small companies to navigate the region. Recent modelling shows Australia is forecast to see $15.6 billion in net annual benefits to national income by 2030. This sort of boost to our nation's income means more jobs, higher wages and greater investment into further areas of business and jobs growth. Critically, the TPP-11 improves access to markets where Australia already has FTAs, such as Japan. For example, it will build on our existing bilateral FTA, accelerate reductions in Japan's tariffs on Australian beef and eliminate a range of Japan's cheese tariffs. This will add to the long list of countries this government has signed free trade agreements with, like Canada and Mexico. This gives Australian exporters preferential access to two of the world's top 20 economies for the first time. It's important that we ratify the TPP-11 as soon as possible to lock in the forecasted benefits and provide every opportunity for our producers and exporters to secure new market access opportunities under the TPP-11. This government has signed more free trade agreements than any other government before it, and we are seeing the benefits, as our economy continues to grow. Our firm commitment to trade has seen the recent securing of key trade agreements with Indonesia and Peru. China, Japan and Korea all remained major export destinations for Australian goods and services in 2017-18. The free trade agreements with these countries and all involved with the TPP will continue to deliver tangible benefits for ordinary Australians for decades to come. 11:46 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell I rise today to talk on the motion moved by the member for Forde, noting that open trade and investment policies in global, regional, multilateral and bilateral contexts are important to the Australian economy as they do provide opportunities for Australian businesses and they do help create jobs. There's no disagreement with this view. However, the TPP—both in its first incarnation and now in its second incarnation as TPP-11—continues to be controversial, raising strong opposition from within the Australian community. This is despite the promise of the huge benefits to the Australian economy. When I spoke on the original TPP in this place in February 2016, I raised the concerns that were also being raised by members of the Australian community, suggesting that that TPP would have negative impacts on our national interests in the area of labour market testing and also in undermining our sovereignty. I said then that the Australian people expect our free trade agreements to create job opportunities for them so they too can share in the prosperity that is being promised. They don't want a free trade deal that denies them job opportunities as does, in this case, the TPP-11, because it abolishes labour market testing and carries no enforceable protection for labour rights and workers. They certainly do not want a free trade deal that undermines our sovereignty and our democratic processes by allowing corporations to bypass national courts and sue governments and restrict government regulations of essential services. These are areas of great importance to the Australian community. The Australian trade unions have also been concerned about the TPP-1 and now the TPP-11. Often we will praise the benefits of free trade agreements and ignore the negative ramifications at our peril, as was the case, I remember, with the then Thai free trade agreement some years ago. Locally in my electorate, many of my constituents knew that this was a bad deal for our local car manufacturing industry. Unions and others in the community advocated and appealed to the then government to take measures to protect our car manufacturing industry, but that was to no avail. The decision by Ford Australia to cease production of car manufacturing in 2016, as we all know, led to the end of car manufacturing in this country, and, of course, Ford was our biggest employer locally. The Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union stood solidly at the side of our local car-manufacturing workers. Alongside the rest of us, they fought hard to deal with the devastating impact that the job losses that followed had on my community. Today, I want to quote Tony Mavromatis, the state secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union, who recently wrote to me about his members' concerns regarding TPP-11. He says: Free trade agreements must not allow big business to exploit vulnerable temporary visa workers and undermine the standards we fight for every day. The Government's ability to use its purchasing power to provide safe, secure jobs and support local business must not be undermined or comprised; and our sovereignty must not be traded away. Other unions are also raising similar concerns about TPP-11, because, like its predecessor, it still carries these controversial clauses. It still carries the investor-state dispute settlement clause, which many perceive to be an opportunity to undermine our national sovereignty. The government should have been batting hard on Australia's behalf on these key areas of concern, because they go to our national interests as much as the trade opportunities do and opening up markets does. Of course, this doesn't make me un-Australian, nor should I feel any shame, as has been suggested by some colleagues in this place at other times during this debate. I shouldn't be ashamed because I recognise the legitimacy of and share the concerns raised by many in the Australian community and, therefore, would have liked to have seen the member for Forde's private members' motion call for this parliament to make the changes necessary to TPP-11 so that we can get the best deal for Australia, give Australian workers a fair go and protect our national sovereignty. Unfortunately, the government doesn't appear to be too concerned about these important issues, and this private members' motion is silent on these issues. In contrast, a future Labor government would not sign new agreements with such provisions and would seek to remove ISDS clauses from the TPP-11 by negotiating side letters with other nations, as the New Zealand government recently has been successful in doing. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. National Container Deposit Scheme 123 11:52 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo I 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 billion beverage containers a year, which represents over 35 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 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 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. This makes good cents, and that's 'cents'—c-e-n-t-s. South Australia is very proud of its container deposit recycling scheme. Australians use more than an estimated 13 billion beverage containers each year, which is over 36 million beverage containers every single day for 41 years. That's right, since 1977, when people were still wearing flares, each generation of South Australian kids has been crunching cans on the pavement or under the back veranda for that extra bit of pocket money. For decades, the Scouts and other community groups have fundraised with recycling bins at their local fairs, shows and other community events to keep our state of South Australia clean and to give back to our community. In 2016-17, South Australia's collection deposits recycled almost 587 million beverage containers, refunding over $58 million to South Australians, particularly charities, community groups and sporting clubs, and directly providing additional income for the most disadvantaged in our community. The South Australian deposit scheme is a simple and elegant policy. It is an effective public policy and creates so much good for South Australia. It's a great wonder to me that it took decades for other states and territories to realise the benefits. Firstly, it creates significant public environmental amenity. Since our deposit scheme began, you only have to travel interstate to see the big difference in cleanliness between public places in South Australia and other states. Beverage containers account for less than three per cent of South Australia's litter, compared to 43 per cent in New South Wales before it adopted its own scheme in 2017. The Northern Territory has seen a 50 per cent decrease in beverage-container litter since the introduction there. It raises environmental awareness on the issues of waste and has built a culture of intolerance to litter in South Australia. The scheme emphasises the importance of—and the community pride we have in—keeping our public spaces clean. It also directly benefits our environment. As a result of our container deposit scheme, South Australians have a recycling rate of cans and bottles of up to 85 per cent while the rate in other states is less than half. I've spoken before about the need for us to reduce plastics and, in particular, how much of a detrimental effect occurs when plastics get into our waterways. Anyone who has seen the straw in the turtle's nose on the ABC's War on Waste knows exactly what I'm talking about. Aluminium is an energy-intensive product to make, and so recovery of aluminium cans significantly reduces our carbon emissions and helps us meet our Paris commitments. Given Australia's recent potholed history on climate change action—or, rather, lack thereof—we need every bit of help we can get. Lastly, as I indicated previously, the scheme puts money back into the community and to organisations and individuals who need the help the most. I was heartened to hear ACT and New South Wales have recently got onboard to have their own container deposit schemes, and Queensland and Western Australia have also realised how great South Australia's scheme is. However, just like with the ban on lightweight plastic bags, we still have our recidivist states—Tasmania and Victoria. I said before that South Australians are proud of our container deposit scheme. A major survey in 2012 discovered that 98 per cent of those surveyed support this policy. It is a rare public policy indeed that secures a 98 per cent commitment from the community. Young people, particularly in my electorate of Mayo in South Australia are also incredibly supportive of the scheme and so are many schools that I visit. So I call on the Tasmanian Premier and the Victorian Premier to adopt what is an effective and popular policy, and for the federal government to help facilitate a national container deposit scheme so that all Australians can benefit from what generations of South Australian kids have known as a good idea for more than four decades. As I said, it just makes cents! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 Is the motion seconded? 11:57 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I second the motion. It gives me great pleasure to second this motion from the member for Mayo, and I thank her for bringing on this private member's motion. I agree with it wholeheartedly. I am disappointed that my state of Tasmania does not have a container deposit scheme in place; it is high time that we did. At my party's Tasmanian state conference, held last month in Hobart, the Brighton-Bridgewater Branch, which is in my electorate, proposed that Labor support a CDS in Tasmania. I'm pleased to say the conference unanimously supported that motion. I thank the secretary of the Brighton-Bridgewater Branch, Darren Clark, who works with me in my federal office, for moving the motion. I add my thanks to Mark and Ange, the founders of the Bridgewater/Gagebrook Clean Up Group, who were instrumental in the branch taking up the call. Mark and Ange have been calling for a CDS in Tasmania for some time. They have won various community awards for their hard work, which involves remediation of foreshores, collecting litter and abandoned trolleys, and reporting the whereabouts of burnt-out stolen cars. Also important in their work is picking up the many, many plastic bottles that are discarded in our waterways. Mark and Ange are two terrific people who are determined to make their home a better place to be, especially for kids. They are on the frontline of keeping our community free of litter, and they have my respect and thanks. So what is a container deposit scheme? Beverage makers essentially put the price of a can or a bottle of, usually soda, up by a few cents—say, 10 cents—when the empty can or bottle is returned to a collection point, whoever returns it gets that 10 cents back, or they can nominate that it be given to charity. If the person who paid the deposit chucks the container away, then someone else has the opportunity to pick it up and retrieve the deposit. It's polluter pays at its simplest. It is also an example of product stewardship legislation, in which the beverage industry is obliged to take greater responsible for its packaging after it has been sold. It is the beverage suppliers—like Coca-Cola Amatil and Schweppes—that must ensure that a system is in place for the recovery and recycling of their empty beverage containers. Beverage makers moan and whinge about these schemes because it costs a little bit more money to set them up, and they make them put up the headline price of their product. It may well affect their sales to some minor degree, but my response to that is, 'Suck it up, Princess.' Container deposit schemes were first implemented in South Australia in 1977. Over the decades they have spread to the Northern Territory, in 2012; to New South Wales, in 2017; and to the Australian Capital Territory, in June 2018. Queensland has announced it will pursue a scheme in partnership with New South Wales for implementation by 1 November 2018. Western Australia has also announced plans for a scheme, commencing in early 2020. Attempts to introduce similar legislation in Tasmania and Victoria have, unfortunately, been unsuccessful to date. Victoria did have a similar scheme in place in the eighties, called Cash for Cans, but it was later rescinded. I grew up in the outer suburbs of Perth, in Western Australia, in the late seventies and the eighties, and well remember picking up old cans of Pinto—now Solo—Passiona and Fanta and taking them to the deli to collect 5c a pop; just enough for a bag of lollies! Scout groups organised collection drives, and it wasn't uncommon to see trolleys filled with cans. It turns out that the deposit scheme back then wasn't legislated, because the cans back then were steel—it was really hard to crush those cans, I tell you!—and it was in the companies' financial interest to have them returned and recycled. The introduction of thin aluminium cans and plastic bottles saw the companies' dedication to recycling evaporate; it was cheaper to replace them than recycle them. It's now up to the government to remind our corporate beverage makers of their responsibility to a clean environment. We have the people on our side. Surveys consistently show that most Australians support deposit schemes. A national scheme has been proposed many times over the years. Frankly, a national scheme would be best, and that's where this parliament comes in. It really is time for the national parliament to take carriage of this; the state governments are all over the place. It really is time for the national parliament—through COAG, I would suggest—to get on board. It's time for this parliament to show some bottle and back a national container deposit scheme. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 I thank the comedic member for Lyons. 12:02 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield It's certainly a great pleasure to rise and speak on this motion moved by the member for Mayo. I thank her for bringing it to the House, because what it celebrates is the great achievement of Labor state governments in South Australia. Indeed, hearing previous speakers talk about this, it's a point of reflection to remember that this scheme was introduced in 1977 by the Dunstan government. Dunstan had previously put it up in 1975, and it was rejected by the then Liberal and Country League in South Australia—they used their majority in the upper house to reject it. This was far-sighted legislation to be introducing in 1975. It was pushed through after the election in 1977, and it became one of the first of its kind in the world; the place it was based on was Oregon, in the United States of America. It was introduced, basically, to curb roadside litter. It's also worthwhile reflecting that in 2003 another Labor government, the Rann government—and Premier Rann had worked for Premier Dunstan as a press secretary and was a follower and an admirer of Premier Dunstan—extended the legislation by broadening the legislation to incorporate fruit juice, non-carbonated drinks and flavoured milk containers under a litre volume. That's very important because, in South Australia, copious amounts of Farmers Union Iced Coffee is drunk. Ms Madeleine King interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 I hear my colleague from Western Australia talking in admiration of it! It outsells Coke in South Australia, I think. In 2008, importantly, the scheme was expanded from 5c a container to 10c a container. I heard the previous member talking about collecting cans and bottles. I think most of us in our youth in South Australia might have done that at one time or another, collected the odd bottle or can. Of course, many people do it for beer money—they put them out the back in the shed and what not. In South Australia you quite often see people who are obviously pensioners or who are unemployed doing it. When I am driving around the country areas of my electorate, it's not uncommon to see people going along with a sack, collecting all the beer bottles—mainly beer bottles, I think, but also iced coffee containers—which get thrown out of cars and what not. One of the things in South Australia that we really have had, particularly in comparison to other places, is we've prevented a lot of litter going into the natural environment because people have been out there collecting these cans and bottles. Sometimes it's been community groups who've benefited from it, sometimes it's just been young people or people who've made a habit of collecting them and not throwing them in the litter, but sometimes it's been something of a social welfare policy too because, of course, the people who collect these cans and bottles can often get enough cash to provide them with a bit of a bonus to get them through one bill or another. So this is a very important bill. Waste Management Review, on May 17, under the title 'What South Australia can teach us', said: Now in 2018, the CDL program is still going strong. The return rate on drink containers is reaching 80 per cent. Since 2005, more than six billion containers have been diverted from landfill and returned for recycling. There's been an enormous dividend over the years, since 1977 onwards, to South Australia. I'd heartily endorse all the state governments who've copied, perhaps belatedly, South Australia's example. It has certainly encouraged Victoria and Tasmania to follow suit. While a nationally consistent scheme would be desirable, my understanding of it is you need the state governments on board to be able to legislate these sorts of things. It is a good example of how incorporating the cost of waste management and the cost of recovery into a manufactured good is good for the environment, good for the economy and good for society. 12:07 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I, too, rise in support of the member for Mayo's motion before us today, here in the Federation Chamber. We heard the previous speaker, the member for Wakefield, tell us about the importance of container deposits. He also gave us a bit of the history of this container deposit scheme in South Australia, which we are very proud of and which we heard began over 40 years ago in 1977 under an act called the Beverage Container Act 1975. Later, it was incorporated into the Environment Protection Act as well. So South Australia has always led the way on issues involving the environment. We led the way on container deposits and we led the way on single-use shopping bags, which is another way of preventing plastics getting into our waterways and into the sea. We heard the member for Mayo talk about turtles that get tangled up because of the tonnes and tonnes of plastic that go into our waterways and end up in the seas. South Australia also led the way on household composting. When it comes to the environment, it's a no-brainer for South Australians. We've done this, we've perfected it and we will keep on doing it. It is a good example for other states that haven't taken it on board of how it works. As kids—I did it myself—we would look for bottles and containers et cetera to go and get some money to be able to go to the movies, for example, and people still do it today. It helps to clean the environment, it prevents damaging the environment and it's aesthetically clean as well. You look at your streets and your roads and you don't see much rubbish around the place because people know that there is a value on it, and people will pick up rubbish or keep it to either deposit or put in a recycling area. It's shocking and incredible that for over 35 years South Australia was the only state or territory in Australia with a container deposit scheme. I know that in 2011 the NT came on board and introduced its own scheme. Proving there's no such thing as too late when it comes to the environment, New South Wales in 2015—a bit late—announced its intention for a container deposit scheme. We know that Queenslanders can claim a 10c refund for most plastic drink containers, beer bottles and aluminium cans. The ACT came to the recycling party earlier this year. It's great to see that other states are following the lead of South Australia, my home state, on the option to impose a simple deposit, which ensures that the environment remains cleaner. As the member for Hindmarsh, I've always strived to protect our environment, including the beautiful pristine beaches that we have in our country. This scheme plays a big part in keeping our beaches clean and pristine for families and the community to enjoy. As the Labor candidate for Adelaide I will continue to stick up for the important environmental issues, including the River Murray and the River Torrens. The member for Mayo shares similar concerns regarding pollution and water flows. Another iconic body of water in the city of Adelaide that I'll be keeping a close eye on is the River Torrens. Adelaide was built on the River Torrens, and over the years industries have built on the banks of River Torrens because they required water to run their industry, as old style industries did. The Torrens has benefited greatly from the container deposit and the clean-up that's taking place. We can always do better, and I look forward to working with Adelaide City Council to make sure our city environment is of a world-class standard. It's no mistake that Adelaide is known as one the cleanest and tidiest place in Australia, and we're very proud of that fact. One of the contributors to our being one of the cleanest and tidiest places in Australia is that, 40 years ago, someone had the vision to implement a container deposit scheme, which kept the state clean. We lead the nation in the recovery, recycling and litter reduction of beverage containers, with a current overall return rate of nearly 80 per cent—that is, 80 per cent of containers sold are returned through the deposit scheme. In addition to its benefit for the environment, the scheme also has benefits for local community groups like the Girl Guides and the Scouts that collect bottles, or you can take bottles to them for deposit for their use. Groups collect these bottles, and it is a very positive thing. I'd ask any state that's not on board to come on board. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 247130 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Defence Industry 127 12:13 Ms MADELEINE KING 102376 Brand I am pleased to rise and speak today on this motion moved by the member for Fisher. As an MP representing the electorate with the largest base of the Royal Australian Navy in the country, I'm very happy to have this opportunity to discuss the important links between defence and small business. I'm glad the member for Fisher has taken time out from his obsessive compulsion to attack the workers of this country and the trade union and labour movement to focus on a more productive and honest debate, such as this one, rather than on his strange predilection for standing up in the chamber to assert wild inaccuracies about the employment history of Labor MPs. Defence has long been a largely bipartisan issue in Australian political history. Both Labor and the coalition see the value in maintaining, strengthening and modernising the Australian defence forces and our national defence capabilities. As well as being the local representative in this place for many members of the Royal Australian Navy and their families, I'm also the shadow minister assisting in small business, and how small business can participate in defence contracting is very important to me in this role. Fairness, stability and balance are at the forefront of the ALP's approach to policy-making regarding defence. It is why we have raised concerns regarding some aspects of the government's multibillion dollar investment in Australian defence capabilities. It is why we on this side of the chamber believe that due process and correct tendering processes should be paramount in regard to this investment, as opposed to short-term electoral pork-barrelling, which is the eternal temptation of governments under pressure. I'm sure those opposite, on the government benches, share this view, and I particularly look forward to working with WA members of parliament in the government in securing a greater, more secure and equitable share of the overall Defence spend to ensure that this is a truly national endeavour. As all Western Australians know, the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson has extraordinary capacity in terms of shipbuilding and maintenance capacity as well as extensive links to small and medium businesses in the adjacent industrial estate. The capacity is there, and it should be applied. Making sure small business, a core of the Australian economy, is able to tap into this Defence investment is a cause I'm very happy to support through the Commonwealth initiatives such as the 2016 Defence White Paper and the Centre for Defence Industry Capability and the Integrated Investment Program. However, while I'm sure well intentioned, ease of access by small and medium enterprises to Defence sites and contracts does remain difficult and sometimes murky. Of course, I understand security concerns and regulations; however, it should not be overly difficult to tap into the system as a small business. I've heard some of these concerns raised in my electorate. I've heard about the difficulty of getting on a panel; having to supply an immense and sometimes mind-boggling list of records and documents just to get there; and the difficulty of work once you are on the panel in having to comply with regulation after regulation and continually dealing with sometimes distant multinationals with a small group of contractors at the top end. Sometimes these things can be overwhelming to small and medium enterprises. These are issues that SMEs and microbusinesses are talking about regularly, and it would do us all well as members of parliament to listen to their concerns. The investment in our defence capacity and capability is welcome, and with it there must be a focus on Australian capacity and capability. There is clear evidence of this happening, particularly in my electorate of Brand, and I do welcome that. Only two week ago, I was at HMAS Sterling as part of a week-long ADF parliamentary program and have seen how Defence are utilising local contractors in the extensive upgrades and modernisation of the base. I was very pleased to be briefed by the ADF on how it is seeking to and making use of local and proximate small business contractors to carry out the largest works program on Garden Island for some time. It's a hive of activity at the moment, and that's very pleasing to see. Not that you'd expect anything else, but all reports are of the ADF and contractors working excellently together with superior processes in place to manage a very significant and welcome program of upgrades to the largest and most strategically significant naval base in the nation. I was very pleased to participate in the HMAS Sterling Walk to Work and family fun day a couple of Fridays ago as part of the ADF program, and I was really happy to see that many of the local contractors were invited and attended with their families. They took part in the nearly seven-kilometre walk on quite a windy day over the Garden Island Causeway Bridge, and they mingled with all the ADF personnel and their families who live in the nearby district of Rockingham and are stationed on the base. The community and family ties between the base and the Rockingham-Kwinana area have been present for as long as I can remember, which is a fair while. I was born nearly five years before the base was commissioned, and earlier this year I was happy to be at its 40th birthday celebrations on the base itself. I'm happy to see the link between small business, the community and the ADF happening on HMAS Sterling. 12:18 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia I'd like to begin by thanking the member for Fisher for raising this motion. The growth our defence industries are experiencing has a direct impact on the local economy of central Queensland. There can be no more important policy areas than the defence of our nation and the wealth of our nation. Our government is committed to both. By delivering over $200 billion to the development of our defence industry, we are not only making Australians safer but helping develop a vibrant, sustainable industry to create jobs and wealth for thousands of Australians. This investment can be seen in no finer example than in the expansion and upgrading of the Shoalwater Bay military training area in my electorate of Capricornia. Shoalwater Bay has a proud history as one of the nation's most important training grounds for the military forces of Australia and our closest allies. For over 25 years, Singapore has been engaging in military training with Australia at Shoalwater Bay, and great ties have been created between CQ businesses and many of their Singaporean counterparts. The influx of Singaporean personnel directly flying into Rockhampton from Singapore has become part of the annual cycle of Rockhampton, while biannual training operations with US military forces provide a further engagement and interest point for the region, the economic stimulus of which is impressive. As part of the relationship with Singapore, we, as a coalition government, announced more than $2 billion to upgrade and develop military training grounds. Luckily for Central Queenslanders, one of these was Shoalwater Bay. Roughly $1 billion is being invested into Shoalwater Bay to take it from being a top quality training ground to a world-class facility. This includes expanding the boundaries, increasing capacities and developing entire mock cities for urban warfare training. Shoalwater Bay will become one of the most all-encompassing, flexible, capable training facilities going around, providing our armed forces with the best shot of keeping ahead of the pack and helping keep Australians safe. The dramatic benefits extend far beyond the increased capacities of our Defence Force, though. It also means a far more capable and resilient local economy. Having just announced Laing O'Rourke as the managing contractor for the ASMTI Shoalwater upgrades, a great deal of momentum is building throughout the local business community, with discussions and negotiations underway for the myriad of subcontractors. Local content was a major priority for the awarding of this tender, and I have to congratulate former Minister for Defence Payne and current Minister for Defence Pyne for pushing this as a major requirement throughout the negotiations with their departments. This represents a new approach for Defence, but one that helps us as a government fulfil the dual priorities of securing our nation's economic and physical security. This approach has led to the awarding of the management contract to a tender with some 83 per cent local content and a relationship with local trainer CQ University to help train local workers for the roles of this major project. This will provide a lasting legacy for the region, with hundreds of locals provided with skills to take them anywhere they wish in their careers. With more than $4 in every $5 of the project being spent through local contractors, we can expect this section of the project to deliver some $660 million to the local economy in a very lasting manner. This hasn't happened by accident, and the work of local advocates cannot be underestimated. The Capricornia Business Advisory Alliance, a committee we set up to give the local business community a direct voice to those in Defence making decisions, consists of local government reps, peak body Capricorn Enterprise and local business owners. The committee worked effectively and pragmatically to deliver the important messages to Defence, and, perhaps more importantly, Defence listened. I look forward to seeing this project delivered for my region, and I firmly believe the direction our government has taken will see Australia's physical and economic security continue to strengthen for decades to come. 12:22 Mr GEORGANAS DZY Hindmarsh I also rise in support of this particular motion, and I do so because businesses that employ many in the local community and that contribute so much depend on contracts such as these. But, first of all, I want to pay tribute to the men and women in the Defence Force who protect our country. We all know that, if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have the great country that we have today. We have a safe, secure and prosperous country, so it only makes sense that we would also want a safe, secure and prosperous manufacturing sector in Australia. Local businesses create jobs, invest in industries et cetera; they're an investment and a tax base for reinvestment in things like infrastructure, schools, hospitals, ports, rail and roads. But what has been going on in this place is that we've got a government that's trying to take a victory lap while it makes some terrible decisions that send jobs overseas. And it's especially hard to listen to people opposite talk about their support for local jobs and the Defence Force when this government makes procurement decisions that send jobs overseas. I've got a great example of this. In 2014, a great company in my electorate of Hindmarsh, Rossi Boots, lost its bid to provide boots to the ADF. We're talking about a local, family-owned company that provided boots to our World War I soldiers. They've been around for generations, and for a long time they have done the right thing by this nation. They could move offshore to places like Fiji, China or Thailand, but they don't because they've got a commitment to South Australia. They know they could cut their costs if they went overseas, but they don't because they are absolutely committed to creating more jobs and creating great products for our nation. It's very sad when the government doesn't give back that same respect that they get from small companies and businesses. This is a company that produces wonderful boots. They lost the contract to someone in Indonesia who won that government Defence contract and was provided the tender, which is very sad when you've got a great, iconic company like Rossi Boots that employs people here in Australia in South Australia that missed out. What governments need to look at are the benefits of keeping businesses in Australia. We need governments to calculate the taxes and revenue benefits of employing local people, with those wages that those people earn being reinvested back in the community as part of the procurement process. We don't look at those things, sadly and unfortunately. If we did, of course, we wouldn't have walked away from GM-H. We know that many nations across the world that have assembly lines in car manufacturing subsidise that industry. They do so because it value adds to the economy. They do so because they know, for every job, there's another 40 in manufacturing that are produced. As I said, walking away from GM-H was an absolute disgrace. South Australians remember it. We should have done more as the government in this place to ensure it continued. We're still feeling the impact of that decision. You can imagine what a benefit having a bootmaker in my electorate win the Defence contract would have been to South Australia. Rossi Boots weren't looking for a handout; they were after a level playing field. That's all they wanted—a level playing field. You've got a great family company founded by Arthur Rossiter, who started the company in his backyard tin shed, and taken over by the late Dean Rossiter. They supplied boots to the Australian Army during World War I and supplied 110,000 pairs of boots to soldiers in World War II, but they didn't even get a level playing field to compete with a product produced overseas. Our top tax dollars are at work stimulating overseas economies. When I look at the motion before the chamber today, after seeing firsthand what happened to a local business in my electorate, the government shouldn't really be congratulating itself; it should be taking a look in the mirror. We need to do all that we can to create jobs, and one of the ways of doing that is by ensuring that we give our local companies a level playing field in procurement so they can, basically, win contracts and employ local people who pay taxes here and spend their money here in this economy. The hard work that has been put into the creation of this small company, Rossi Boots, and their commitment to South Australia is something that is exemplary, and the least we can do is give them an even playing field to compete on and win a Defence contract. 12:28 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein As the representative for Goldstein, it's a great privilege to be able to speak on this important issue and support the resolution by the member for Fisher. Our modern defence capability is the sum of multiple individual efforts across industry and government. Small and medium enterprises are the foundation of Australian innovation, Mr Deputy Speaker Laundy, and I know you know that better than anybody. I have so many different Defence contractors and companies and those who supply goods and services to Defence companies all across the south-east of Melbourne, many the legacy, originally, of the car-manufacturing sector. There are thousands of businesses that employ even more Australians in pursuit of, as part of this strategy, the defence of the Commonwealth. We know that these business operators are brave individuals who are patient and motivated to keep pushing the envelope so much to be able to deliver the defence industry Australia needs. One example in the Goldstein electorate is Task Management Solutions in Brighton East, an engineering consultancy firm which undertook $350,000 worth of work for Defence last financial year—a simple defence company being able to provide the engineering services to secure the nation. The defence industry will form a part of our economy's shift towards more service and manufacturing exports, particularly those with higher-valued outputs. The Australian industry cannot sustain itself on the needs of the Australian Defence Force alone. New markets and opportunities to diversify are required to help unlock the full potential of our defence industry to grow, to export, to innovate and to meet, in the process, Australia's future defence needs. Exports will provide our defence industry with greater certainty of future investment and support for high-end manufacturing jobs for Australians for generations to come. We know what the strategic objectives of this strategy is. The strategic goals over the next decade, to 2028, are to strengthen the partnership between the Australian government and industry to pursue defence export opportunities; to sustain Australia's defence industrial capabilities across peaks and troughs in domestic demand; to enable greater innovation and productivity in Australia's defence industry; to deliver world-leading defence capabilities; to maintain the capability edge of the Australian Defence Force; to leverage defence capability development for export opportunities; and to grow Australia's defence industry to become a top 10 global defence exporter. That has always been one of the enduring strengths of a free open market economy. It's not just the opportunity to be able to grow your exports, though that is good, and it's not just the opportunity to be able to build a domestic industry to meet that demand, which is also good; it's also the power to transfer technology across boundaries so that we can always be at the cutting edge—not just at the cutting edge of being able to produce goods but also of being able to import them into our domestic processes—so that Australians, from whatever sector and whatever industry, even those that are allied to the Defence Force sector, are in a position to have world-class technology integrated into their own processes. What we know from the world over—there's been lots of analysis in the United States and in Israel—is that, when you have a strong defence force capability industry, there are allied benefits down the road for other allied industries through the skills and technology that are developed, maintained, and transferred and which can be harnessed for other domestic civil activities. The strategy that this government is implementing provides one of the foundational pillars for the future of Australian industrial growth into the 21st century. It's to provide the opportunity to foster the minds and the skills to be able to build the manufacturing sector of the future and the service based skills, the technology skills and the engineering skills to be used not only in domestic defence but also to aid other industries critical to this nation's future success. That's the success of this government. This government has its policy priorities right. 12:33 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Bendigo has a proud defence manufacturing history. Hopefully, we'll also have a proud manufacturing future if we can get the policy settings right at the federal government level. Bendigo is home to Thales, which, prior to becoming Thales, was an Australian defence industry facility. We manufacture the Bushmaster and the Hawkei at the Bendigo Thales facility. It took this government many years to finally sign the new Hawkei contract, but it eventually did. The $1.3 billion contract with Thales will produce 1,100 Hawkei vehicles in Bendigo as well as a thousand companion trailers. What is important about this particular defence contract is that, while it secures 170 direct jobs in the Bendigo region at the facility, it is also expected to create an extra 60-plus jobs in the supply chain. One of the true credits to Thales is the way in which they've worked with the Victorian and Australian supply chain industry to supply into the Hawkei. On an inspection of the Hawkei, the workers will proudly tell you where the components have come from—where the seats, the seatbelts and the dashboards have come from, even where the mufflers have come from: specially designed up the road in Long Gully. That contract with a small supplier in Long Gully, for 1,100 vehicles, is a base contract for that business and secures their workforce now and into the future. Whilst Bendigo is very proud of what we've achieved with the Hawkei and the Bushmaster, we are equally proud of ADA, who supply Defence uniforms to the government. These are the combat uniforms. You can imagine the disappointment of the predominantly female workforce in Bendigo that their contract for the dress uniforms wasn't held as an equal priority with the Hawkei contract under this government. This government, for cost reasons, went value for money and offshored these jobs. Rather than producing the uniforms in Bendigo, creating more jobs in the supply chain, creating more jobs at the Bendigo ADA manufacturing facility, the government offshored these jobs. So people in Bendigo, like people in many regional towns in Victoria, are incredibly sceptical when it comes to this government and motions like the one we have before us. There is a lot of rhetoric but very little in the way of delivery on the ground when it comes to all of Defence manufacturing. The government have their pet projects and ignore others. That brings me to highlight how the government have failed to ensure, when they talk about value for money for these projects, the value of having the supply chain jobs. Rightly, many in Thales and the Department of Defence were very concerned about the recent release of the Auditor-General's report into the Hawkei vehicle. The reason I highlight this is that it goes to pretty much the heart of the problem with the government. They say that they support small business and Defence government contracts yet fail to put that in their procurement procedures. So, when the Auditor-General did their job and reviewed the Hawkei and the procurement process and whether it achieved value for money, the Auditor-General did not assess to see whether having local manufacturing jobs, local supply chain jobs, was in fact good value for money. As a result, a scathing report was handed down criticising the Hawkei project. It's just disappointing that the government can't get the policy settings right. It's disappointing that this project, which secured jobs in Bendigo, in the region, in the manufacturing supply chain, got such a black mark against it because the government didn't audit for that. The government doesn't really appreciate that it is good value in our regional communities to have people employed in our Defence manufacturing supply chain. If the government were really serious about small business and Defence procurement contracts, then they would say that having local jobs, local industry, is value for money. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. BILLS 131 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 131

Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018

Second Reading 131 12:38 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley Every day is just another day that working people in this country are being ripped off by a government that doesn't care and is not interested in helping millions of Australians who are seeing their wages go backwards. The facts couldn't be clearer. When inequality is at a 75-year high and wage growth is at an all-time low, what do the government do? They support a cut in penalty rates for 700,000 Australians who, for the past two years, have seen cuts to their take-home pay and who will continue to do so under the Morrison government. This comes off the back of 20 consecutive quarters of falling wage growth in the private sector, where wage growth has now plummeted to just 1.9 per cent. The government will tell you that we have turned a corner on this, but the truth is we are still at all-time historical lows, with workers in this country paying the price for this government's inaction. Under this government, there are no signs that this is going to change anytime soon. In fact, it's only going to get worse. On the other hand, this important piece of legislation that we're debating today, the Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018, introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, will protect workers' take-home pay in the future. I'm proud to rise today to state unequivocally my support for penalty rates and the protection of take-home pay. On this side of the House our united team is so committed to ensuring Australian workers get a fair go that, if we are privileged to be elected, a Shorten Labor government will in our first 100 days restore penalty rates and legislate so that they can never be cut again. This is in stark contrast to the government, which is led by a Prime Minister who voted eight times to support cuts to penalty rates. Despite what those opposite think, penalty rates are not a luxury. They are what pay the bills and put food on the table for over 10,000 workers in my electorate, who are losing up to $77 a week. This includes those who work in retail, which is the third-biggest industry in my community, employing 6,976 local workers. A further 3,612 employed in the food and hospitality sector are also feeling the pain of cuts to penalty rates. These are real people who are losing real money under this government. As the Leader of the Opposition has previously stated, cutting penalty rates means that working people have less money to spend in small businesses, in the shops and in the cafes; cutting penalty rates dampens confidence and deepens inequality; and cutting penalty rates is bad news for young people and bad news for Australian women. At the current pace under this government, Australia is 150 years away from closing the gender pay gap. Those opposite should come down from their shining ivory towers, get out in the community and speak to those who are being affected by these cuts rather than trying to hand out billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to big businesses and the big banks. We know it is in their DNA. When these cuts to penalty rates first came in I was joined by the member for Bendigo at a community penalty rates forum in Goodna in my electorate of Oxley. We were joined by dozens of workers, who voiced their frustration and disappointment with the LNP government in supporting the decision to cut penalty rates. At the forum we heard from people like Donna, who has fought tooth and nail to put food on the table only to be given a kick in the guts by this government cutting her weekly wage. These are the stories of real people. Whereas, on the other hand, we have seen members of the government who are living in denial and have been too busy fighting with each other for the past five years to care how this affects everyday Australians. My community does not deserve this. The working men and women of Australia who work on a Sunday deserve their full penalty rates, not a pay cut. What is most insulting to these workers is that the day after these tax cuts first came in the government gave a millionaire a tax cut of $16,400. In my electorate, in places like Redbank and Redbank Plains, people who work in retail and hospitality got a pay cut while millionaires living on the North Shore got a tax cut of $16,000. How on earth is that fair? How on earth can members of the government look anyone in the community in the eye and say, 'We've got your back'? They don't. The Leader of the Opposition and Labor have not given up on workers. I will not give up on workers in my electorate and I will continue to fight these pay cuts every single day until the election. Today I call on the government to do the right thing. Stop looking at yourselves, stop fighting amongst yourselves and start looking after the workers of this country and making sure that their penalty rates are restored. 12:43 Ms HUSAR 263328 Lindsay It is great to follow the member for Oxley on this very important Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018. The retail industry is the second-largest employment category in Australia and employs 1.2 million people, or one in nine Aussies, and 52 per cent of those workers have absolutely no post-school qualifications. In my electorate of Lindsay the retail trade employs over 12,000 people. These working Australians are relying on penalty rates to survive. The Liberal government's savage cuts to penalty rates mean on average a $77 a week pay cut. More than 75,000 people in my electorate—that is, more than half of my electorate—have jobs that will be affected by these cuts and will continue to be out of pocket. We need to stand up for working people and their conditions. Labor has a proud history of supporting workers. According to the calculations made by the ACTU, a level 6 cook who works Sunday to Thursday every week will be $1,000 a year worse off. Penalty rates are not a luxury. They put food on the table, pay the bills and fill up the car. Employees who rely on penalty rates to meet their household expenditure are far more likely to be a single parent, a woman, a young person, on an income of less than $30,000 or living in regional Australia. I ask: where are the Nats on this? These penalty rate cuts stand to negatively and disproportionately affect more women and young people. They also pose a huge risk to our local economies and communities. This is simply not good enough. Under this government, Sunday penalty rates will be cut next year and again the year after that. Make absolutely no mistake: Scott Morrison and the Liberal government support cuts to penalty rates. They voted eight times to support these savage cuts, and they want to take them even further. Currently the industries that are worst affected are retail, hospitality, fast food and pharmacy. We know this government has plans to further slash the wages of ordinary workers, which begs the question: which industry is next? Our living standards are what make this country a great place to live. When our industrial systems are vandalised, these standards are the things that are most at risk. Cuts to penalty rates are exactly that: vandalism of our industrial system and an attack on our living standards. We keep hearing about Australian workers being ripped off. It is happening everywhere; it is rife. Over the last 12 months, from 15 June to 16 July, the Fair Work Ombudsman recovered more than $27 million owed to over 11,000 workers from almost 30,000 allegations of Fair Work Act breaches. These astronomical numbers represent only those instances of underpayment and exploitation that were reported to the ombudsman. How many are not reported? This Liberal government is so out of touch. It is happier to line the pockets of big business and the big end of town than to give the workers of Australia a fair go. We must do everything we can to fight back, restore these penalty rates and change the rules. For the life of me, I cannot understand why low-paid workers are always in the firing line of this cruel government. How can anyone justify taking money from those who most need it? This shows how out of touch this government really is with the lives of middle- and low-income earners. The Prime Minister gives millionaires a tax cut and big companies get billion-dollar tax handouts, yet inequality is at a 75-year high. Australia has seen some of the lowest wage rises in 25 years. Cuts to working Australian wages are not emblematic of the Australian 'fair go'. This government has already cut the take-home pay of 700,000 working people across the country with the changes to penalty rates. Considering wages in Australia have been stagnant ever since this government was elected in 2013 under Abbott, then Turnbull and now Morrison—and who knows who's next; it seems like everyone gets a turn over there!—its decisions are a kick in the guts for working people who are already struggling to get by. This government wants to further undermine workers' rights and their unions. It is the job of the government of the day to alleviate the pain and struggles that everyday Australians face. Pay and conditions are not supposed to stagnate or go backwards, and this is not alleviating the pain or helping the cost of living. People need penalty rates to make ends meet. Every cent counts for so many people across this country, whether it is the working mum who spends weekends away from her family in order to put food on the table or the struggling uni student who, despite juggling work and university commitments, is still eating two-minute noodles for dinner every night. When I was a uni student, I ate frozen veggies because I didn't like the noodles—that's how I survived. Every single cent counts. Labor will never ever support the undermining of workers' rights and their conditions. Labor understands the value of an extra $77 a week for working Australians and their families. Penalty rate cuts mean less income tax revenue because people are earning less, resulting in more people relying on Centrelink to make ends meet. They also means workers have less money to spend in local shops, restaurants and businesses. Everybody loses under this government. Penalty rate cuts are hurting Australians, and this government must do more. Everybody deserves decent pay and conditions. I encourage everybody to attend the Change the Rules rally on 23 October in Sydney. Join your union, support the campaign and stand up and fight back. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Sitting suspended from 12:48 to 16:00 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 133 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Breast Cancer Awareness Month 133 16:00 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Last Saturday, families affected by this terrible disease marked Metastatic Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The women and men who live with advanced breast cancer travel a very different journey to those with an early diagnosis and the hope of a cancer-free future. I met a few of these women last week when I spent Pink Lady Day in Victor Harbour with the wonderful members of the Fleurieu Cancer Foundation's Breast of Friends group. Their stories are heartbreaking, but the support they give each other is truly inspirational. Magic happens when women put their arms around each other. Sharon has been living with breast cancer for decades, and spoke of how a chance meeting in a cafe and a hug from a friend brought her back to the Breast of Friends group just a few years ago. Unfortunately, this year breast cancer has overtaken prostate cancer as the most diagnosed cancer in Australia, with more than 18,000 Australian women diagnosed every year. It is a sad statistic to reflect on. While it's encouraging that incidences of prostate cancer have declined in recent years, I look forward to a time when advances in medical care lead to significant declines in all cancers, and particularly breast cancer. We need a cure for breast cancer, and I commend all women and men for their courage going through that journey. North Sydney Electorate: Bushcare 133 16:01 Mr ZIMMERMAN 203092 North Sydney I rise today to congratulate those in North Sydney's Bushcare program on a significant milestone—their 25th anniversary. Residents in North Sydney understandably feel passionately about the protection of our local environment. Despite being in the heart of a major global city, our area remains home to some extraordinary areas of bushland. It is the source of constant delight to me that I can be walking through the beautiful forest on Balls Head, for example, and yet know that I'm only a kilometre or so from the centre of Sydney's CBD. That we are a home to these precious areas of native vegetation is a credit to the activism of local residents—initially in seeing these areas protected and then, over the last 25 years, through Bushcare supporting their regeneration. It's not a surprise that Bushcare had its genesis in the work of two Mosman residents in the 1960s, the Bradley sisters. Their movement has gone on to have an impact on native vegetation across Australia. In 1993, North Sydney Council employed bushland specialist Gerard Tuckerman, and from his work the local Bushcare movement as we currently know it was born. Today there are 12 Bushcare sites in the North Sydney Council area, and these are the centre for the activities of our incredibly dedicated Bushcare volunteers. So to all of those who enjoy our bushland reserves, from Badangi Reserve in Wollstonecraft to Forsyth Park in Neutral Bay, we owe a big thanks to the 25 years of work undertaken by so many residents and council staff. Scullin Electorate: Principal for a Day 133 16:03 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Last week I had the great privilege of being principal for a day at Plenty Parklands Primary School in my electorate of Scullin. I'm very pleased to report that the school remains standing after my brief period of stewardship. Mr Zimmerman interjecting— Mr GILES 243609 We won't go to the record of my day, but can I just say what an extraordinarily important program Principal for a Day is. It has provided me, on three occasions now, with great insight into the challenges of running a primary school and/or a secondary school, and the complex interactions that principals are required to have with communities, teachers and students. I'm very much indebted to Principal Claire McInerney for her indulgence and for the insights that she shared with me. I'm so pleased to have a closer understanding of what Plenty Parklands Primary School means to the communities of Bundoora and Mill Park, and to be better placed to support that school and its community. I was particularly excited to spend time with the quality leaders of the school. I encourage everyone to check out their video, which I'm sure will do very well at the Victorian Student Representative Council awards night. This is a group of young people who themselves have set out a value statement for the school as well as a purpose and vision statement. Both are documents that warrant careful consideration amongst the leaders in this place. I'm excited by my association with Plenty Parklands, and I'm inspired by these young people. I hope I can live up to their example of leadership. Wynne, Mr Taj 134 16:04 Mr MORTON 265931 Tangney Congratulations to Taj Wynne, who is in year 3 at the Queen of Apostles school in Tangney. He is the top performer in the International Competitions and Assessments for Schools spelling test throughout Australasia. ICAS spelling is an independent assessment that tests students' skills at spelling words, dictation, proofreading, error correction, and applying rules and conventions. Over one million student entries are accepted from over 6,300 schools in Australia and New Zealand annually. Each year the competition attracts students from over 20 countries, including Hong Kong, India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa and the USA. Last week I caught up with Taj; his father, Robert; and Deputy Principal Jennifer Anderson at the Queen of Apostles school to celebrate Taj's achievement and to chat about his favourite books, including the popular Percy Jackson book series. Taj is an exceptional speller and loves to research and discover new words and where they originate from, their Greek or Latin roots. Taj loves to find out how a word is put together. The enthusiasm Taj has for learning, particularly spelling, is evident in all that he does at school. He will be officially presented with his ICAS medal at an official ceremony later this year. Congratulations again, Taj, on this very significant and very impressive achievement. You've done your school, your parents and your family very proud. Jordan, Mr Ray 134 16:06 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I take this opportunity to thank a local legend for his contribution to our community. My good friend Ray Jordan has been volunteering with the Mount Druitt Senior Citizens and Welfare Association for over a quarter of a century. Under his leadership it has become one of the best associations in the area. Whether it is for a game of bowls or bingo or just sitting back for one of Ray's famous teas, the club has opened its door to many seniors in our community and offered them a friendly and comforting environment. He has also on many occasions been kind and allowed us to use the club rooms to accommodate the 100-plus attendees who come along for my annual seniors forum. Another annual occasion I love being involved in with the club is their Father's Day celebration, particularly getting to see some of the entertainment the club puts on. Ray's work doesn't stop with the seniors. He has received countless awards and has helped with so many activities and events for the Blacktown City Council, Relay For Life, Softball New South Wales, parents and citizens associations, and various local sporting organisations. Aged 87 Ray recently stepped down as president, but in true Ray style he is still around continuing his great work for the club. He was recently recognised by my friend the member for McMahon for his efforts at an event that was held in the McMahon electorate. Ray, thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make such a positive impact on our community. Queensland: Natural Disasters 134 16:07 Mr LLEW O'BRIEN 265991 Wide Bay Last Thursday a ferocious storm cell ripped through parts of Wide Bay destroying crops; injuring people, stock and wildlife; damaging buildings; uprooting trees; smashing cars; and blocking roads. The storm, with hail the size of golf balls propelled horizontally by cyclonic force winds, wreaked havoc on communities throughout the South Burnett, Gympie, Maryborough and the Fraser Coast. Repetitive lightning strikes knocked out power to thousands of homes and businesses across the region. Many people were terrified by the wind, hail and lightning in this storm. From drought to bushfires to storms Wide Bay is copping its fair share of Mother Nature's fury, as it has since time began. As always, our emergency service personnel and volunteers were there to save property, protect lives and get people back on their feet. I commend them for their efforts and I praise the work of the Bureau of Meteorology and everyone involved in disaster management who helped get the phone calls and SMS messages out to alert people to the approaching storm so that they could take preventative action. This was a dramatic start to the storm season. It reminds us all of the need to have a storm plan so we can be prepared to protect our families, property and community. Moreton Electorate: Barrett Adolescent Centre Special School 135 16:09 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton Earlier this year I visited the Barrett Adolescent Centre Special School at Tennyson in my electorate of Moreton, a school that transforms children's lives. Sadly, the young people attending the Barrett centre have all suffered immense mental anxiety and distress. Regular schools do not cater to their needs. I was given a couple of examples of how the Barrett centre has transformed the lives of such students. One student had stopped attending school altogether. He was at the point where he found it extremely difficult to leave the house, experiencing panic attacks when he did. When referred to the Barrett Adolescent Centre Special School, he couldn't even get out of the car, but the staff understood. Three camping chairs were placed on the footpath near his mother's car. His teacher sat in one and invited him to join her. It took lots of patience—patience that teachers in other schools often don't have time to exhibit—but, over weeks of building trust each day, eventually he walked into the classroom. Two years later, that student is able to attend TAFE one day a week. Another student had been missing 80 per cent of classes at her regular school due to extreme anxiety. Now, at the Barrett centre, she's only missed two days in a whole semester. Her father says the school has changed their lives. The Barrett centre is giving these young people the chance to fulfil their educational dreams, as all Australian children deserve. So a big shout-out to all the staff and parents who invest so much in the Barrett centre and long may they prosper. Sunshine Coast: Health Care 135 16:10 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health on the recent announcement of a competitive public application process for 20 Medicare-eligible MRI licences at locations of need around the country. Together, with 10 preapproved locations, they represent a $175 million investment in better and more affordable health care for over 400,000 Australians. The Sunshine Coast is one of the fastest growing population centres in the country, yet access to Medicare-subsidised MRI scans has fallen behind. It's struggling to keep up. This situation is especially acute at Buderim Private Hospital, the only not-for-profit private hospital on the Sunshine Coast where patients regularly refuse MRI scans as the best clinical option simply because they cannot afford the cost. We cannot sustain a health system where public inpatients have better access to services, including MRI scans, than public outpatients or private patients. I therefore support Buderim Private Hospital for a full MRI licence and also Sunshine Coast Radiology and Pacific Radiology to upgrade their partially-eligible MRI licences to better meet the growing needs of health care on the Sunshine Coast. Adelaide Coastal Trail 135 16:12 Ms RISHWORTH HWA Kingston Adelaide, and indeed South Australia, has stunning coastlines, and there's nowhere that has better coastlines than the southern Adelaide region. Of course, the previous state government had been working to not only make the southern area and the coastline accessible to local residents but also boost tourism through the completion of the Adelaide Coastal Trail. There are still areas of that coastal trail that are to be completed—the Witton Bluff area between Christies Beach and Port Noarlunga, the Hallett Cove Foreshore and the Port Stanvac area. At the last federal election, Labor committed $3.3 million to finishing this trail. It has been disappointing that the Liberal government here in Canberra will not put up the money. Of course, state Labor committed money to this trail, but it has once again been disappointing that the state government will not match this money to fund this trail. This trail is incredibly important to our local community. Business associations and local residents have been campaigning for this trail to be completed. I will continue to fight alongside them for funding for this important project, because this project is about connecting the beautiful southern coastline and not only making it accessible to residents but also stimulating local business and supporting local tourism, which is critical to the future of our area. Leichhardt Electorate: Australian Irish Dancing Championships 135 16:14 Mr ENTSCH 7K6 Leichhardt It gives me great pleasure to rise this evening to speak about the Australian Irish Dancing Championships, which was held in Cairns recently. It's the first time the championship has been held in our city, with some 5,000 visitors at our world-class Cairns Convention Centre. To say it was a success would be an understatement. More than 950 competitors, ranging in age from seven to 20 years, attended the championships. There were also 233 teachers attending to support the young charges. The majority of the competitors were children, which meant that many families travelled to Cairns and used the championships as an excuse to holiday in our beautiful part of the world. Visitors from all over Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia travelled to Cairns for the championships, many of them for the first time. There were eight international adjudicators, from Ireland, the United States and Germany, and four international musicians, from Scotland, Ireland and Canada, travelled to our city for the event. Accommodation throughout Cairns was booked out completely. The Cairns Esplanade precinct was buzzing with Irish dancers and their families throughout the five-day event. I want to give a big shout out to the City of Cairns Festival of Highland and Irish Dancing Association, especially Ann Blakeney, Jacqui Wilson and Alison Gaustad for their hard work in ensuring this marvellous event went off without a hitch. National Rugby League School to Work Program 136 16:15 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Whitlam I congratulate Kiara Astbury, Rideika Boney, Tanisha Brooksby, Phoebe Gorman, Taliah King, Hayley Marshall and Kale Talbott, who all took part recently in the National Rugby League's marquee Indigenous program and in particular its School to Work program. It's an education and employment program that utilises the profile of Rugby League to support and encourage young Indigenous Australians to stay at school and aspire to achieve their goals and assists them in transitioning into further education. This afternoon I had the opportunity to talk to Taliah King, who recently graduated from the program. She explained to me how the program has encouraged her to stay at school; to reach her goals and, after finishing school, to obtain certificates as a barista and in the responsible service of alcohol; and to engage a tutor, which enabled her to improve her ATAR score. The program is funded by the federal government and operates in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the ACT. Since 2011 the program has supported more than a thousand Indigenous students, and if the outcome for those students has been as positive as it has been for the students in my electorate, it is doing a very, very good job indeed. In 2016, a social impact report commissioned by the NRL found that the return on investment for School to Work was almost $5.50 for almost every dollar invested. I congratulate the students for their participation in the program and wish them all the best in the years ahead. Strother, Mr Roger 136 16:17 Mr PASIN 240756 Barker Today I rise to pay tribute to one of the Coorong's kind-hearted community leaders, who tragically passed away earlier this year. Former mayor and regional trailblazer Roger Strother was a true gentleman who guided his community through one of the toughest of times—the millennium drought. Mr Strother was first elected to the former District Council of Meningie in 1993 before the council was amalgamated and he served as an elected member on the Coorong District Council. Between 2006 and 2008 he was elected as deputy mayor, before serving as mayor between 2008 and 2014. During this time, Roger worked with more than 30 community organisations across the Coorong and wider Murray-Mallee region. I had the pleasure of working with Mayor Strother when I first entered this place in 2013. Roger was an honest, approachable and hard-working man who always had the best interests of his community foremost in his considerations. He will be remembered by all those who had dealings with him as a man of integrity and as one who served the community with great skill during an extremely trying period, never losing faith or his passion for the region or its future. My condolences go to his wife, Mary, and to his family. Vale, Roger Strother. Parramatta Electorate: Pink Ribbon Breakfast 136 16:18 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta On Sunday morning, I was privileged to attend the annual pink ribbon breakfast in Parramatta. It's an event I have been attending for nearly eight years. It was started by Rekha Rajvanshi eight years ago as a way of informing the subcontinent community about the risk of breast cancer. The Indian and Sri Lankan communities in New South Wales have one of the lowest rates of breast screening in New South Wales, so this is an incredibly important event that takes place each year. I acknowledge Rekha's team—Sue Advani, Bharti Gidwani and Meena Mohanty—and also Dr Rosy Khuma, who is the consul-general's wife but a doctor in her own right, who did a really quite wonderful presentation on the risk factors. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia. Each day, 50 women are diagnosed and eight women die. But, since organisations like the National Breast Cancer Foundation have been funding research, over the last 25 years we have seen survival rates improve from 76 per cent to 90 per cent. We know that one of the key indicators that improve survival rates is early intervention. So, once again, I'd like to thank Rehka and her team for working so hard in the subcontinent community to encourage women to have regular screenings, in a community with one of the lowest screening rates in New South Wales. We know the rates are improving in that community, largely because of their work and getting out all the time in their pink saris to raise the profile. Thank you. (Time expired) Grey Electorate: Drought 137 16:20 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey About a week ago, I took the opportunity to visit a region out to the east of Burra in my electorate, to Eudunda, which is severely affected by the current dry conditions of the drought. I toured with some young farmers and had a look at the properties out there. Pretty much, we are just talking about bare paddocks. The input costs from their crops, their wheat and their fertilisers are gone. Many of their stock are gone because they've had to take them off the property. The thing that struck me the most was when I was shown a paddock that had been shut up for 18 months to preserve feed for these livestock only to find out that the kangaroos had eaten the lot. I'll probably have more to say about that on another matter, but those who oppose our kangaroo industry should go and have a look at the reality of the kind of damage that is doing to the environment. It's actually denuding the ground. They've ruined our exports. I'm pleased with the Commonwealth support thus far for those who are living the reality of the drought at the moment, but I think we really need to keep our finger on the button in this area. We certainly don't want to lose a generation of farmers off the farm, and neither do we want to set up a cradle-to-the-grave welfare system. It's a matter of getting that balance right. I want to tell the people of my electorate that my ears are open, the ears of the minister are open and the ears of the Prime Minister are open, and I will carry that message. Invictus Games 137 16:22 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon The Invictus Games is an international sporting event for wounded, injured and ill service men and women. The games include those still on active duty and veterans. I would like to make special mention of the competitors from Darwin—Samantha Gould, Sapper Tom Foster, and Corporal Sonia Newman, who I recently met. Samantha is competing in powerlifting and is looking to use the games as an opportunity to meet new people. Having previously participated in the 2017 games, she knows how much of a good time and a memorable experience she's up for next week in Sydney. Sapper Tom Foster is currently posted to the 1st Combat Engineer Regiment. He's competing in the indoor rowing and swimming events. Tom regards making the Australian team as one of his greatest achievements. Corporal Sonia Newman will be competing in sitting volleyball and wheelchair basketball, and she's also part of the swimming team being captained by her Darwin comrade Tom Foster. I pass on all my very best to everyone involved with the Invictus Games. I look forward to following them over the next fortnight, and hopefully watching Sonia play basketball next week. We're proud of you all. Thanks very much. Roads 137 16:23 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin It's clear that Labor has deserted the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. We all know that Labor spent $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money to cancel the East West Link, and all we've seen since that time is traffic on the Eastern Freeway getting worse and worse by the week. That's why this federal government has $3 billion on the table to build the East West Link. Now we're hearing from Labor plans to toll the existing sections of the Eastern Freeway. Labor is now considering tolling a road that we've used for 40 years—in addition to spending $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money not to build the East West Link. We read today on the front page of the Herald Sunthe headline, 'Road rage: Proof our traffic is getting worse'. The reason that the Herald Sun ran this article today is that the Labor Party has been clinging onto a report from the Grattan Institute that says nothing to see here—apparently traffic in Melbourne and our suburbs is fine. We're here to tell the Labor Party that it's not. We need to build the East West Link. That's why we have $3 billion on the table and, in addition, this government is spending money to pick up the slack where the Labor state government isn't. That's why I committed $8 million to upgrade the Maroondah Highway, Dorset Road, Exeter Road intersection—works have commenced—in addition to $1.2 million for safety upgrades on Canterbury Road in Heathmont. We know that traffic on our roads needs to improve, and that's why we are investing in projects like the East West Link and other local road projects. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The level of noise in the chamber, unfortunately, is making it hard, I suspect, for speakers to concentrate and is certainly making it hard for me as chair to be able to hear them. I ask members who wish to continue conversations to perhaps take them elsewhere. Oxley Electorate: Girl Guides 137 16:25 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your protection. On Saturday night just gone, I had the pleasure of attending the 60th anniversary celebration for the Oxley Girl Guides, an iconic group who provide a fantastic environment to teach young women about leadership, teamwork and becoming positive role models in our community. Alongside me were the state member for Mount Ommaney, Jess Pugh; councillor for Moorooka Ward, Steve Griffiths; and councillor for Tennyson Ward, Nicole Johnston. It was great to see guides of all ages there, right up to guides who were born before the Oxley Girl Guides came to be. I want to give a special mention to Queensland Girl Guides State Commissioner Velia Nicholls, who was also in attendance for this significant milestone, for all the outstanding work she does for guiding in Queensland. Alongside the member for Moreton, I'm proud to be a big supporter of the Girl Guides, both locally and nationally, including of their programs like Voices against Violence, which is symbolic of everything that Girl Guides contribute to our community. I'd also like to acknowledge District Manager Eliza Kent and Oxley Ranger Guides Amanda Nicholls, Irene Miles, Annette Harper, Courtney Jackson-Carroll, Penny Worthington, Karina Dew, Sarah Vowles, Kaylah Moore, Emily Watson and Kerri Timoney, for all their hard work and dedication to the Oxley Girl Guides. I look forward to seeing the guides go from strength to strength and to next year, when we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Girl Guides in Queensland. Congratulations, Oxley Girl Guides. Boothby Electorate: Grumpy Old Men 138 16:27 Ms FLINT 245550 Boothby This month I was delighted to visit the Grumpy Old Men, a Men's Shed group based at the Edwardstown Baptist Church in my electorate of Boothby. Honourable members interjecting— Ms FLINT 245550 They are not here, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Grumpy Old Men get together each week to help our local community. Whether it's by removing weeds, pruning branches, mending gates or painting fences, they help those who need a hand. When they're not out and about, the Grumpy Old Men can be found next to their shed splitting firewood to raise money to donate to local charities or making wooden writing boards and toys. They donate these items to the Samaritan's Purse Operation Christmas Child project, and to date they've made over 4,600 boards. The Grumpy Old Men were recently awarded $2½ thousand in federal funding, under the National Shed Development Program, to support their work. We know Men's Sheds help improve mental health by providing companionship and purpose, particularly for our senior Australians who have retired from the workforce or may have been widowed. The Grumpy Old Men at the Edwardstown Baptist Church are a wonderful example of how Men's Sheds support their members and our local community. Thank you to President Neil Berry and all of the Grumpy Old Men for their hospitality and for my honorary Grumpy T-shirt, and special thanks to Bernice and Heather for the lovely morning tea. I need to let my community in on a little secret: despite their 'Grumpy Old Men' name, I have never met a more friendly, kind and welcoming group of blokes. Thank you, Grumpies, for all that you do. Calwell Electorate: Second Chance Animal Rescue 138 16:28 Ms VAMVAKINOU 00AMT Calwell On Friday I popped into the Second Chance Animal Rescue shelter in my electorate, in Campbellfield. I want to take the opportunity to thank them for the enormous amount of good work that they do in assisting members of our community to take care of their pets and in finding foster homes for pets that no longer have homes. I'd also like to congratulate this organisation on receiving $200,000 from the Victorian Labor government in the Pick My Project initiative. This money will help them set up Hume's first ever community animal hospital. Marisa, who runs the shelter, and her team of very dedicated volunteers understand the importance of owning and caring for animals. All of them understand the value that pets add to families and the joy they bring to a home. Knowing this, they have combined their shelter with a robust foster care program, which sees up to 300 animals being fostered out to homes of people who do love animals but who simply don't want them there in the long-term—a bit like the grandparents and the grandchildren. So there is a huge network of foster homes. They also look out for those in my community who've found that they need assistance with the care of their pets. They provide heavily subsidised vet fees, pet food and kitty litter for those in financial hardship, and they provide safe, short-term accommodation for pets of those who have found themselves without a stable home. Forde Electorate: Mental Health 138 16:30 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the students at Marsden State High School for their commitment to removing the stigma surrounding mental health issues. Year 9 student leaders at Marsden State High School did amazing work for mental health by spreading awareness on this past R U OK? Day as part of the school's Mates Talk Change Program. The students styled stickers, postcards and stress balls to remind the school community of the importance of starting open and honest conversations with friends and loved ones. Community awareness programs are so important in communities such as mine where suicide rates are above the national average. I know many families in my electorate of Forde who have suffered from, or support someone with, mental illness. That's why I was so pleased to see the announcement over the weekend about additional funding and support for headspace. I think all of us across this chamber recognise the importance of ensuring that we support those with mental health issues and of having a positive attitude towards helping those people. It's important that those people are not stigmatised and that they don't feel excluded from our community. We must find ways to include and support them such that they can deal with the issues they're facing and become the valuable and important members of society we know they can be. Holt Electorate: Mental Health 139 16:31 Mr BYRNE 008K0 Holt On the same note, I rise today to discuss the need for a headspace centre in Cranbourne. Last week, we recognised headspace day. This is a national day of support for mental health and the wellbeing of our young Australians. I'd like to acknowledge the work of headspace centres that have assisted over 446,000 young people—88,500 young people have accessed a headspace centre since their inception. Headspace plays a vital role by supporting our young people, assisting them with anxiety, depression, substance abuse, self-harm and other issues. One in four young people experience a mental health issue. However, mental health experts, led by Professor Patrick McGorry, state that early intervention and treatment are critical in improving mental health outcomes and quality of life for those with mental illnesses, and that they can reduce the incidence of youth suicide. But convenient access to headspace centres, particularly in high-density population areas, is critical. That's where we have a problem in Holt. It's part of the City of Casey, which is one of the fastest-growing areas of Australia. The suburb of Cranbourne East in my area is the fastest-growing in Australia. We have two headspace centres—one in Narre Warren and one in Doveton. In fact, I lobbied the then government to get both of those centres. But we need another one in Holt, because we have so many young people—10.2 per cent of the population in Holt are aged between 15 and 24—and they need to be able to walk through a door without stigma or judgement. They need that service, and they need that headspace centre in Cranbourne. Bonner Electorate: Better Ageing Grant Program 139 16:33 Mr VASTA E0D Bonner It was great to see the Minister for Sport launch the Move It Australia—Better Ageing Grant Program last month. With our ageing population, it's more important than ever to get older Australians up and moving. The Better Ageing Grant Program has grants of up to $2 million available to help deliver sporting programs to Australians over 65. I want to encourage local sporting, local community, local non-government and local government organisations in my electorate to apply. There are some fantastic sporting initiatives in Bonner for seniors. Walking football is one of them, and it's taking off in the electorate. Bayside United Football Club and Wynnum 60 and Better Program have organised walking only soccer matches for older locals. I played one of their matches recently. Players told me that it was great to be able to participate in a team sport that wasn't too hard on their bodies but kept them active, fit and social. I have to thank Bayside United president Greg Pascal for championing the sport and helping it grow in the electorate. Bayside United plans to run two walking football competitions in the near future. One will be for 50- to 59-year-olds; the other will be for over-60s. I actually turned 52 last week, so you could say I have a shot at a soccer championship one day! Actually, seeing how the players walked rings around me on the field the other day, I'd have really no chance! Well done to Bayside United and Wynnum 60 and Better. I can't wait to see things kick off soon. Blue Mountains: Bushfires 139 16:34 Ms TEMPLEMAN 181810 Macquarie The seventeenth of October marks the fifth anniversary of the devastating Blue Mountains bushfires, which destroyed 200 homes in Mount Victoria, Winmalee, Springwood and Yellow Rock. Five years on, most people who rebuilt their homes have moved in—as I did earlier this year—although I reckon it's going to take another five years before people get to do their front yards. You'd think by now that the marks where cars melted to the bitumen would be gone, but no state or federal government has provided funding for that. The psychological impacts of those events on our whole community, not just on people who faced flames or lost houses, have proven to be long-lasting. However, there are some things that would help other communities deal with another bushfire. Insurers must work with householders to ensure that they can afford to rebuild after a fire. Too many in our fires had that choice taken away from them because of unintentional underinsurance. Being helped to plan is crucial—plan for human safety, for pet safety and to give your house the best chance of survival. I congratulate New South Wales Rural Fire Service on their latest campaign to encourage people to test their plan. We should have already had the mobile black spots fixed, with better battery life for towers—I know firsthand how important it is to be able to communicate during and immediately after a fire—yet that too has been ignored by this government, with key bushfire-prone areas excluded from the Mobile Black Spot Program. If any good can come out of the fires, it should be learning from our experience and making sure that others don't experience the same. Make It 30 Days 140 16:36 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson Earlier this month I launched a campaign to get a fair go for locals, local businesses, the local economy and local jobs throughout North Queensland. In recent years multinational mining companies have extended their trading terms beyond the standard 30 days, putting enormous pressure on our small to medium enterprise suppliers. In some cases, payment terms have been further extended beyond 60 days to 90 days, and there are even some reports of 120 days. My campaign, including a petition to sign at makeit30days.com.au, calls on big mining companies to revert to standard payment terms of 30 days or less. In the first couple of days the campaign attracted hundreds of signatures from locals because they understand the impact that extended payment terms have on local businesses and jobs. As a result of extended payment terms, businesses have millions of dollars tied up and are unable to invest in growth and jobs at a time when the resource industry is ramping up and when growth and jobs are desperately needed. To make matters worse, some of these big mining companies are offering loans, with interest, to businesses to help them with their cash flow. But none of that would be necessary if they just paid their bills on time. I urge big mining companies with extended payment terms to voluntarily revert to Australian business standards of 30-days-or-less payment terms. Failing to do so will invite government to use the heavy hand of legislation to force them to do so. I look forward to seeing those miners do the right thing and give locals a fair go by paying their bills on time. Mental Health Month 140 16:37 Ms McBRIDE 248353 Dobell October is Mental Health Month. It is estimated that one in five Australians will experience a mental health problem during their lifetime. As a pharmacist who worked in the mental health inpatient units at Wyong Hospital for much of my career, this awareness month matters. Last Thursday, on National headspace Day, I held a forum at the Gravity Youth Centre in Lake Haven to hear directly from young people about their experiences. I was heartbroken to hear of the struggles that many experienced trying to get help for themselves or others. It is apparent that stigma persists and that there are many barriers for those seeking help for themselves or loved ones. We have some excellent services on the coast, including headspace, and I would like to acknowledge their support in holding this forum. But services are under strain and must be properly funded, particularly in the regions. We also need to talk about mental health openly if we are going to change the statistics. Studies have found that it is not harmful to ask someone if they are thinking about taking their own life—in fact, it can be extremely helpful. We must work together to address this national crisis. I urge everyone to check in with their loved ones, friends and colleagues this month. I also encourage everyone to think about taking a mental health first aid course. We encourage people to speak about mental health. Often people want to help but don't have the necessary experience to do so. I renewed my mental health first aid recently. This training helps equip you with the basic skills which may help you to save a life. I encourage other people to think about taking mental health first aid this month. Bouddi Foundation for the Arts 140 16:39 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson It was a pleasure to be at the 2018 Bouddi Foundation for the Arts awards day at Wagstaffe over the weekend. The awards are always a very special afternoon. They recognise the incredible local talent and encourage the career development of our emerging young local artists. Vivienne McLaren, the winner of the Lee Casey Memorial Award, is an unbelievable opera singer. She is heading to Italy to further her training with the support of this foundation. Min Ahn is a freestyle guitarist and plays in the most extraordinary way, winning the Graeme Anderson Award for Excellence. Jake Cheong was the deserving winner of the John Bell Award, recognising his incredible talent as a pianist. Lucy Parle and Toby Wells won the Origin Musical encouragement awards. Maddy Bell was awarded the Origin Theatrical Award for musical theatre, and Danielle Guyot was the recipient of the John Charrington Prize and the Pam McBride Award for her work as a sculptor. Other award winners included Holy Bennet, a digital artist; Aaron Carey, a pianist; Naomi Jones, a folk fiddle player; Riley Lovell, a singer; Chloe McFadden, a visual artist; Miranda Michalowski for musical theatre; Shana O'Brien, a dancer; Eliza Williams, a dancer; Taylor Thompson, a talented drawer and Jenna Woodhouse, a filmmaker. Congratulations to all. I pay special tribute to the foundation's committee: to Chair and founder, John Bell; Peter Godwin; Peter Young; Phil Donnelly; Phil Walker; Joy Park; Graeme Anderson; Roger Hayward; John Charrington; Narelle Jones and Ian Provest. Thank you for all you do for our arts community. Australian Public Service 141 16:41 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fenner When Senator Cormann addressed the APSwide Canberra conference last week he laid out his plans to invigorate the Australian Public Service. Like any propagandist, he tried to take control of the situation by taking charge of the words that defined it, but he forgot that Canberrans can read between the lines. Fairfax Media got the picture, with the headline 'Cuts are good for you, Cormann tells public servants'. Canberrans are entitled to wonder why Senator Cormann thinks so differently to them when it comes to cuts. After all, cuts hurt, don't they? So what has inspired Senator Cormann's Orwellian strategy of making the public service better by making it weaker? The LNP may have gotten a taste of bloodletting of late, charmed by the discredited medical notion that spilling a bit of blood can cure all ills. In Senator Cormann's attitude to the public service, I can see an advocate for that groundbreaking 18th century medical technology, advising always to expel bad blood with little regard for the ultimate outcome. I'm reminded of the role this kind of cutting to cure played in George Washington's final hours. Washington woke one morning with an inflamed throat and, in an attempt to cure it, doctors removed 40 per cent of his blood. He died that evening. Bloodletting may not have been the only cause of death for Washington, but it certainly weakened his ability to fight. Perhaps that is Senator Cormann's real surgical intent. Field of Light: Avenue of Honour 141 16:42 Mr RICK WILSON 198084 O'Connor I recently had the honour of opening the Field of Light: Avenue of Honour installation in Albany, which received $290,000 from the government's Building Better Regions Fund. Anyone who's seen the Field of LightUluru installation will be familiar with the concept, so imagine what it looks like on Mt Clarence, overlooking Albaly's magnificent Princess Royal Harbour with 16,000 globes lighting the way through the Avenue of Honour. This is the most fitting location to remember young Anzacs who lost their lives in the horror of the Great War. For those young men in that first convoy, Princess Royal Harbour was their last sight of Australian shores. That's why Albany continues to be central to the Anzac story. It's now home to the National Anzac Centre, where the generations that came after those first diggers can pay homage to their sacrifice. As we approach the Centenary of Armistice, this installation will once again focus the attention on the Albany Anzac story and will encourage many thousands more to make the pilgrimage there. I congratulate the City of Albany for its foresight in pursuing this wonderful project and making it a reality. I congratulate the extraordinarily talented artist Bruce Munro and his team of volunteers who worked so hard to complete the installation. The Field of Light: Avenue of Honour will be in place until 25 April next year. I look forward to taking my family up there on the many beautiful summer evenings ahead. I urge everybody who can bring their families to do so as well. Australian Constitution 141 16:44 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I stand in this place today proud to represent the Bwgcolman people and the traditional owners, the Manbarra people, of Palm Island, as they share their journey in their centenary year for the first forced placement of people on Palm Island. There are over 47 language groups on Palm Island. I want to thank the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples for holding a hearing on Palm Island on 3 October. I want to make it very clear that it was Labor who fought for and won the establishment of this joint select committee. I lobbied hard to ensure that the people on Palm Island also had their voices heard. The evidence presented by Councillor Alf Lacey, mayor; Councillor Roy Prior; Aunty Elizabeth Clay, whose parents lived in the dormitories; Dr Lenora Geia, who was born and raised on Palm Island; and Dianne Foster was simply inspirational. Their stories about their lives and experiences as First Nations people living on Palm Island was sad, hard and painted a picture of strength and resilience. They talked about the elation of the 1967 referendum, but they also talked about the fact that Townsville was one of two cities that voted no in that referendum and how that hurt. Their passion for a process that will enable truth-telling and treaty and constitutional recognition was clearly evident. They acknowledged that all Australians must go on the journey together to achieve a fair and just outcome for First Nations people. I was in awe of their courage, sheer determination, passion and resilience, because their battles have been long, tough and at times very painful. Bayside Toy Library 142 16:45 Mr TIM WILSON IMW Goldstein It's my great privilege to celebrate today the incredible work of the Bayside Toy Library in Brighton East that's giving Goldstein families access to over 3,000 toys to assist with childhood development. The library's lending service is helping turn more household toy boxes into magically evolving sources of education, adventure, creativity and wonder. Toys cost a lot of money, and this community venture is helping kids play, helping families budget and reducing our environmental footprint. If smiles were an indicator of success, Lachlan, Lewis, Bryce, Charlotte and Isabelle gave the library a resounding endorsement when I visited recently. Erica Breedon and Sarah Carlier have done an outstanding job as managers of the toy library, so thank you all for what you're doing for our youngest generation. I'd also like to acknowledge the volunteer committee: Andrew Campbell, the president; Elinor Hansen, the secretary; Lauren McMaster; Sarah Wolz; Mariela Gauto; Karen McIntyre; Rhiannon Fox; Phil Badger; Marianne O'Connell; Jacquie Warfe; Laurie LaTorre; and Lindsay Haines, each making an incredible contribution in supporting the committee to make sure they can do the great work to deliver for Bayside kids. Toy donations are always welcome at the Bayside Toy Library, so, if you want to make a donation, go to baysidetoylibrary.org.au to give your toys a second chance to educate and fascinate. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 142 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS World Osteoporosis Day 142 16:47 Ms COLLINS HWM Franklin I 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. Today I'd like to recognise that this Saturday, 20 October is World Osteoporosis Day. It is a disease that makes bones become brittle, leading to higher risk of fractures. For the individual, it of course can cause pain, decreased mobility and loss of independence, particularly in those over the age of 65. Every year around 165,000 fractures occur, often from just a minor bump or a fall. That is around one bone broken every three minutes. The cost of fractures to the health system is over $2 billion. As many as 4.7 million Australians, or 66 per cent of Australians, over the age of 50 have poor bone health. But there does remain hope. Many people don't know that effective treatments are available and can halve the risk of fracture. The fracture risk, particularly for hip fractures for older Australians, is quite alarming. Indeed, when it comes to mortality and morbidity from hip fractures, five per cent of those over 65 who get a hip fracture never leave the hospital; 10 per cent go straight to a residential aged-care facility; 50 per cent have a mobility disability within a year; and, sadly, 15 to 20 per cent die within a year because of the complications post-hip-fracture. This is a really serious issue when it comes to older Australians, and we must do everything we can to make sure that older Australians, in particular, understand that you need to take good care of your bone health early. Indeed, early detection is vital to ensure that bone health is managed to prevent these fractures. You can take action to maintain and improve your bone health at every stage of your life. The earlier you start, the better. A calcium-rich diet, adequate vitamin D levels and regular exercise are all very important for that bone health. When diagnosed with osteoporosis, there are also medications that can help you manage it and improve your bone health or stop the decline in bone health. Labor had a proud history when last in government of dealing with those diagnosed with osteoporosis and of trying to prevent the diagnosis of osteoporosis in people by advocating healthy physical activity. There is always more that needs to be done. We know that as many as 80 per cent of patients fail to receive appropriate treatment post-fracture. There are some places in Australia, particularly in some large hospitals, where there is a fracture liaison service run by the state government. These are remarkable facilities. They do a quick quiz of people who have had a fracture to see whether they are at risk of osteoporosis. If they are, they send them off for a bone density scan so that osteoporosis can be detected much earlier and they can receive appropriate treatment if they do have the early signs of osteoporosis. It is critical as we go into World Osteoporosis Day that we advocate on behalf of older Australians, in particular, to look at their bone health and self-assess. There is a web site, knowyourbones.org.au, which has a five- to 10-minute quiz that people can do to see whether they are at risk of osteoporosis. If they are at risk, they can go to their GP and get appropriate referrals to get treatment and/or further diagnostics to see whether they are at risk of osteoporosis. It is really, really important that this is highlighted in the lead up to World Osteoporosis Day because, as I said, it costs the health system billions of dollars, but also for older Australians who are getting spine and hip fractures it is a huge cost to their physical health and to their families and loved ones in trying to provide the additional support. I have my own story of my grandma, who fractured her hip in her 90s. I had to go and fight the hospital for her to have a hip replacement. I think she was 91 or 92 at the time. I remember them saying to me, 'She's unlikely to survive this,' and all the difficulties around that. I'm proud to say that my nan was one of the best rehabilitation patients in their 90s that that hospital had ever seen. She went on to live to 98, but it did put her into a residential aged-care facility some months post that hip fracture. So I know from my own family's experience just how difficult this can be, and then having to access all of the systems and supports of aged-care services, such as the ACAT teams. It would be much better if we dealt with the incidence of osteoporosis much earlier in our lives. I've done the Know Your Bones quiz, and I need to go and get a bone density scan. I'll absolutely be doing that, and I recommend that many people do it also. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 248181 Do we have a seconder for the motion? 16:52 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I second the motion. Osteoporosis is a growing issue for many Australians. Osteoporosis causes bones to become weak and fragile, so that they break easily. This can happen as a result of a minor fall, bump, sneeze or sudden movement. Fractures caused by osteoporosis can be life threatening and they are a major cause of pain and long-term disability. Fractures due to osteoporosis have a devastating impact on millions of people worldwide and result in enormous socioeconomic costs to society and healthcare systems. Worldwide, one in three women and one in five men aged 50 years and over will suffer an osteoporotic fracture. Every year in Australia around 165,000 fractures occur, many of which could have been prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment. But the problem is far greater for the population than those who have experienced a fracture. More than 4.7 million Australians over 50 years of age have poor bone health. In 2012, Osteoporosis Australia released individual state reports identifying the burden that osteoporosis and fractures will have and are projected to have from 2012 to 2022. The statistics for Queensland are incredibly concerning. The facts for poor bone health in Queensland between 2012 and 2022 are that by 2022 it is estimated there will be 1.27 million older Queenslanders with low bone mass, an increase of 39 per cent from 2012. Millions of adults in Queensland aged 50 years and older—66 per cent, in fact—had osteoporosis or osteopenia, poor bone health, in 2017. In Queensland, 910,000 adults aged 50 years and older, or 66 per cent, had osteoporosis or osteopenia in 2012. Among Queenslanders aged 50 years and older, 14 per cent had osteoporosis and 52 per cent had osteopenia. Among Queenslanders aged 70 years and older, 43 per cent of women and 13 per cent of men had osteoporosis—that is, 92,000 women and 23,000 men. The fracture impact in Queensland from 2012 to 2022 results in the total number of fractures over the 10-year period—2013 to 2022—to be projected at 329,071. In 2022, it is expected that there will be a 46 per cent increase in the annual number of fractures over 10 years, resulting in 38,800 fractures per annum. In 2022, there will be 106 fractures every day amongst older Australians in Queensland. Approximately one in six of these fractures will be a hip fracture. In 2017, there were 88 fractures each day among older adults in Queensland. This is a serious cost that needs to be a concern for governments because between 2012 and 2022 the total direct cost of fractures over the 10 years—2013 to 2022—will be $4.3 billion. These costs include ambulance services, hospitalisations, emergency and outpatient departments, rehabilitation, limited aged care and community services. In 2017, the total direct cost of osteoporosis and osteopenia in Queensland adults aged over 50 years was more than $611 million, of which $414 million—68 per cent—relates to the treatment of fractures. In 2012, the total direct cost of osteoporosis and osteopenia in Queensland adults aged 50 years and over was $495 million, of which $335 million—68 per cent—relates to the treatment of fractures. Nationally last year, the cost of fractures associated with osteoporosis amounted to $2.1 billion. This clearly identifies the fact that the projections for 2022 are well and truly on track. But early action can be taken through regular exercise, a bone-healthy diet and consultation with a doctor about osteoporosis risk factors, with diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis halving the fracture risk. On 20 October, it will be World Osteoporosis Day. I urge people in the Herbert electorate to take at least one preventative measure—that is, exercise, see your doctor, drink a glass of milk—and together let's work to prevent osteoporosis. 16:57 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler I thank those opposite for the opportunity to provide a brief contribution to this motion. Certainly World Osteoporosis Day is an important recognition of those challenges inside this part of the health sector. The reason that I've jumped to my feet is, quite simply, my wife is a radiographer; this is an area in which she works regularly—in fact, every single week. I do want to recognise the work of those people, both the radiographers and the radiologists, who are working in the radiology practices. As I'm sure some of my colleagues know, it can be a challenging environment to work in. But I do want to relate one very brief story, and that's about the toughness of our people. Bone-D scans are things that do happen regularly, every single day, on a full list. But I've got to say that typically they tend to be hardy older women. The story I want to relate—clearly I can't break any confidences—is about a lady who came in for a bone-D scan and who was then promptly sent off for an X-ray, because she'd been in a fair bit of pain and was feeling uncomfortable. When my wife completed the X-ray, she found this lady had a broken hip; it was completely snapped off. She said to the patient, 'Are you in any pain?' The answer to that was, 'It's a bit uncomfortable, love.' So I just want to reflect on the resilience of the Australian people. It is important to keep your diet right, to do what you need to, to take the advice of your doctor. Particularly given that I have probably the highest number of people on the age pension of any electorate in Australia—I have some 45,000 people on a concession card for the age pension—my electorate is a place where this is something that happens regularly. So I just want to say thanks to those opposite for giving me an opportunity to make a brief contribution. It is an important matter that we are discussing, and I would urge all of those in my electorate to do what you need to do, take the advice of your medical practitioner. I also want to give a shout-out to all who are in there, doing this work—I can't use their full names obviously, for reasons that everyone here knows—including Alison, Nat and Tracey, who do a lot of the bone-D work in those local facilities. 16:59 Dr FREELANDER 265979 Macarthur I'm delighted to speak on the motion moved by the member for Franklin, who, as the shadow spokesperson on aged care, is very well aware of the major issues we have with osteoporosis as our population ages. I'm delighted to speak on this before 20 October, World Osteoporosis Day. Osteoporosis, as anyone who's worked in any of our busy hospital emergency departments would know, is a very important medical problem that is faced day in, day out by our hardworking nursing and medical practitioners. I've certainly worked in a number of emergency departments and seen many people—the lady who presents with the Colles' fracture of the wrist; usually a lady but sometimes an older man, presenting with a shortened, externally rotated leg due to a fractured neck of femur, requiring hip replacement. We know that, as our population ages, this is likely to become an increasing problem. Unfortunately, it's a cost of billions of dollars every year to our medical system. It is also a cause of significant morbidity and, unfortunately, significant mortality. We know there are risk factors. We know that post-menopausal women are at a higher risk of osteoporosis than the general population. We know those who are sick, those who have a poor diet and those who are sedentary—and especially those who are immobile—are at particular risk of osteoporosis and the fractures that can occur. In the paediatric age group, children who are extremely premature and children who suffer from conditions leading to poor mobility are also at risk of osteoporosis. However, we know that most of us, from about the age of 35, lose bone density. Unfortunately, sometimes the first time that we become aware of pathological osteoporosis is when a fracture occurs. This fracture can often occur following very minimal trauma and is a cause of significant pain and significant debility. Unfortunately, in some older people, it can be a leading factor in their ultimate demise. We know that our medical, nursing and allied health practitioners can provide world's best practice in the treatment of osteoporosis and in the fractures that are due to it—particularly hip fractures, which in years gone by would ultimately lead to a person becoming bedridden and dying from their fracture. We now know, with best practice—an operation within 24 hours of fracture and early mobilisation—that survival rates and, indeed, mobility are really excellent. Unfortunately, however, as I've said, for many people who present with hip fractures it's the first idea they have that they may have osteoporosis. However, it is important to note that treatment is available. Treatment depends on awareness, early diagnosis and attention to bone health. That's why recognition of World Osteoporosis Day on 20 October is so very important. We know that things like improving our diet, improving sun exposure, improving exercise, early diagnosis and the use of some of the newer treatments, including drugs called bisphosphonates, lead to remarkable improvements in bone health and reduction in fractures. We know that with attention to all of these, fracture rates can be halved and morbidity and mortality can be markedly reduced. I encourage every one of us, particularly in this place, to be aware of our bone health and make sure our practice ensures we do have good bone health. That means diet; sun exposure, which is very hard to get in this place; and good, healthy exercise. I really am very pleased to speak on this motion. All my colleagues are very well aware of the difficulties when osteoporosis occurs, and we are also increasingly aware of how treatment, early diagnosis and recognition can make remarkable differences to people's lives. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to this motion. I recommend bone health for everyone. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 I thank the honourable member. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting. Mobile Black Spot Program 145 17:05 Mr JOYCE E5D New England I'd like to talk about how important the Mobile Black Spot Program has been. It is part and parcel of living in the 21st century that you must be able to pull a phone out of your pocket to contact help, to contact support, to call for more fuel on the farm or to call for repairs. I'm very proud that, in our area of New England, we have 37 new and upgraded mobile phone towers. When you go through the list, you get an understanding of how important this is, especially for the towns that have been left out. They are towns that live on the periphery of the everyday, towns such as Balala, between Uralla and Kingstown; Bonshaw; Drake; Dungowan; Hillgrove; Kings Plains; Rocky Creek; Urbenville; Walcha Road, which will be opening up in the next couple of days and is near where I grew up; Woolomin; Attunga; and Barraba. These are all incredibly important. We've been trying for a mobile phone tower for so long at Copeton Dam, where over 80,000 people go during the summer. We didn't have mobile phone reception, so if someone fell out of a boat or drowned or had any of those issues, there was no capacity for us to call for help. Now we're getting mobile phone towers going into Copeton Dam as well as Fig Tree Hill, which is also near Copeton Dam. It will give safe and secure coverage of that dam—so vitally important. Senator Bridget McKenzie has announced the next round of this mobile phone upgrade, and this is also vitally important for towns that still need to be upgraded, such as Upper Horton. At Upper Horton, they have a rodeo on New Year's Eve, and, of course, they don't have mobile phone coverage, so if something goes wrong, how do they actually contact people? I'm really proud of the work that this government has done—the National Party and Liberal Party coalition—in providing money, through our time in government, for mobile phone coverage. It is one of the things that is so evident and that comes into your office. In country areas people say: 'What do I want? I need mobile phone coverage.' The market was unable to provide that and so there had to be a subsidy from the government to get these mobile phone towers built. I was up in western Queensland the other day, and the fact that, under this government, there is now optic fibre that goes from Longreach right through to Birdsville has allowed that backhaul capacity for mobile phone towers in places such as Bedourie and Birdsville itself. You think, 'Why do you need a mobile phone tower at Birdsville?' When the Birdsville Races are on, over 5,000 people descend on that town, and for the rest of the year over 50,000 head of cattle go in the other direction, which means you have a lot of road trains. What happens when a road train breaks down or blows a tyre or has to turn around or has to pick up another load? This can cost thousands and thousands of dollars if we don't get it right, and mobile phone coverage is absolutely essential. We have to drive ahead with this mobile phone package. A little village like Weabonga or other areas, such as the dropout spots between Mullaley and Gunnedah, all want to be able to arrive in the 21st century like the rest of the world has. It is amazing that people head up into the Himalayas and up Mount Everest and can get mobile phone coverage. They get mobile phone coverage most of the way. So if they can do it in Nepal, I think we can do it here. It is a vital segment of what a modern economy has to do. It has to go hand in glove with backhaul capacity—your backhaul capacity of optic fibre—so that, on your main lines, these mobile phones can be incorporated. Of the 37 towers, we've had 27 installed and we have 10 to go. I'm looking forward to driving that forward. One that is very special to me—and I'm looking forward to actually being part of it—is the opening of the Walcha Road mobile phone tower. This was able to be constructed in conjunction with the bushfire services' radio reception. It basically allows people in that area to get coverage. It is so important that it can reach back up towards Woolomin and reach down towards Woolbrook. It shows that the government is not distant in Canberra; it is real and has capacity to deliver a better outcome and a better standard of living. I commend the Mobile Black Spot Program, and I look forward to the next round. I'll be lobbying hard for even further delivery for my electorate, as I'm sure every member will be for theirs. 17:10 Mr BRIAN MITCHELL 129164 Lyons I concur with the remarks of the member for New England. This is a good program—I know it's a program that the coalition introduced, but it's a good program. I was very sorry to see, in the last budget, that it was being axed but I'm pleased to see that, through some pressure from a number of members across the aisle, round 4 has been announced. As we all know, round 4 doesn't have quite as much in it as previous rounds; it's a grab bag of what was left over from previous rounds. I join with the member for New England, without a shadow of a doubt, and hope that there will be a round 5 under whoever forms the next government and the next budget after May. This is a good program. It's needed in the regions. It's one of the biggest complaints that come into my office. The number of people who say that they still can't get mobile coverage in their community is still too high, so there is still a great need for this program. These are issues that my office deals with daily. Too many rural and regional communities across Tasmania still have no reliable mobile phone coverage. That immediately disadvantages them, isolates their communities and sometimes, frankly, places lives at risk. Some of the communities affected by black spots also endure unstable landline connections—part of being out in the bush is you've got the old copper degrading in the ground, so you've got no mobile coverage and a poor landline. That further disconnects rural and regional Tasmanians from the broader state, their friends and families and, importantly, emergency services. Last week my office organised and hosted a community forum at the Woodsdale Museum in the south-east of my electorate, about 70 kilometres east of Hobart. About 30 people turned out, reflecting the depth of feeling—it's a relatively small community, so 30 people is a big show. They told my office that they are unable to use mobile phones at all, and, thanks to the ageing and inappropriately placed communications infrastructure, they are often not able to use landlines either. I'm pleased to report that Telstra has—fingers crossed!—dealt with the landlines by installing new equipment, but the lack of mobile phone coverage remains a key sticking point. It's pretty hard, as the member for New England has stated, to make a commercial case for providing these services, which just goes to show that the market doesn't always know best. These people should not be told that, because telcos can't make a buck out of servicing them, they should all just go home and forget about it. That's the role of government; that's where government comes in. Where markets fail, government steps in. We could argue for hours about the merits and costs of the coalition's decision all those years ago to sell Telstra but let's not flog that horse today. After hearing about the meeting in Woodsdale, Peter from Levendale, a hamlet south of Woodsdale, got in touch. His son, Ryan, often needs urgent medical care and treatment. Because of constant landline outages, Peter and his family need proper mobile phone coverage to ensure that they are able to access the services their son needs, when he needs them. It's a pretty simple ask: every Australian should have mobile phone access. At the Woodsdale forum, one woman spoke about her experience trying to renew her working-with-vulnerable-people check after running into difficulties with Service Tasmania because she did not have an operational mobile number—they simply could not get her at home. Not being able to renew this check meant she could no longer work in her chosen field and could no longer volunteer in the community she loved. Thankfully, this was resolved after an unnecessarily long process. When it comes to communications infrastructure and connectivity, our regional communities are still missing out. Poor coverage segregates communities, prevents broader participation and is seriously concerning to the many people who understand the importance of being able to connect. Every day I hear about how crucial proper mobile coverage is to our regions and to people living in them. I hear of the risks that the absence of these services creates. I hear how not having mobile phone coverage affects people, families and communities. Our rural and regional population deserves proper communications infrastructure, whether it's mobile phone coverage or NBN, and it needs to be a national priority that the regional communications infrastructure network is improved. Far too many Tasmanians and far too many of my constituents are not able to make a call or access communications services, even in matters of life and death, and that is simply not good enough. So I commend the government for backflipping on its budget decision, and I support this mobile phone program. Here's hoping it can continue. 17:15 Mr SNOWDON IJ4 Lingiari To our mate over there, the member for New England, I'm pleased you're contributing to this debate and fulsomely supporting the government's position, which is good to see—not that I agree with it totally. I commend my colleague who's just spoken, the member for Lyons. We all express our support for the continuation beyond the budget fixation of this year, where it was no longer to be seen, and the reversal from the government in making sure that there is some ongoing funding available for this Mobile Black Spot Program. I want to talk about my communities in the Northern Territory. I think the member for New England said he had seven or 17 places that still had black spots. Well, in my electorate, which is 1.34 million square kilometres, there are 450 of them, amongst the poorest and most remote communities in the country. Many of them just don't have access to mobile phone services, and that's a problem. There are those who were announced for funding as long ago as 2015 and are still waiting for the services to be put in place. I mention the community of Imanpa, which is 300 kays out of Alice Springs. They were announced for base station funding in 2015, and it has just recently come online. Two other communities, Finke and Mount Liebig, one to the south of Alice Springs and one to the north-west of Alice Springs, were both announced for funding in 2015 and are still waiting to have those base stations put in. Last year the residents of Christmas Island were without internet and had limited mobile services while waiting for the installation of the NBN Sky Muster service. It's very hard to explain to people who live in metropolitan areas the importance of having mobile services in remote locations. When you've got them, you take them for granted. When you haven't got them, you want them and you need them. If you drive up and down the length of the Stuart Highway from the South Australian border—or, indeed, go to Adelaide—to Darwin, there are many spots along that highway where you can't get mobile services. That's important for, obviously, health and safety reasons and road safety in particular. It's a pity that this is only a five-minute slot, because I want to commend a local response to this program coming out of the Centre for Appropriate Technology, an Aboriginal owned organisation, which has developed what I will call 'listening posts'. These are dishes which are put in strategic locations where, if you drive up to them and take out your mobile phone, you can actually use your mobile phone. This is not part of the Mobile Black Spot Program. This is part of a process of providing connectivity to people who drive long distances to and from remote communities. I'll give you an example of a community which is located 500 kilometres west of Alice Springs, Kintore. It's currently 300 kilometres from its nearest mobile phone service at Papunya. Think about it: you're driving the road from Papunya to Kintore and something happens. Unless you've got a satellite phone, which most people don't, how are you supposed to make contact? Thankfully, Mount Liebig, which is about 170 kilometres from Kintore, will get mobile phone service in the near future. Can you imagine any other state in Australia where you could be 170 to 300 kilometres away from a mobile service? That would mean in Victoria, if you were 170 kays from Melbourne, the nearest mobile service would be Shepparton. You could imagine how that would not be tolerated. We have got a huge problem here, and I don't think the government has really come to terms with the depth of the problem or the extent of it and the needs of remote Australians. There is a challenge here for all of us: we've got to appreciate the difficulty for people who live in rural and remote parts of Australia, whether they're in remote communities, on pastoral leases or just travelling through and what this means if you don't get access to mobile phones. As I say, this is an important thing for us all to take note of, and I encourage the government to think far more carefully about the continuation of this program into the future. 17:20 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham I thank the chamber for the opportunity to make a few comments in this debate. It is the case that we're having this conversation in the context of the most recent round, round 4, of the Mobile Black Spot Program having closed just last week. I have taken the opportunity to put submissions in to that website and also to write directly to the minister about the issues in my electorate, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that. It is the case, in particular in my area, that there are a number of transport routes. Several members have talked about the safety issue and having more remote areas or major transport corridors able to have mobile access. In putting that submission together, I surveyed my electorate and hundreds of people responded, and I want to acknowledge the time they took to give me the feedback. Not all of my electorate is eligible, but there was excellent feedback for the areas that I was able to put forward. I particularly want to report to the Chamber, on behalf of all of those constituents, the transport corridors that need focus—in particular, the South Coast rail line. There are a lot of people who commute from my region into Sydney. One of the things that makes a long and tiring commuting life bearable is to be able to knock off some of the work related or even personal things—banking and those sorts of things—that you might need to do on the train while you're travelling home so that, once you get home, you can actually spend some quality time with your family. Between Thirroul and Helensburgh on the South Coast line, the mobile service just completely drops out, and people on that commute are without mobile phone coverage for a very extended period of time. The government did contribute towards a new base station at Coalcliff, which would help alleviate that problem on that line, in round 1 of this particular program. That was in 2015. The other week I joined my two state colleagues, Ryan Park and Paul Scully, to call on the New South Wales government to get on with finding a solution on where to base that base station. We're now up to round 4 and they still haven't resolved the positioning of a base station from round 1 that's very important to a major commuter corridor. We've written to the state minister asking him to meet with Telstra urgently and get a resolution to that particular one. There's also the Picton Road. It's a major road connecting my region, particularly running up to Sydney or down to Canberra. It's very heavily used. With the member for Keira, Ryan Park, I have raised that on behalf of a constituent who spoke to us, Mrs Hayette Hanna. She lost her sister on that road. At the time that fatal accident occurred, they were unable to get mobile phone coverage. In an earlier round, there was a base station funded on that road, which I'm hoping will be resolved soon. But there are still a number of other black spots, so I've submitted for those. The Appin Road is a similar experience, heading into south-western Sydney from my region, so we've included that. I want to finish up by really speaking out in this parliament on behalf of some constituents at Darkes Forest. Darkes Forest is a fairly small community at the very north of my electorate in very heavily-wooded, national-park-type area. The people of Darkes Forest have been struggling not only with mobile phone coverage; when we lost government, they went off a fibre based broadband solution. They're on satellite, and that's been an extremely frustrating for process for them. Mr Ian Coote, who runs a small business in that area, wrote to me the other week, and we're following up on his behalf. We've submitted Darkes Forest as a black spot under this particular round of the program, and we'll work to try to get a better resolution of the broadband services into those areas as well. I put on the public record for the minister and the government that I'm very, very keen to see these issues resolved in the current round of the black spot program. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Veterans 148 17:25 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) the immeasurable commitment and sacrifices that our Australian Defence Force (ADF) members make to serve our nation; (b) that ADF families play a pivotal role in supporting our current serving ADF men, women, ex-serving personnel and veterans; and (c) that 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. Today, I am proud to represent the largest garrisoned city in the country and to move this motion in this place. I have made it known in this place that I am proud to represent the veterans and serving and ex-serving personnel and their families in my community. The electorate of Herbert is well aware of, and is grateful for, the significant contribution that these men and women and their families make to both the social and economic fabric of our community. I have stood up in this place and fought for veterans and their families in every single debate since I was elected. I believe that the men and women who have served or are serving this great nation deserve nothing less than a strong representative fighting in their corner. It is right and just that, when our men and women have put their lives on the line and their families have made sacrifices at home, they get a fair deal from the country they served to protect. When a man or woman undertakes to serve his or her country, we must in turn undertake a commitment to support them and their loved ones in their time of need. If we are being honest in this place, can the Morrison government say that what it is doing by our current serving and ex-serving personnel, veterans and their families is good enough? Are the veterans who are transitioning from the ADF to civilian life—500 annually in Townsville alone—taken care of and supported after they leave? When I speak with defence personnel in my electorate, veterans and their families are telling me this government does not appear to be on their side. Independent reports have shown that unemployment in the veteran community transitioning from the ADF is around 30 per cent. This is not good enough. The AIHW report found that the suicide rate for ex-serving men is 14 per cent higher than that of men in the general population. This is not good enough. Labor's commitments are important, and it is so incredibly important that they have bipartisan support. Our current serving and ex-serving personnel, veterans and their families deserve bipartisanship. The military covenant's principles and standards will be enshrined in legislation and forward government departments will be required to report progress on an annual basis in order to prove that the covenant is working and delivering in the best interests of our serving and ex-serving personnel, veterans and their families. The military covenant will not just be a collection of nice words; it will have reportable actions attached. Properly targeted funding is also critical in order to address the high rate of unemployment. Labor's $121 million veterans' employment policy commitment will provide the assistance needed and will certainly go much further than the Morrison government's $8.3 million employment commitment. Labor's family engagement and support strategy and the inclusion of the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation into the banking royal commission must be supported by the Morrison government. Veterans and their families have every right to know that their superannuation fund is performing in their best interests. And it needs to be supported right now, because it is the right thing to do. I call on the Morrison government to support our ADF, ex-serving personnel, veterans and their families to match Labor's commitments. Families play a huge role in supporting serving, ex-serving personnel and veterans and, as such, they too deserve to be treated well and supported. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 125865 Do I have a seconder for the motion? Mr Gosling 245392 I second the motion. 17:31 Mr DRUM 56430 Murray I've taken the opportunity to talk on this motion primarily because I spent last week in Afghanistan with the Australian Defence Force. I took the opportunity to meet literally hundreds of our finest young men and women in both the Middle East and Afghanistan. It's interesting the member for Herbert puts this motion into the parliament, then gives the government of the day a bit of a bagging, and declares that she needs bipartisanship. That's fair enough, if that's the way it needs to be. However, I think our Defence Force has been one area where we have actually been able to deliver a bipartisan support for our Defence Force members. If you wanted to get political, you would start talking about the investment that the Labor Party made in the six years that they were in government. You'd talk about the investment that they put into the fixed-wing fighter jets, which was zero; the submarines, which was zero; and the frigates, which was zero. This is not coming from me. This is coming from the leaders from Defence: this enormous differentiation between the coalition and its investment into our armed forces, giving them the assets that they need, versus the record of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. Having just spent a week with the troops, it is amazing to see the support that they are given and to see the high quality of the men and women that make up our Defence Forces. I still, right now, am blown away by the high quality of our troops and their respectfulness, their knowledge, their degree of discipline, their commitment to the job and their absolute incredible detail to every aspect of their job. It was something to behold. Certainly, when we were in the Middle East where the average temperature was around 40 degrees, to go through the various exercises with the troops was tough. Justine Keay, the member for Braddon, was also on the trip. It was great to be able to go through that experience with her. The other aspect that I was taken by was the fact that so many of these young men and women, 22- and 23-year-olds were, in fact, married and had children, but were still totally committed to their country and the battle that we are facing throughout the Middle East. Their sheer commitment to what we are doing over there is unparalleled by anything that one could imagine. It really was an education for me, and I came away with an incredibly high opinion of each and every one of the troops that I spent some time with while we were over there. I understand that the covenant that is being put forward by the government is going to put in place the structure of how we view the role of our military. If it is not already acknowledged within the Defence Force, that is certainly going to make it clear how important our Defence Force is to the people of Australia. What is going on over in Afghanistan is incredibly complex. It is a country full of turmoil, with the ISIS and the various different iterations of ISIS and also the Taliban effectively trying to blow up the elections which are going to be held this week. The Australian troops are over there in conjunction with the American troops and the Brits trying to do their absolute best to make sure that these elections in Afghanistan go ahead. They're doing enormous work, and if we can come out of next weekend's election with a credible government— (Time expired) 17:36 Mr GOSLING 245392 Solomon I rise to support the motion, and I thank my friend the member for Herbert, Cathy O'Toole, for moving this motion on a topic that is quite close to me personally and to our team. During my 13 years of service in our Defence Force I saw firsthand the immeasurable commitment and sacrifices made by our personnel, and I saw firsthand the detriment that prolonged service can have on individual personnel and their families. Support services for veterans have come a long way. It is worth remembering that for a long time it was the family unit that had to carry the burden of life after war, like operational service in particular, and it was up to the family to try and start healing the scars caused by service to our country. It is necessary service to our country, but it is not without cost. I was reflecting after the speeches about the West Gate Bridge tragedy earlier today, at the start of question time, that my dad and his family lived not far from the West Gate Bridge—in fact, it was only a matter of months after dad had returned to Vietnam that that big section of the bridge came down—but also that my pop, my father's father, who worked in the bottle factory that was a stone's throw from where the bridge came down, lived with his own trauma from his service in the Second World War. Both of them were infantrymen and both lost mates in battle. It was a reminder that it is the families who bear the burden. In the Northern Territory we have many of these families. The Northern Territory is home to 8.1 per cent of Australia's permanent ADF personnel. When you include the families, we are looking at about 12,000 people out of our relatively small city. The defence community has always been vital in the north, and in Darwin in particular. You don't have to look any further in the past than Cyclone Marcus to see the fantastic support provided by the ADF to our community. We also had US marines assisting us during the clean-up of the cyclone. I was recently in Washington DC and passed on our community's thanks to the United States Marine Corps for their assistance in the aftermath of Cyclone Marcus. I just want to mention what I'm doing personally, because words are one thing but actions are what really count. I want to—and we will, because we are without a support centre in the Northern Territory—form a support centre for not only current and former members of the ADF but also first responders in our community and their families. As a community we value that service, and we will make sure that there is somewhere off-base—away from the workplaces of police, firemen, ambos, people who work in border protection and the members of our ADF—where those people and their families will be able to reach out and get support. That is a commitment. I want to touch quickly on the veterans' employment policy because it's also important. The best thing, I think, that we can do for our veterans is help them into work or study. We need to make sure that we're supporting our veterans, and I'm proud that our team has got a comprehensive veterans' employment policy. I'm also proud that recently we announced, as the member for Herbert said, the military covenant, which will recognise the immense commitment of our armed forces to our nation. Finally, I want to mention that I recently joined with the Families of the Fallen—the families of those that we lost in the long years in Afghanistan—and it was great to be with them as they provided solidarity for each other. That support for our families is so important. It's vital, and that's what I am committed to for my electorate. 17:41 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on this very important motion because of the contribution of our veterans who've answered the call that the nation puts out in times of war, or in times when there wasn't war, and put up their hand up to serve. Having had my brother serve in the armed forces for over 25 years—father, uncles, grandfathers—the history of service has been handed down to me. So I sometimes feel a bit inadequate that I'm one of the next generation that hasn't put my hand up to serve. We are always grateful for what our men and women who serve our nation do for us and for other nations that are our allies or just need our protection and help. The coalition government—like most Australian governments—has, quite rightly, put things in place to support veterans after they leave. However, we've all heard stories where it hasn't been perfect. The coalition government—The Nationals and Liberals in government—have tried to address some of these very important issues. The most impressive reform recently has been our response to mental health issues that people in the Defence Forces suffer. It has always been a problem with wartime service. In the old days, as a child, I remember my parents talking about people who went off to World War II. The saying was, 'They came back, but they weren't the same person.' Then there were other terms like 'shell shock' that my grandparents used to talk about, and then there was 'combat fatigue'. Now most of us recognise it as post-traumatic stress disorder. A recent ABC article and survey estimated that up to 50 per cent of serving veterans, when they retire, have some sort of mental health issue, from reactive depression through to post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans' affairs reform bill went a long way to try and correct this issue. The barriers to getting mental health support have theoretically vanished. If you've done one day of service as a serving Australian soldier, sailor or airman or airwoman, you qualify for support. There is a new funding stream in place while you undergo your mental health assessment for you as a returning veteran and your partner so that the process of assessment and working out whether you do need long-term fiscal support from the veterans' affairs section doesn't leave you cashless and in an impecunious state for up to a year while these lengthy processes go through. I should also mention that there are many other organisations that really step up to the plate to help service men and women. We are all familiar with the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Association. They really go in to bat for their colleagues and people who've served before over not only welfare issues but also their health and their physical complaints as well as their mental complaints. I've had occasion to do fundraising bike rides across the alps or parts of them or over long distances for the Soldier On charity, which is also doing a great job alongside the more well-known groups like the RSL and the Vietnam Veterans Association. We also have other government programs such as the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, which offers training and mentoring to veterans so that they can start up their own business. There is also other mentoring going out for a year and doing small-business training courses—all the sorts of things that you need to establish a business. We've had the Prime Minister's initiatives where we have corporations and businesses linking and offering to take on veterans as they leave service because they come well-trained and very experienced. But the main thing is: veterans in Australia should know that Australian governments have got their back. We haven't been perfect, but we've certainly made huge improvements in the way we treat our veterans. (Time expired) 17:46 Mr DICK 53517 Oxley It's an honour to speak on the motion today, and I thank the member for Herbert for raising this important topic. She is known as a fierce advocate for veterans not just in the north of Queensland but also right around Australia. It is because of the immeasurable commitment and sacrifices that our Australian Defence Force members make to serve our nation that I rise to place on record my support for their service. I'm proud to have spoken on this topic many times before in the parliament, and today I again place on record my unwavering support and gratitude to the brave men and women who currently serve our nation and also to the veterans for their service and contribution to the Australian way of life. Knowing this, and growing up with a father who served in the Navy during the Second World War as a signalman onboard the HMAS Ararat, I understand what it was like for those serving in the war. Enlisting at the age of only 20, he served in the Second Australian Imperial Force until allied victory in the Pacific. The HMAS Ararat was an Australian warship positioned in the newly captured allied territory of Cape Gloucester, New Britain. Whilst he was not one to tell many stories from the time he served, we know that life onboard the HMAS Ararat was not easy. This is reflective from the experience that I hear from men, women and veterans today. They give up and sacrifice so much so that we can enjoy the freedom we have today. In my electorate of Oxley, there are currently almost 2,000 veterans who now call our community home, along with a further 1,000 residents who are current serving members of the Defence Force. I'm proud to know many of them personally and enjoy working alongside our local RSL branches to help improve services for their members. But there is much, much more to be done. That's why just last month the Leader of the Opposition, alongside Labor's shadow minister for veterans' affairs, the Hon. Amanda Rishworth, announced that, under a future Shorten Labor government—if we are privileged to be elected—we would develop and sign Australia's first military covenant. This would put in place a formal agreement to ensure the nation's armed forces are fully supported during and after their service and will legislate regular reporting to parliament on how Australia is supporting military personnel. We will work with the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and ex-service organisations to draft the relevant wording of a military covenant and associated legislation to make sure that we get this right. They deserve nothing less. Signing a covenant will build on Labor's previous commitments to the current and ex-serving Defence community, including our $121 million veterans' employment policy and our family engagement and support strategy. Labor's commitment to those who serve and have served is rock solid. This includes Labor's announcement of a family engagement and support strategy for Defence personnel and veterans, to provide greater support to our military families. Developing a family engagement and support strategy will enable us to identify where we can provide greater support to military families, to those who matter most to our ADF personnel and veterans—their wives, husbands, sons and daughters. This also acknowledges the important role of families in the rehabilitation of ADF members and veterans from both physical and mental injury and illness. You can read about the experiences and you can hear about the experiences, but, by viewing and being part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, you get to see firsthand the dangers, the sacrifices and the sheer hard work that our men and women go through every single day. It puts a brand new perspective on things. I'm really pleased that I've been able to participate in two programs as part of this really worthwhile program. I know that our troops are the best in the world and are incredibly dedicated to serving our country. But I also know that, in my own local community, there are many ADF families that are separated from their loved ones. I cannot imagine the trauma, difficulties and fears that those family members go through from day to day not knowing, due to operational issues, where their family members are and whether they are safe. As the member for Herbert stated earlier, Australian Defence Force families play a pivotal role in supporting our current serving ADF men, women, ex-serving personnel and veterans. We thank them for the sacrifices they make. From my own experience on the ground, from working with our veterans groups, I understand how critical and important it is to streamline medical and treatment processes for veterans. As I said in my earlier remarks, I've hosted round tables with the shadow minister and will continue to work in partnership with our wonderful RSL sub-branches. This includes programs like Paws for Hope and Understanding by the Forest Lake RSL, which is led by sub-branch president Mr Bob Richards. This initiative is one of its kind in Australia. I know that we'll continue to keep working alongside the members of the RSL to make sure that we help them to transition from high-stress, combative environments to general society. 17:52 Mr ANDREWS HK5 Menzies If the defence and security of the nation is the No. 1 priority for a national government, then care and support for veterans who serve that purpose of security and defence must be an equal priority of government. This motion, addressed by members on both sides of the aisle, supports that notion. Indeed, the contributions of those who have made them so far, and no doubt of those who will follow me, also support that proposition. This year we celebrate the Centenary of the Armistice in 1918. From the beginning of the involvement of the Australian Imperial Forces, in 1914, there were moves in this country to ensure the proper and adequate—to use the expression of the time and the expression that has been used for a century since—repatriation of our armed forces. Repatriation didn't just mean bringing people back from warfronts; it also meant the care and the services provided to them once they returned to Australia. Whilst the range of services after the First World War was, by today's standards, inadequate, the reality is that there was a concern from the outset—particularly by those who came back, many of whom served in this parliament both after the First World War and the Second World War—to ensure that a range of services were provided. Indeed, as I recall, the first Minister for Repatriation was appointed by an Australian government in 1917. So we have a long history of repaying the debt, as a nation, that we owe to those men and women who have served our national interest. We must continue to do so now and into the future. The nature of the challenges faced by veterans has probably changed over time. Yet there are some fundamentals in relation to both their physical and mental health that remain a constant. It's incumbent upon us as a nation, and we as representatives of the people of Australia, to ensure that we do the best that we possibly can for the men and women who have served this nation. Of course, mental health is a major issue for many of those who have served in theatres of war and in other ways for Australia—for example, in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief missions overseas. Currently, I think some $200 million is spent on veterans' mental health treatment each year. Importantly, that treatment is demand driven and uncapped; if a client of the Department of Veterans' Affairs needs mental health support, then help is available—as it should be. Indeed, the government has introduced the non-liability mental healthcare scheme, which means that free mental health treatment can be provided without the need for a mental health condition to be related to military service. In the last budget, this was expanded to include reservists with disaster relief or border protection service, along with those involved in serious training accidents. As part of this overall service, counselling and support is available 24/7 to veterans and their families through the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service. In addition to that, those who voluntarily leave the ADF are now automatically issued a white card for mental health treatment on their discharge. This is a way in which governments of all political persuasions over the years and the decades have sought to address the issue of the health and the welfare of veterans in Australia, in all parts of this country. The honourable member mentioned a covenant with the veterans' community, something which the government is working on at the present time. And I believe it is significant that we do come to some arrangement like that in this Centenary of Armistice, not simply for the services it provides but more importantly for the significance we say that we, as a nation, apply in recalling, remembering, restoring the health of and ensuring that we always uphold those men and women who have served in the uniform of this country in the past, who serve it now and who will serve it in the future. 17:56 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo Military service is unlike any other form of employment. The risks are real and the consequences are life-changing for those who have experienced war or warlike service. They will have no superannuation; instead, they are provided with a fortnightly pension. This is a pension that is not fixed, but rather is subject to review by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation—known as the CSC. They will live with the threat of reassessment and review for the rest of their lives, with every financial decision viewed through the prism of that uncertainty. They will be entirely dependent on the pension administered by the CSC, and therefore entirely dependent on the conduct of the CSC. They are definitive examples of a fiduciary relationship, yet the government has refused to extend the terms of reference for the banking royal commission to those who receive a CSC pension. The refusal is predicated on the belief that the current regulatory regime surrounding the CSC is sufficient. The government argues that the additional standards for governance and scrutiny prevent the trustee from behaving in a manner that would amount to misconduct or conduct that would fall below community expectations, but we already know that the CSC is failing to meet community expectations. Anyone who has taken the time to speak with our veterans will be aware that the actions of the CSC have a profound impact on the lives of veterans and their families. And in light of Commissioner Hayne's interim report, it is incredible to me that the government still seeks to rely on purported 'regulatory oversight' as a justification for excluding the CSC from the scope of the royal commission. Consumers are entitled to expect that their dealings with financial institutions will be conducted in a manner that is fair and honest. As the commissioner noted in the interim report, treating people fairly and honestly has important economic consequences. When you are a young veteran struggling to adjust to life-changing injuries and with the CSC pension as your only source of income, we know that the consequences of misconduct are far more than purely economic. The consequences are far-reaching and they are devastating. The 2017 Senate report The constant battle: suicide by veterans highlighted the fact that our veterans are particularly vulnerable during the period of transition from Defence to civilian life, and that vulnerability is exacerbated by those systems and practices of those departments and institutions that our veterans fought for. I acknowledge that the government is working to improve the discharge process through veteran-centric reforms, and I note the Productivity Commission is currently investigating the compensation and rehabilitation scheme, but in my view these measures only lend further support to the idea that the CSC should be included in the royal commission. We know there are problems, so let's not sweep them under the rug yet again. Let's review the system, give our veterans a voice and see how we can improve it. The government may say that the commission is independent of the government and that it is a matter for the commissioner to investigate if he so chooses, but I would draw the House's attention to a letter from the office of the royal commission to the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations dated July 2018, wherein it is stated: 'The scope of the commission's terms of reference is a matter for government.' So, on the one hand, we have the royal commission saying the inclusion of the CSC is a matter for government and, on the other, we have the government saying the inclusion of the CSC is a matter for the royal commission. Which is it? Government, I urge you to look at this closely and put our veterans first with respect to this. I would like to close by expressing my heartfelt gratitude and thanks to our veterans. Whether you are young or not—I know we still have people from Korea, people who fought for us in Vietnam and people who have fought in the modern conflicts such as Afghanistan, Timor and the Solomons—to our veterans and our serving members: my heartfelt gratitude to you. Thank you for all you do. 18:01 Mr WALLACE 265967 Fisher I agree with the member for Herbert that we must support veterans and ex-service personnel and their families. It's something that I and this government have made the focus of our work over the last two years. Just two weeks ago I had the privilege of spending a few days with the ship's company of HMAS Melville off Cairns. They were doing their deployment readiness. A number of the ship's company—about 10 out of a ship's company of 80-odd—come from the Sunshine Coast. The level of professionalism demonstrated in the days that I was with them was exceptionally high, as high as I've seen all around the country, whether it be on HMAS Canberra or on the many bases I've had the privilege of visiting. We can be very proud of our service personnel. When these service personnel are discharged and leave the military our obligations as a government do not cease. Our obligations continue to ensure that we look after them as well as we possibly can not just when they're in uniform but, more particularly, when they leave. We know, and I'm sure the member for Eden-Monaro will back me up on this, that they're flying, driving or sailing multimillion and sometimes multibillion-dollar equipment. These young men and women have a sense of purpose, a sense of mission and a sense of tribe—a sense that no matter what happens their mate is going to be standing next to them and will look after them. Then, when they discharge, they lose all of that. They lose their sense of mission, their sense of purpose and their sense of tribe, and there is a great sense of overwhelming grief and a feeling of 'Well, what the hell do I do now?' The way that we structure our military is that we do so much for them when they are in it that many of these young men and women have never even filled out a rental application form or have Medicare cards—the sort of basic stuff that civilians take for granted. When they discharge, they lose all of that. I think that there is a recognition on both sides of the chamber that we've got to do a whole lot better. I happen to believe that we're doing great work, and it's continuing to improve. But we've also got to acknowledge that there is so much more to do. I want to acknowledge the member for Eden-Monaro for his service to his country, and every member and senator in this place that have served and pulled on the uniform. They know this stuff much better than I do. I've never served. I've had the privilege of looking from the outside, but I'm immensely proud of the work that these, often young, men and women do—like Sara Barnett, who's the XO on HMAS Melville from Maleny in my electorate. She's an outstanding professional, and to see them go through their drills is really quite inspiring. There are an estimated 15,000 veterans on the Sunshine Coast—and I acknowledge my friend and member for Fairfax here who will also speak on this. The Sunshine Coast has an inordinate number of veterans because it's a great place to retire, but he and I have an obligation to ensure that we do everything that we can as a government to ensure that their transition is an effective one. In this year's budget the government has committed to more than $11 billion to provide the essential services that our veterans rely on—$11 billion. We're improving our DVA. We know that there are always issues and that not everybody is going to be happy all the time, but we're providing an additional $100 million in this year's budget, on top of the $166.6 million last year, to support the coalition government's improvements to DVA, upgrading its internal computer systems and, importantly— (Time expired) 18:06 Dr MIKE KELLY HRI Eden-Monaro I congratulate the previous member on his comments, and indeed the many members who've contributed to this discussion. It does flag the high degree of bipartisanship across the chamber on these issues. I think that's greatly facilitated by the experience that a lot of our members have in the parliamentary exchange program. I want to congratulate the member for Herbert for bringing forward this motion. She has obviously, with her constituency, acquired a high degree of familiarity with the issues that we're addressing here, and her background in mental health issues has given her a unique insight into a lot of that. She works well with a couple of particularly good friends of mine, retired Brigadier Ray Martin and retired Lieutenant General John Caligari, who are very actively engaged in veterans' issues now. I think one discordant note was the comments from the member of Murray. I won't go into a rebuttal of that, but I think he should go back and read some of my previous speeches on those issues and he will be enlightened. I know he has genuine concern for veterans' matters, but, on the other issues he talked about, I would firmly state they were simply incorrect. I am proud of what we did in government in personnel issues, the $1.4 billion in emergency funding for force protection measures to reduce the casualties we were experiencing in Afghanistan and the record levels of spending. We took veterans' investment to $12.5 billion, which has not been matched since. But there are always improvements that have to be made in this area as new generations of veterans come through. Obviously, the experience that they have endured over years in separating from Defence has been one that's been highlighted in this discussion. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was involved in unveiling a statue which was raised through public subscription to Private Jack Ryan VC, who was a proud son of Tumut. I believe I'm related to Jack Ryan actually, because the Yass Ryans and the Kellys—good old Irish Catholic breeders back in those days—intermarried. He was a particularly fine example of the people that we admire most in that unique military history of ours. Private Jack Ryan took personal responsibility in those salient and important days in the battle for breaching the Hindenburg Line, which brought the war to an earlier end. This was understood very well by John Monash, in particular, the finest commander that this nation's produced. He had to push harder in those last few days despite the strain that caused because it would have saved thousands of lives in the long run if the war had dragged on in 1919. Jack Ryan was a private and took personal initiative in rallying troops around him to engage in feats of amazing bravery and achievement. But, after the war, Private Ryan's experience has been replicated many times in that he was unable to find employment and suffered through the Depression years. He met an early death through the ravages of those experiences in 1941. That's not now a unique experience in the history of our veterans who have separated and struggled to make a life for themselves in the civilian world. I applaud the initiatives that have been put forward, and we've talked about a military covenant, the Veterans' Employment Program and the family engagement strategy. I call on the government to take on board what veterans are urging about including the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation issues into the banking royal commission. This is a serious issue they have raised with all of us and that we support. I'm also very grateful that we are now proceeding with the Senate inquiry into the malarial drugs issue. That is a matter that really does need to be brought to a resolution. We have the Invictus Games coming up as well, and that does point to another area where we have to develop strategies around dealing with mental health issues. With the A-type personalities that you get in the Defence Force, sport is a very good measure of dealing with those issues. It's certainly the main mechanism that I use for managing stress. I was privileged to meet two of my constituents who'll be participating in those games: Ben Farinazzo and Ruth Hunt. Both managed a very difficult journey through medical issues and post-service issues that they navigated. We're very proud of them. Their achievements are enormous. I wish them all the best in the Invictus Games coming up. I urge all Australians to embrace these games and to get out and support these men and women. They are achieving tremendous things and are an absolute inspiration to all of us who have lesser impediments to our lives. I really look forward to them achieving great things on the field of sport, as they have done in the field of service. 18:11 Mr TED O'BRIEN 138932 Fairfax 'We are grateful!. Thank you for your service. Navy, Army and Air Force.' Those are the words on a sticker that is now on the cars of thousands and thousands of residents on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, where I reside. It was Jasmin Carmel who inspired that sticker. Jasmin is a mum who lost her boy, Jack, a veteran. I first met Jasmin at the Buderim Ginger Factory. We had a quick chat and, subsequently, we have gotten to know each other quite well. I myself have not experienced war—not firsthand. My family, like most, have stories of forebears who have. In talking with Jasmin and learning about her son who she lost, she, in such a human, authentic way was able to express the pain and the hurt that others feel—that other families feel. She wanted to do something. She spoke openly about feeling helpless and about wanting to do something to say thank you to other people who are serving and have served. That is what led to her coming up with a very practical idea of printing stickers that just simply say, 'We're grateful!' These stickers are shown on the back of vehicles and probably elsewhere—it is on the back of my car. You do see them everywhere. Even though I'm not one of the ones to whom that sticker speaks, it touches me every time I see it on the back of a car, because it reminds me that the reason we can drive around a free country, is that people put themselves on the line—they fight and they die. We as a country owe so much to those who are prepared to sacrifice their lives and those who return—many of whom do suffer, as Jasmin would say, with PTSD. That's why we, as a government, need to continue to invest in providing mental health services, and we are—thank God, we are. That simple message of saying thank you, that hand-on-heart stuff that is really hard to wrap your arms around in a tangible way and put a value on, is so vitally important. All of us who serve politically have attended many different events of the Australian Defence Force, so we know the importance of ceremony. We know the importance that the simple words 'thank you' mean. The motion that we discussed today talks about a military covenant. Another wonderful Sunshine Coaster, Graeme Mickelberg, a veteran and great community leader, spoke to me about the importance of having a covenant of sorts years ago. He, together with so many others, has been speaking to government and framing up what this compact is all about. I'm delighted to know that this important year, where we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the guns falling silent on the Western Front, is a time for us to be looking seriously at an Australian veterans covenant. It is why the Australian government is working so closely with the ex-service community to develop an Australian veterans covenant which will acknowledge the service and the sacrifice of the veteran community and recognise the role of all Australians in supporting veterans and their families. The government will be saying more about this in the days and months ahead. I am proud to be part of a government that's doing just that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Fairfax and, indeed, all members who have contributed to this debate. The time allotted for this debate has now expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Economy 155 18:17 Mr LEESER 109556 Berowra This motion presents me with a great opportunity to pay tribute to the member for Goldstein for this motion. The member for Goldstein is a great advocate for sound economic policy in this place, in his career prior to coming to this place at the Institute of Public Affairs in trade policy and in his many good works in public life. It's terrific to see him acknowledged by colleagues in this place and recently chosen as the chair of the House economics committee. The motion more broadly gives me an opportunity to speak about the government delivering on strong economic management and delivering on the plan to grow the economy, to provide jobs and to guarantee the services that Australians rely on. The motion also gives me a welcome opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy that typifies the Labor Party. Responsible financial management is a fundamental building block of good government. It's the building block of a strong economy and of the government's investment in health, education, security, a strong safety net and all the other essential services that government provides. The coalition's proud record of strong financial management was burnished by the great example of the Howard and Costello years. John Howard and Peter Costello inherited from the Labor Party a $96 billion debt and then they left the budget with a $20 billion surplus. They left things in great shape, yet the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government blew that legacy in six short years. They set Australian federal debt levels on a trajectory tracking towards a $1 trillion debt level. The global financial crisis provided an excuse for Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard to unleash an unprecedented period of rapid growth in government spending. This led to successive budget deficits and mounting public debt which didn't slow down post-GFC. The shortfall between spending and taxing wasn't the only issue. It was also the initiatives Labor's policies produced. They produced wasteful programs like the school halls and the pink batts that tragically caused the deaths of young lives. Labor gave us the carbon tax and the mining tax, which were handbrakes on the economy. Since 2013, our government has worked diligently to bring the federal spending under control and to balance the budget. That's why Australians have welcomed our government's policy efforts over the past five years to combat budget blowouts and to reduce the deficit left behind by a government addicted to spending. Our budget management credentials are strong. We've created more than a million jobs since coming to office. Last year, we created over a thousand jobs every single day. Our government delivered over 400,000 jobs in 2017, the highest number of any year on record. The new level of jobs created over the last 12 months represents around four times the jobs growth that occurred in the last year of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. We've halved the deficit. We've introduced a tax-to-GDP cap of 23.9 per cent. We have the lowest average real growth in spending of any government in more than 50 years, legislated through $40 billion worth of savings. We have the lowest welfare dependency in 25 years, with only 15 per cent of the working-age population on welfare, and that is a great human dividend. We've cracked down on tax avoidance both by multinationals and by tax avoidance through the black economy. And through sustainable budget management, for the first time in a decade next year, the government will no longer be borrowing to pay for everyday expenses. The challenge of government isn't just to develop great policy ideas; the challenge is to develop affordable policy ideas that advance our country, that deliver opportunity, that offer Australians the freedom to pursue their own prosperity and that don't saddle future generations with insurmountable debt. The results of our hard work are paying off. Our strong budget measures mean that our government can assist small and medium businesses—they're the workhorses of the Australian economy—by providing tax cuts for small and medium businesses. This week, we've announced we're bringing forward tax relief for small and family businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million annually. These businesses will pay a 25 per cent tax rate five years earlier than originally forecast, leaving them money for investment and job creation. Our strong budget management also meant that we could legislate personal income tax for lower- and medium-income earners, giving back Australians more of their money—putting it in their pockets to spend on the things that matter to them. Our government's strong and enduring record stands, as always, in high contrast to that of those opposite. Not only did Labor rack up a massive debt over six years in office but they haven't learnt their lesson. Labor promises the world but doesn't deliver. They don't deliver any concrete ways of paying for their expenditure. Just like they increased taxes for Gonski and the NDIS, they now have plans for $200 billion worth of new taxes on hardworking families, medium and small businesses, retirees and farmers. They endanger the Australian economy. We cannot afford the Labor Party. 18:22 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith I had to laugh when I read this motion moved by the member for Berowra, because it's factually incorrect. This government hasn't been legislating tougher measures against multinational tax avoidance. The government have said that the opposition is opposed to their multinational anti-avoidance legislation in parliament when we actually voted for it. So the motion contains factual inaccuracies, and if this is the sort of stuff that they're going to come in here and move then it is no wonder the economy is in the mess that it's in. The member for Berowra said that they'd inherited all this debt from the Labor Party—well, they've doubled that! They've doubled the amount of debt that we have in this country, sending it almost through the half-a-trillion dollar mark. When it comes to closing multinational tax-avoidance loopholes, we all know what this government's record is like because they voted to keep them open in 2013. When Labor was proposing a wave of tax loophole changes into our tax system, changes introduced by former Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury, the coalition voted against them. They voted to keep those tax loopholes open. And who could forget, in 2015, when the current Prime Minister tried to claim credit for a $300 million tax judgement against Chevron that relied on laws that he and his colleagues voted against. We had the former Treasurer claiming, 'We've won this great case against Chevron,' despite the fact that he actually voted against the laws that enabled the government to win that tax judgement against Chevron. When it comes to tax transparency, the coalition voted against transparency laws when they were in opposition and then when they got to government in 2015 they actually watered them down. It was the great occasion when this government teamed up with the Greens in the Senate—that's right, they got into bed with the Greens in the Senate—and reduced the number of companies in Australia that are subject to tax transparency laws or, in other words, having to disclose on an annual basis the amount of tax that they actually pay to the government through their private entities. Two-thirds of those firms that were previously included in that legislation when Labor established it were then exempted by this government's actions in 2015. We've seen the Liberals again and again oppose Labor's sensible measures to close tax loopholes. It's only Labor that has really been serious in the last decade about closing down those tax havens. Only Labor will make firms doing business in tax havens disclose to shareholders and significant tenderers their country of domicile. Labor will also require country-by-country reporting and will work with superannuation firms to make sure that they develop guidelines for tax haven investments. We've seen that phoenixing has become a massive issue, where dodgy directors deliberately burn companies in an attempt to avoid their obligations to employees, taxpayers and honest businesses. It affects many in our community, ruining innocent people's lives and livelihoods. Illegal phoenixing activity costs billions of dollars to our economy annually. Yet just last month, more than a year after promising action, the government was finally dragged kicking and screaming to provide a time line for legislating to tackle dodgy phoenixing activity. Director identification numbers have been cited as the single most effective measure to crack down on illegal phoenixing activity. This is something that Labor has been advocating for years, and it is only just recently that the government has agreed to look at this. After ruling out the use of biometrics, after multiple court reports of dodgy directors burning innocent people and after billions of dollars being drained from the tax system, the coalition has finally decided to do something. It shouldn't have taken so long, especially considering that the government was briefed on this issue about three years ago. This government have really given up on governing when it comes to tackling multinational tax avoidance. They've voted with the Greens in the Senate to reduce transparency. They voted against Labor's sensible tax transparency measures. They voted against closing multinational loopholes. And they've delayed the introduction of director identification numbers, which would ensure that we can crack down on phoenixing activity. When it comes to talking about tax transparency, only one party in this parliament has the runs on the board—and that is the Labor Party. 18:27 Ms LAMB 265975 Longman Well, hear, hear, to the member for Kingsford Smith! I too rise today to oppose the member for Goldstein's misleading and erroneous motion. In his motion, the member for Goldstein somehow seems to forget his own government's abysmal economic track record. This is a government that has somehow managed to cut essential service after essential service while simultaneously forcing our nation's debt to a record high. Just last month, Australia's gross debt level surpassed half a trillion dollars—almost doubling what it was when the Liberals first took office. And things aren't getting any better for average Australians; in fact, many people in my community are feeling a lot worse. I note that the member for Goldstein wants the government to live within its means. While even failing at that, these words also recognise his narrow view of the Australian economy. While ensuring that the government lives within its means is important, it is vital to ensure that working people have the means by which to live. Short-sighted measures by this government—like slashing penalty rates of thousands of Australians—do nothing but make things worse for people and the economy at large. Despite having countless self-proclaimed would-be leaders amongst its ranks, this government has yet to show one shred of leadership in any of its five years. Contrary to the member for Goldstein's implication, this government has never had a true plan—as his motion states—'to support Australians in getting off welfare and into work'. This government has done nothing but demonise vulnerable groups in our society. The LNP has had five years to get its act together, but we are still waiting. But Labor is showing leadership. Even from opposition, Labor is doing the hard work. Labor members all around Australia have been consulting with their communities, with workers, with those who are seeking to find work and with those who have since retired from work. We have been consulting with businesses, community groups and those groups that are holding up parts of our community that need a hand and picking up the pieces when things go wrong. We are supporting and consulting with those who are studying, and we are consulting with families. We've been listening and we've been able to use what we've heard to identify what it is that Australians really want, and that is fairness. That's what it boils down to. What Australians want is a fair go. They're sick of a government protecting the big end of town, millionaires, multinationals and big banks. They want a government that will stand up for fairness for regular Australians. A Shorten Labor government will achieve just that by demonstrating the leadership that Australia has been so sorely lacking for the last five years. We will do that with a fair-go action plan. This isn't one of those Liberal three-word slogans; this is a detailed suite of policies that will deliver a fair go to Australia. The member for Goldstein's ridiculous assertion that Labor lacks a plan couldn't be further from the truth. We want our kids to be able to find work, so we're going to skill them up. We know that young Australians with a great education have a far better chance of finding work, so Labor is funding education from preschool all the way through to older Australians who are looking to retrain. While the Liberals have tried their hand at cutting vital funds from every sort of Australian, Labor is investing in schools, in universities and in TAFE. We're making sure that every Australian, regardless of where they live or what their bank balance is or what school they choose to go to, has the opportunity to get the qualifications which will help them land a decent job. I think it's about time that ordinary Australians got a fair go; that Australians had a government that stood up for each and every one of them instead of just for the top end of town. I think it's about time that Australians had a compassionate government with vision. I think it's about time that they had a government that had a plan in mind, and a plan to get there. I think it's about time that Australia had a Shorten Labor government, whose fair-go action plan will bring back some of that much needed fairness for those who need it most. (Time expired) 18:32 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It's been interesting listening to the last two speakers from those opposite. As usual, they have nothing positive or constructive to offer and their contributions are based on a litany of mistruths. But we're used to that from those opposite, as we proceed through this electoral term. Just for the record, for those opposite in case they haven't been listening—which wouldn't surprise me the least bit—we have in fact delivered record amounts of funding to education and to health. I can tell you from going around the schools across my electorate of Forde, both non-government and government schools, that they are more than happy with the funding that they are receiving because it's allowing them to provide a wide range of additional services to students in those schools. Some of those schools are in very low socio-economic areas, and the schools have used those funds extraordinarily wisely for a range of programs to help students be the best that they can be. Importantly, we're bringing the budget back into balance, if not into surplus, sooner than was expected. If you saw the recent budget update, the figures are substantially better than what was initially projected in the budget six months ago. Importantly, we've delivered for our small and medium businesses in this country; those with a turnover of less than $50 million. We've delivered the first tranche of income tax cuts for those businesses that employ the majority of Australians—hardworking mums and dads who put their lives on the line and their family assets on the line every single day to employ Australians in a wide range of businesses. Across my electorate, some 15,000 small-to-medium businesses have benefited from those tax cuts. Not only have they benefited from those tax cuts but they've also benefited from the instant asset write-off. I was at Beaurepaires in Beenleigh last week with the minister for small and family business, Michaelia Cash, and Ronnie was explaining to me that, through the instant asset write-off, he was able to purchase a new air compressor for his business. That new air compressor takes up a quarter of the space the old air compressor did but, most importantly, that new air compressor has reduced his electricity bills by 25 per cent. The practical steps that this government is taking demonstrate the practical assistance that we are providing to our small-to-medium business sector. That gives Ronnie the opportunity to continue to build and grow his business. Not only is the instant asset write-off helping him employ local people but it's making his business more efficient, and it's one of the leading Beaurepaires franchises in the country. Equally, and most importantly, with a strong economy, we've seen record jobs growth over the past few years. There is nothing more important for Australians than having a job. The best form of welfare is for Australians to have a job that is meaningful and purposeful so that they want to get up in the morning and go and work. It gives them the opportunity to provide for their family, create wealth and contribute to our communities in a far more positive manner than they otherwise could. We know that the studies show that the benefits of a rewarding, fulfilling job are enormous. And when they're involved in work, people tend to get more involved in community activities and service clubs because they have the opportunity and financial resources to do so. Importantly, they demonstrate to their children the value of working. As we see in some of my communities where we do have multigenerational welfare, if we can get people off welfare and into a meaningful, productive job that will set up the next generations of our community for the future. But all we've heard about from those opposite—and we know what they're going to do—is $200 million of new taxes to strangle our economy and destroy those jobs. (Time expired) 18:37 Ms O'TOOLE 249908 Herbert This is certainly an interesting motion, to say the very least. To think that this government would consider that it is living within its means when debt and deficit have gone through the roof under their watch! Labor's record in managing money is a good record. As a nation, we really need to recognise our wealth as we truly are a very lucky country. Australia has experienced uninterrupted economic growth for a record 27 years, and we can thank one of the greatest prime ministers and treasurers that this nation has ever had, the Hon. Paul Keating, for Australia's economic growth. There are only two countries in the developed world to achieve this record, and Australia is one of them. This is a remarkable achievement. Last month marked the 10th anniversary of the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis was a result of the financial mistakes of other countries, and the cost to Australia could have been considerable. With US$691 billion in assets—nearly $1 trillion Australian at current exchange rates—and 25,000 employees worldwide, Lehman Brothers remains the biggest corporate collapse in American history. This financial crisis was catastrophic and resulted in hundreds of thousands of people internationally losing their jobs. International debt increased overnight into the billions and eventually, for America, into the trillions. People lost their homes and their assets, but this did not happen in Australia, and this can be attributed to my Labor colleague and former Treasurer Wayne Swan, who ensured that Australia's economy did not crash like America's, the United Kingdom's and those of so many other countries. Instead, Australia's economic growth continued to prosper under former Treasurer Wayne Swan's stimulus package, and Australia was one of just four developed countries—along with Israel, Poland and South Korea—that avoided a recession in 2009. Let's compare and contrast that with the current LNP government. Australia now has a Prime Minister who is the immediate former Treasurer, whose priorities were tax cuts for big business and the banks. Labor has been saying for quite some time that this LNP government's priorities are just plain wrong and unfair. This government's trickle-down economic policy is seriously flawed and simply does not work. There can be no better reference than the former Howard government's Treasurer, Peter Costello, who said just last week that this government's economic policy is 'weird'. There's a consistent lack of inconsistency—namely, through a rolling farce of budget rules, or lack of them, over the last few weeks. Last week, the government announced a tax plan—not fully offset—saying it would simply be paid from economic growth and the surplus. This is a clear breach of the government's own budget rules. Let me explain this to those opposite who may have suffered a memory lapse. Budget Paper No. 1 from this year's budget, on page 3-7, states: the overall impact of shifts in receipts and payments due to changes in the economy will be banked as an improvement to the budget bottom line, if this impact is positive. Unlike the government, Labor will ensure that we deliver those tax cuts for small and medium businesses in a fiscally responsible way, the same fiscally responsible way that will allow us to properly invest $14 billion for government schools and make proper investments in health, universities and TAFE and invest $1.75 billion for preschools. We will fund all of these because our priorities are and always have been clear. We will deliver better and fairer tax reform. We won't prioritise hardworking Australian's tax dollars to big business and the banks—that's the LNP government's priority and it would have passed if it weren't for Labor's lobbying efforts in the Senate. This country needs and deserves fairer tax reforms. Labor's economic history is clear and our future plan even clearer. We won't be lectured to by this government on fiscal discipline when they have so clearly given up or completely lost their way. Let me finish by saying that in my electorate of Herbert unemployment is high both in the general and youth populations. If this government truly believed that a job is the best form of welfare, it would fund vital infrastructure projects that would create local jobs in my electorate; it would match Labor's $100 million for stage 2 of the Burdekin pipeline; and it would match Labor's commitment of $200 million for energy infrastructure. These infrastructure projects will actually fund local jobs, create opportunities for young people in my community to get apprenticeships and address the fact that we have very high unemployment. 18:42 Mr SUKKAR 242515 Deakin I wasn't planning on speaking today, but the member for Herbert has impressed upon me the need to refute some of the pretty laughable claims she made. She said Labor's history is clear, and I would entirely agree with that. Labor's history is very clear on the economy and budget mismanagement. When we inherited government we had a worsening budget position, a slowing economy and rising unemployment. That is Labor's legacy. That is Labor's history. We now hear the Labor Party being very interested in budget rules. The only budget rule we know from the Labor Party is that whatever they promised they broke. If they promised surpluses they delivered deficits. If they promised deficits they delivered even bigger deficits. Who could ever forget then Treasurer Swan when he stood up—with more front than Myer, quite frankly—and said, 'Tonight, I'm announcing four budget surpluses.' How many budget surpluses did Treasurer Wayne Swan ever deliver? Zero. He delivered no budget surpluses. Now, after five years of hard graft, five years of difficult work and five years with an unprincipled opposition in the Senate that has sought to frustrate and block every key economic reform, we are in a position where we've got the fastest-growing economy of comparable countries, an unemployment rate that most other comparable jurisdictions would absolutely die for and a budget that is coming back to surplus a year earlier than expected—on time and as delivered, but actually beating it by a year. This is the absolute contrast between this government and the government whose track record—according to the member for Herbert—is so clear. The former Treasurer, now Prime Minister Morrison, was very different to any Labor Treasurer we saw, whether it was Wayne Swan or the very lamentable period when Chris Bowen was Treasurer, in the latter days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Every, single target that Treasurer Morrison set, he either met or exceeded. In every single budget and every single MYEFO not only did we meet the target that had been set down previously; we beat it. That doesn't happen by accident. Labor thinks all of these things happen by accident. Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have been running around our country talking about the millionaires and billionaires—the so-called millionaires and billionaires that they were going to go after. And what do we see on the eve of the next election? We see Labor's biggest, single new tax. The biggest, single new tax that the Labor Party is proposing is the retirees' tax, which will hit 1.4 million Australians. People on fixed incomes and some people earning well below $30,000 a year who might lose up to 30 per cent of their income will contribute the most to the $200 billion or thereabouts—$200 billion and growing—of additional taxes. So here we have the Labor Party and Bill Shorten running around all hairy-chested about going after the millionaires and the billionaires, and who's he going after? He's going after nanna. That's who he's going after. It's absolutely outrageous. The other group they've been going after—although they've had a latter-day conversion, thankfully—is small business. We've heard Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen talking endlessly about the Apples and the Googles of the world. The message to the Labor Party has been that Australian businesses with a turnover of more than $2 million—a turnover of more than $10 million, indeed—are not Apples and Googles; they are small businesses who might employ a handful of staff. They might be a small manufacturer in horticulture or farming. These are not Apples and Googles undeserving of reduced taxes. They are absolutely deserving of it. The member for Herbert goaded me into making this contribution, because I couldn't believe what I was hearing from her on Labor's track record. The Labor Party now clutching at budget rules as being some kind of stick to whack the government with is quite laughable. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. National Disability Insurance Scheme 160 18:48 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi Colleagues, the National Disability Insurance Scheme has the potential to transform people's lives, and it's essential that the implementation is right and meets expectations. There are many success stories of the NDIS working in my community, but, seriously, the rollout is falling short of expectations for some in the community. During August, I facilitated two NDIS public information sessions—one in Wangaratta and one in Wodonga, with the involvement of the National Disability Insurance Agency. I will write to the minister separately with what I've learnt, but I'd like to use this speech to highlight some of the concerns raised in these forums. There was a large turnout at both of these sessions, with constituents from across the electorate sharing their experiences and ideas for improving the NDIS rollout. There were carers, there were academics, there were service providers and there interested members of public. Concerns were raised about the lack of qualified staff in the NDIA, which is causing anxiety and delays; the NDIS plans that did not meet clients' needs; a lack of coordination between disability and health services, resulting in clients missing out on existing therapies; and the problem of cross-border anomaly—so Albury-Wodonga, different states, and organisations not talking to each other. Let me talk a little bit about service delay and NDIA staffing. The cause of delay was seen as the result of a lack of suitably qualified NDIA staff and the outsourcing of client and call centre services. Constituents shared stories of delay at every stage of the process, from preplanning to planning approval and to plan reviews, right through to putting the plans into action. One constituent had been waiting since September 2017 for the final plan approval for her living accommodation, and constituents relayed stories of delays of up to 12 months from when new equipment is supposed to be approved in their plan to when it is finally signed off. The NDIA plans, in many instances, are not meeting client needs. People are concerned that they did not have a say in the final plan. They were advised to start using their plan and then they had to wait for 12 months for the review. We heard of clients' plans being created and approved without them having a say. One client received her plan with a key request removed, including an alternating mattress for her quadriplegic daughter. She immediately requested a review of her plan and is still waiting a year later. Again, the level of staffing and staff qualifications were seen as the cause of these problems. As a member of parliament sitting there listening to this, I was gobsmacked, because the problems were not that they were too complicated; they were just a matter of resources and the right people sitting down and solving it together. A lack of coordination between services, particularly across border, was also a problem. For example, when there's a dispute about a service being provided by an NDIS provider or the health system, that can result in clients missing out on particular services altogether. There are also concerns that existing therapies are not being taken into account or being taken off the list of approved therapies. A local equestrian centre had groups of children with autism and other disabilities attending riding classes as approved therapy for many years. This has now virtually ceased since the rollout, as most clients on the NDIS do not have approval for this form of therapy and are unable to fund the session independently. That has had huge repercussions on the actual business that was set up to provide this service. In closing, it's disappointing that the $2.5 million is being underspent—a significant level of support that's not being provided—and many of the concerns raised by my constituents stem from a lack of staffing resources. I did put questions in writing to the minister. He answered in May, and he promised that there would be action. But, in my community, it's yet to take place. I will finish with a call-out to the many, many people doing a wonderful job with the NDIS. To the Latrobe Community Health Service and Merri Health service providers: thank you for your work. To the planners, to the service providers, to the community workers at the frontline, to the allied health workers and, most of all, to the families and the parents doing their best to make the system work: thank you. Let's continue to make this really work for Australia, because it's a great system. 18:53 Mrs WICKS 241590 Robertson In rising to speak on this motion today, I want to note that, under the coalition government, the NDIS has reached a significant milestone, with more than 200,000 Australians now receiving support through an approved NDIS plan. The coalition government has made strong progress with the NDIS and will continue to work to improve it to support Australians living with a disability. The NDIS, of course, is all about supporting people with a disability to live their best life their way and to achieve their goals. I'm a strong supporter of the NDIS, and I'm pleased to say that, across the Central Coast, more than 5,000 individuals have an approved plan and are being supported by the NDIS. Many of these people may be receiving support for their disability for the very first time, having never received state or Commonwealth support before the NDIS was established. This government is building and delivering the NDIS for an estimated 460,000 Australians by 2020. It's one of the most important social reforms in Australia's history, and it's now fully operational in New South Wales, the ACT and South Australia, with ongoing rollouts in remaining states and territories. It not only has an important impact on individuals and the families it supports but brings with it opportunities for growth and employment. In 2016, for example, we were able to announce the establishment of an NDIA office in Gosford, in my electorate of Robertson, with 42 new jobs. I'm really pleased to be able to say that this office is now operational on the ground floor of the new ATO office in Gosford. As a passionate supporter of the NDIS and the important role that it plays in the lives of so many people with disability and their families, I think it is fantastic to see just how many people across the Central Coast are benefiting from this important reform. In my electorate we're lucky to have a number of outstanding NDIS providers—organisations like Options Disability Theatre Company, which I've spoken about in this place before and which never fails to bring a massive smile to my face. I first heard about this amazing group called Options at a screening of a short film they produced, called Killing Hope. It was there that I first found out about the amazing work that Options Disability Theatre Company does for our community. Since then, I've had the privilege to continue to share in their journey. It's been wonderful to watch Options going from strength to strength, recently unveiling a new facility in Tuggerah and living the motto of that short film that I saw: you can't kill hope; it's absolutely impossible. Alex Copeland is just one success story from Options. He had a dream to start his own baking business, and with the support of Options he launched his own small business, Mr Alexander's Sweet Eats. He's an incredible baker and he's made some award-winning cakes, cupcakes and biscuits. Alex even completed his first motorised cake, an intricate owl with a turning head. Alex is just one example of the way that the NDIS supports people with a disability in my community to achieve their goals. Earlier this year I had the chance to visit Lasercraft Australia, an organisation that's been operating on the Central Coast for the past 30 years and employs 30 part-time workers with a disability. Lasercraft provides a supportive environment and an opportunity for their supported employees to develop workplace skills, enjoy the social aspects of work and be involved in contributing to the community. Lasercraft's employees are also supported by an NDIS plan and, with the help of Lasercraft, are working towards their own life goals. Fairhaven at Point Clare is another outstanding organisation that's supporting people living with disability and helping them to follow their dreams. When I first came to the Central Coast, over 30 years ago now, the school that I attended when we first moved there was actually co-located on the grounds of Fairhaven. So I have to say I've always felt a very, very special association with Fairhaven and all of the work that they do. I want to pay tribute to the chairman, Clive Blunt; the CEO, Monique Cardon, who both do an incredible job; and the participants at Fairhaven, who are inspirational. Can I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to carers in our community during this Carers Week. Across the nation, 2.7 million Australians are unpaid carers. I'd like to acknowledge the enormous sacrifice and contribution of carers in our community. Carers Week is an important time for everyone in our community to say thank you to each and every carer, and I'd like to put on record my gratitude to each and every one of them in my community and, indeed, across the nation. Thank you for your compassion and for all that you do. Just as carers' work never stops, neither should our appreciation of them. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 261393 I thank the member for Robertson for bringing to the attention of the parliament the important work of those disability support organisations, and also carers. 18:58 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle During the parliamentary break that we've just had, hardworking disability workers united with employers, with service providers and with people with a disability at an NDIS rally organised by the Australian Services Union in my home town of Newcastle and, indeed, at rallies across the country. Rally participants wanted to highlight the really massive insecurity that disability workers now live with every day of their lives, and they wanted to shine a light on how this sorry state of affairs is hurting the people who rely on the NDIS. As a former disability support worker, I was very pleased to attend the Newcastle rally and to stand in solidarity with my friends in the disability sector in calling for action to make the NDIS the very best scheme it can be—and that call is necessary. Make no mistake, the NDIS is the greatest social reform this country has seen. First championed, of course, by the legendary Gough Whitlam four decades ago, it became a reality under the incredible stewardship of the member for Jagajaga, Jenny Macklin, in the former Labor government. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition, in his role as minister for people with a disability, was instrumental in ensuring this scheme got through this parliament. For the first time, the NDIS gave people with disability choice and control over the support they received. Newcastle was one of the first national trial sites for the NDIS rollout. We had more than 10,000 participants. We were by far the largest site in Australia and, indeed, the most complex, dealing with people of all ages and disabilities. I had the great privilege of seeing so many positive impacts of the NDIS firsthand. From those of us on this side of the House, there's absolutely no disagreement with government members about the positive stories of the NDIS and what it can deliver. But we mustn't let our love for the NDIS blind us to what is happening right now. The implementation of the NDIS under this government, as is the case with most social reforms under conservative governments, has been far from optimum. It has indeed been a shambles, with people with disability and their families paying the price. Around 240,000 Australians should be benefiting from the NDIS right now, but we know the actual number is in fact close to 200,000. That means that there are 40,000 people missing out today. Something isn't working. Neglect, under-resourcing and an addiction to hiring contractors and consultants instead of permanent staff has seen progress come to a screeching halt. Reviews are being been delayed without notice. Items are being cut from plans so that people are finding it very hard to get the support they need. None of this is surprising when you consider that this government has underspent $2.5 billion in the last 12 months alone. Let's be clear: this is not an achievement; this is negligence—pure and simple. The organisation is also being starved of human resources, thanks to a staffing cap imposed by the then Abbott government in 2014. Regretfully, this cap remains in place today. It was not lifted by the Turnbull government and it sure as hell is not being examined by the current Morrison government. This arbitrary, senseless cap means staff are already stretched beyond their limits, the rollout is falling behind schedule and people with disability aren't getting the service they need and deserve. The cap is not only crippling the entire NDIS system but also has the perverse incentive of driving millions of dollars of spending on contract staff. In fact, the NDIA has committed over $145 million for contract and temporary staff. They've spent $61 million on consultants and outsourced its call centre to multinational megacorporation Serco. It's outrageous that the NDIA is spending these vast sums of money on consultants and contractors instead of investing in a skilled, permeant workforce that can deliver quality support and services to the people that need and deserve it most, and that is people with disability. (Time expired) 19:03 Ms SHARKIE 265980 Mayo According to the Department of Social Services, the NDIS aims to work with individuals to identify the supports they need to achieve goals in many aspects of their life. It aims to provide greater choice and control over how and when individuals receive support and ensures that they receive the support that they need over their lifetime. It also purports to focus on early intervention where getting early support can reduce the impact of disability on the individual. Unfortunately, this has not been the case or the experience of Sam Hensman or his family. Sam is a constituent within my community of Mayo. His family are requesting an urgent review of his approved NDIS plan. The current 2018 plan includes, devastatingly, less support than he received under the previous state government's scheme. Sam's progress will be severely hampered if a review is not urgently conducted. In 2016, 23-year-old Sam was diagnosed with an arteriovenous malformation, a condition comprising of a tangled network of abnormal blood cells connecting arteries to the brain. This led to Sam suffering multiple intracranial haemorrhages and resulted in Sam developing an acquired brain injury. Unfortunately, Sam was no longer able to speak or walk and required supervision 24 hours a day. Initially facing a grim outlook, Sam has been able to make exceptional progress and has defied all expectations with the love and support of his committed family and his fiancee, Tess. Numerous reports have been compiled by a variety of allied health professionals detailing his progress and the importance of continuing a range of therapies. Formerly receiving support from Disability SA, Sam was receiving daily therapies including physiotherapy, speech, hydrotherapy and occupational therapy, as well as being provided with specialised equipment. Transitioning from Disability SA to the NDIS, Sam has suffered a dramatic loss of support—I am talking less than half. His current package gives him only a fraction of the services and resources he had before. He is now receiving the very basic care—survival mode, if you like—instead of receiving the sort of care that is supposed to help people like Sam thrive and achieve their goals of independence and community engagement. This is causing significant distress to him and his family. This is not what the NDIS is supposed to be. The NDIA has been provided with all sorts of information from Sam's therapist and his doctors about what he needs. Further funding has not been included for the purchase of essential assistive technology as recommended by his therapists. Sam is trialling an assistive communication device, which the family fear will be retracted as funding is not available in his plan to purchase it. This would be devastating for his family. Sam's NDIS review also requests reasonable funding to enable the purchase of multiple pieces of equipment, also all recommended by therapists who have been working closely with Sam for a couple of years now. The plan's current equipment requirements are considered greatly insufficient by Sam's therapists to provide the support he requires. With the support of therapists, Sam has managed to make huge improvements in verbal sounds, and his assisted walking is improving every day. Reasonable and adequate therapies are critical for Sam's wellbeing and safety. The amount specified in his plan does meet these requirements, and they should. In NDIS terms, Sam's approved NDIS plan will not even sufficiently support his goals. Listen to this: 18 months is the time frame given for his review—18 months for a 12-month plan is nonsensical. Sam and his family cannot wait 18 months to receive the reasonable and necessary support he needs. The member for Indi talked in her speech about the ombudsman's report that was delivered exactly five months ago today. It had KPIs in there about how long a review should take. It certainly should not take 18 months for a 12-month plan. Sam's NDIS goals are clear. Sam will not give up, and I will not give up fighting for Sam and his NDIS package. I call upon the minister to urgently review Sam's case. I also call upon the minister to effect systematic change in the NDIS system. It has been five months since the ombudsman gave his report. Australians on the NDIS have immediate and pressing needs, and something must be done to fix the onerous NDIS review waiting times so that people like Sam are not left behind and waiting to suffer. 19:08 Ms KEARNEY LTU Batman I rise today to support this motion on the NDIS. I thank the member for Lindsay for her advocacy for Australians living with a disability and her focus on ensuring they live a full, dignified life. The NDIS is the legacy of the Gillard Labor government, in particular the legacy of the work of Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga, and Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition. The idea of disability care and support being delivered via insurance rather than a charity or welfare model was first looked at by the Whitlam government. In 1974 Whitlam declared: Australians should not have to live in doubt or anxiety lest injury or sickness reduce them to poverty. We want to reduce hardships imposed by one of the great factors for inequality in society, inequality of luck. People with disability and their families had to wait 40 years for another government to take up the fight. Labor's NDIS put people with a disability at the centre of the system and committed that it would lift some of the hard work from families and carers. It meant they knew that if something happened to them then their loved ones would be okay in the world. Today the NDIS is helping more than 54,800 people who had not received any support before from either Commonwealth or state and territory governments. However, the NDIS is not working for everyone. Every day I hear from constituents who are struggling with the NDIS, many of whom have found that they actually have less support under the new structure. My constituents tell me that their questions to the NDIA go unanswered. They often require my office's advocacy to wade through the layers of bureaucracy to get the supports they or their loved ones need most. People with disability, their families and service providers all want a people-centred organisation, not a bureaucratic one. They do not want to wait on the phone for hours or have emails going unanswered or not have anyone locally to engage with and help fix problems. As the Productivity Commission observed last year, many of the problems are being created by a lack of staff and inadequate training. We've also heard many cases of issues with the plans. Many people don't see a draft version of their plan before it's approved. Some participants are getting plans that are simply unrecognisable from their planning meeting. Another crucial gap I am seeing with the NDIS rollout is ensuring people with severe mental health issues get the support they require. These problems can and must be fixed. The government could start by removing the arbitrary staffing cap. It forces the scheme to rely on contractors and outsourcing, leading to delays and confusion. The cap had meant the agency had spent $145 million in contract and temporary staff, which included outsourcing the call centre functions at a cost of $63 million over two years. Labor have said we will remove the cap if we win government, but the Prime Minister needs to fix this now. I also have in my electorate a wonderful organisation called Northern Support Services, who tell me the underfunding of the NDIS has severely hampered their ability to continue operating. This is worrying because the services they have provided for decades, and continue to provide to some of our communities' most vulnerable, are incredibly important. My own sister attends the Northern Support Services. I have served on their board in the past and I know what good they do, I know how closely they are knitted to the local community and I know how loved and valued they are. The way the NDIS is funded means it is impossible for them to continue operating as they do now, if at all. The group activities that my sister and many of her friends so love and that keep them connected and active will unfortunately be at risk due to massive underfunding. The whole disability not-for-profit community sector, along with the unions representing the workers, are screaming out for funding reform that reflects the actual wages paid. Many workers in these wonderful organisations right across this country are paid well above the award, recognising their skill level and their experience, and many have bargained in good faith over the years for extra leave or better conditions. None of these are taken into account with the NDIS funding model, and none of the organisations wish to take these away from their loyal, hardworking employees, nor do they wish to inflict upon their clients and the people who use their services a casualised, unskilled, insecure workforce. The task now for everyone is to resolve the problems with the rollout of the scheme to ensure we get the best possible NDIS we can. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 218019 There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:13   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 166 QUESTIONS IN WRITING University of Tasmania (Question No 1037) 166 Question No 1037 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the Prime Minister's announcement during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 15 June 2018 to provide $2.4 million to the University of Tasmania's Centre for Excellence in Rural and Regional Health in Burnie for research, aimed at preventing health issues in regional and remote Australia, will this be honored; if not, why not; if so, (a) when will the funding be delivered, and (b) what focus will this research have on regional Tasmania. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)– (b) Under the Medical Research Future Fund's Keeping Australian's out of Hospital Program $2.4 million will be provided over three years from 2018-19 ($0.8 million per annum) to the University of Tasmania for research focusing on preventive health in rural and remote locations and in indigenous communities, the burden of chronic disease and translation of research knowledge into practice to reduce avoidable hospitalisations. My department is actively engaging with the University of Tasmania to identify a range of research projects to be progressed with this funding, the first instalment of which will be provided by the end of the 2018 calendar year. The provision of this funding will provide opportunities to trial new ways to better support informed choices by both consumers and service providers and to scale up proven evidence-based interventions and local prevention activities to larger populations. The outputs from this research will ultimately reduce the burden on the hospital system. James Cook University (Question No.989) 166 Question No.989 Mr Katter HX4 asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 19 June 2018: (1) What is the nature of the Auditor-General's concerns about the financial situation at James Cook University (JCU).(2) How can JCU and CQUniversity, with the former having four times the catchment area population of the latter, have much the same level of enrolments for their respective courses.(3) Is he aware that in a year when serious questions are being asked concerning the financial situation at JCU, the Vice Chancellor dramatically raised her salary to $957,000 and whilst having negotiated the most generous of salaries it could be argued that this was over the destroyed careers of two or three dozen academics who have been sacked.(4) Is he aware that the Vice Chancellor at CQUniversity is on half the salary of his JCU counterpart and if you take out the health and medical sector, CQUniversity is the same size as JCU.(5) Is he aware that (a) for a university whose staff continuously advocate for the closure of the sugar and coal industries and proudly declare they are anti-development, JCU has amongst the lowest enrolments per capita of any university in Australia, and (b) whilst nearly 900,000 people are resident at any point in time in North Queensland, Central Queensland has only a 280,000 population catchment area.(6) What is he doing to address these concerns. Mr Tehan 210911 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Queensland Auditor General's Report Education: 2016–17 results of financial audits (the report) notes that James Cook University (JCU) had in 2017: a. an operating deficit in 2017 of $4.1 million and hence a negative operating ratio (operating result as a percentage of total revenue) b. a high debt to revenue ratio compared with other universities, due to a loan taken out by the university for student accommodation works. (2) While the Government expects universities to contribute to the social and economic development of their communities, universities are best placed to determine the most appropriate level of enrolments. (3) The previous Minister for Education and Training, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, publicly expressed concerns about high Vice-Chancellor remuneration and whether these salaries are commensurate with international standards and are a sensible use of university resources. However, university remuneration is a matter for universities and their governing councils. (4) Universities do not report to the Commonwealth rates of remuneration for particular individuals employed by universities. The JCU and Central Queensland University (CQU) annual reports set out, in common with university annual reports, numbers of staff by remuneration ranges. The annual reports for 2017 show that the highest-paid individual employee of CQU earned in the range of 83 to 86 per cent of the highest-paid employee of JCU. (5) Decisions about enrolment levels are best made by individual universities, taking into account their strategic plans and the needs of their local communities and, where relevant, the missions for those universities as defined in State Government enabling legislation. However, students can access a range of information about their prospective university. For example, the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching website compares student satisfaction and employment outcomes for various institutions. In the case of JCU and CQU, outcomes and experiences are similar for students surveyed at both universities. (6) The Commonwealth receives and analyses financial reports from universities and engages with universities where there are financial concerns. Question No. 797 (Question No. 1006) 167 1006 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts, in writing, on 14 August 2018. To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts-Further to the Minister's answer to question in writing No. 797 (House Hansard, 11 September 2017, page 10004), in respect of the Government's commitment to fund the construction of mobile infrastructure in (a) Gosse/Stokes Bay, and (b) Ashboume, in the electoral Division of Mayo, (i) what was the outcome of the competitive funding process, (ii) were suitable applications submitted and/or approved, (iii) which companies have been chosen for construction, (iv) has construction commenced, and (v) when are the towers expected to be fully operational. Mr Fletcher L6B The answer to the member's question is as follows: On 5 April 2018, the Government announced the outcomes of the competitive tender process for the third round (Priority Locations round) of the Mobile Black Spot Program. The Government was pleased to announce that all125 identified priority black spot locations, including Ashboume and Gosse/Stokes Bay in the electorate of Mayo, will receive improved mobile coverage. For both Ashboume and Gosse/Stokes Bay, Telstra was awarded funding under round 3 to deploy macro cell base station solutions. A list of all 125 priority locations, including the outcome for each location, can be found on the Department of Communications and the Arts' website at www.communications.gov.au/documents/mobile-black-spot-program-priority-locations. The rollout timing for the construction of base stations is available on the mobile carriers' websites. For Telstra base stations visit www.telstra.com.au/coverage-networks/mobile-black-spot-program. The carriers' rollout schedules are subject to change based on various factors, including obtaining local government planning approval and landowner agreement where necessary. Base stations funded under this round are scheduled to be delivered by 30 June 2019. Further information on the Mobile Black Spot Program can be found on the Department of Communications and the Arts' website at www.communications.gov.au/mbsp. Adelaide Airport (Question No.1010) 167 Question No.1010 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 14 August 2018: 1. Is Adelaide Airport subject to the requirements of the Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Standards), including Part H2 of the Standards, and is Adelaide Airport is in compliance with these Standards. 2. Do all obstacles that abut an access way at Adelaide Airport, especially bollards, conform with Standard H2.2(5). 3. Is Adelaide Airport required to have signage that indicates where disabled carparks are located; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 4. Is Adelaide Airport required to have signage, readable by people with a vision impairment, that indicates which security screening area lane is allocated for persons requiring assistance; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 5. Is Adelaide Airport required to provide assistance to people with disabilities when passing through security screening; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 6. Is Adelaide Airport required to have a minimum level of luminous contrast for its (a) floor number signs beside elevators, (b) elevator call buttons and internal elevator buttons, (c) directional signage, (d) toilet signage, and (e) foot rails; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 7. Do all instances of door glazing at Adelaide Airport, including glazed doors, sidelights, and wall panels, have luminous contrast strips that conform with Standard H2.5. 8. Is Adelaide Airport subject to the requirements of the Disability Standards for Accessible Transport 2002; and is the airport is currently in compliance with these standards. 9. Is Adelaide Airport required to have a maximum height level for the directional signs to its terminals; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 10. Is Adelaide Airport required to have tactile ground surface indicators on access paths in and around its terminals; if so, is the airport in compliance with relevant requirements. 11. Is Adelaide Airport subject to the requirements of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 whilst construction works are undertaken; if so, (a) has the airport been in compliance with this code, and (b) is it currently in compliance. 12. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the structures and premises of Adelaide Airport are in compliance with its legal requirements regarding safe access by vision-impaired persons; and by what date does the Government expect Adelaide Airport to become compliant. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Further to my reply to your letter of 16 March 2018, I provide the following 1, 4, 7, 10: The terminal building at Adelaide Airport is required to comply with the requirements of the Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Standards), for public transport buildings. Full compliance with the Standards will be required by 31 December 2022. 2. Adelaide Airport Limited (AAL) as the building manager, operator and provider for the supply or maintenance of public transport infrastructure, is required to ensure all access way requirements, including bollards, are compliant with the Standards by 31 December 2022. 3. There is no requirement for signage giving directions towards disabled car parks, only signage identifying each disabled car park. All car parks on airport are compliant with this requirement. 5. AAL is not required to provide assistance when passing through security screening. 6. Luminous contrast requirements – refer to Question 1 response. In addition: a) There is no requirement for floor number signs beside elevators. b) There is no requirement for luminous contrast for elevator call buttons and internal elevator buttons, however, braille and lighting of these buttons is required, and are compliant. c) There is no requirement for contrast of directional signage. d) There is the requirement for luminous contrast of toilet signage and recently refurbished toilets are compliant. Full compliance of all toilets will be required by 31 December 2022. e) There is no requirement for foot rails. 8. The terminal building is subject to the Disability Standards for Accessible Transport 2002, and the applicable requirements (for access to premises - buildings) are now incorporated into the Standards (2010). AAL is required to ensure compliance with the Standards by 31 December 2022. 9. AAL is not required to have a maximum height level for the directional signs to its terminals. 11. Responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 lays with the Australian Building and Construction Commission, not the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities. 12. It is Adelaide Airport Limited's responsibility as the building manager, operator and provider of the public transport facility to ensure compliance with the Standards. It is a requirement that a compliance level of 100% be achieved for all aspects applicable to public transport buildings at Adelaide Airport by 31 December 2022. The government, through the Commonwealth authorised and appointed Airport Building Controller and associated building control approval process, will assess compliance against the Standards for all applications for upgrade works as they occur. Automated Gate (Question No 1015) 168 Question No 1015 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 14 August 2018: (1) Further to the Minister's answer to question in writing No. 755 (House Hansard, 15 August 2017, page 8598), are investigations by the Government to automate a small number of gates at Goolwa barrage now complete, and if so, what were the conclusions of those investigations? (2) Have cost estimates for the automation of gates at Goolwa barrage been prepared, if so, what is the estimated cost and scope of work for each estimate that has been prepared, and if not why not? (3) On what date does the Government expect to make its next investment decision regarding the automation of gates at Goolwa barrage? (4) Will the Government undertake formal modelling of the effects of sea level rise upon the barrages? Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Investigation of automation of the Goolwa barrages is ongoing. The design of a single automated gate is underway. Fabrication and installation of the pilot gate is planned for the second quarter of this financial year. The gate will then be operated to test functionality and reliability in the barrage environment. This test period is likely to extend for at least the remainder of 2018-19 but may be varied depending on the performance of the gate. (2) The estimate for the fabrication and installation of the trial gate is $150,000. Detailed cost estimates have not yet been prepared for automation of multiple gates. It is expected that the trial will lead to changes to the initial prototype that will then be reflected in subsequent cost estimates. (3) Cost estimates will be prepared based on findings of the trial and will be developed in 2019‑20 after the trial is complete. The barrages are controlled by a Joint Venture of the Australian, NSW, Victorian and South Australian governments. Any investment decision would be a matter for the collective governments with costs expected to be met in accordance with established cost sharing arrangements for River Murray infrastructure. It is unlikely that collective governments would consider an investment decision before the results of the trial are known. (4) Formal modelling of the effects of sea level rise on the barrages is not included in the workplan for the management of the barrages covering the next four year period and funded by the Joint Venture. Based on readily available projections of sea level rise the barrages are expected to meet current functional requirements without major modification for decades to come. Environment (Question No. 1017) 169 1017 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing, on 14 August 2018: (1) Given the Threatened Species Scientific Committee stated that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) listed scalloped hammerhead meets the criteria for endangered, why did the Minister list this shark as Conservation Dependent. (2) How does the Government plan to ensure further decline of the scalloped hammerhead will not occur if a review of the Conservation Dependent listing will not occur until 2023. (3) Given the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists the smooth and great hammerhead sharks as Endangered and Vulnerable respectively, why did he not follow the EPBC Act's precautionary principle and list these sharks as lookalike species for the scalloped hammerhead and include them on the Australian threatened species list. (4) Why has the Government sought to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Hammerhead Shark) Regulations 2018 to remove targeted fishing protections for the scalloped hammerhead in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. (5) Why did the Government not require the adoption of fishing management arrangements known as the 'fins-attached' policy for the scalloped hammerhead prior to updating its listing. Ms Price 249308 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Because the scalloped hammerhead shark meet the definition of a commercially harvested "fish" species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the additional category of Conservation Dependent under paragraph 179(6) (b) was available for consideration. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee's (the Scientific Committee's) assessment concluded that the species was eligible for listing as both Endangered and Conservation Dependent, but recommended the latter as the best outcome for the species. A Conservation Dependent listing requires management actions directed at species' protection and recovery be implemented under law and importantly, such arrangements include improved monitoring of the species which will enhance our ability to understand the species' population and recovery. (2) The Committee monitors the stock status of all Conservation Dependent species annually by reviewing stock status reports and other data obtained from fisheries agencies. If concern is raised by stock status data the Committee has the option to recommend reassessment of the species EPBC Act listing status. (3) The lookalike (similar) species provisions of the EPBC Act (subsections 186(3-5)) apply if the species is difficult to differentiate from the threatened species and that similarity poses an additional risk to the threatened species. This was considered for smooth and great hammerhead sharks but was not applied for two reasons. Firstly, the similar species provisions do not apply to the Conservation Dependent category, so once scalloped hammerhead was listed in that category the similar species provision could not apply. Nevertheless, in the case of the great hammerhead, which is caught in some of the same fisheries as the scalloped hammerhead, the measures approved under Conservation Dependent listing include improved species identification in data and, in the Northern Territory Offshore Net and Line Fishery, a quota applying to great hammerhead. Secondly, in the case of the smooth hammerhead, its range overlaps so little with the scalloped hammerhead that the capture of the former does not constitute a threat to the latter. (4) Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 any species on the EPBC Act threatened list is a 'protected species' irrespective of category (Vulnerable, Endangered, Critically Endangered or Conservation Dependent). The definition of 'Protected Species' in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 was last changed in 2004. This was prior to changes to the EPBC Act in 2006 to include the Conservation Dependent category in its current form and thus does not recognise the intent of the category. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Hammerhead Shark) Regulations 2018 is consistent with the intent of the Conservation Dependent category. It ensures complementary management for scalloped hammerhead in all Australian jurisdictions. If the amendment was disallowed, commercial harvest of scalloped hammerhead within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park would not be permitted and would lead to hammerhead shark being discarded at sea rather than being utilised. Disallowing the amendment would do little to reduce fishing-induced mortality but would compromise monitoring and reporting critical for future stock assessments, determining rates of recovery and the future reviews of the threatened species listing. Scalloped hammerhead are primarily taken in large mesh nets as a non-target catch. Most hammerhead sharks that entangle in nets are dead when the net is retrieved or will suffer post-release mortality when discarded. (5) Fisheries in Queensland have undergone substantial review in recent years and are subject to major reforms as part of the Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027. Given this transitional phase while reforms are being undertaken and concerns around storage space limitations of these typically small boat operations, the Committee's assessment acknowledges that Queensland will enforce a 'fins-attached' policy once the relevant fisheries reach a trigger point of 75% of the Total Allowable Catch. The Northern Territory has already implemented this measure. Bass Highway (Question No 1023) 170 Question No 1023 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the Prime Minister's announcement during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 8 July 2018 to provide $60 million towards work on the Bass Highway between Wynyard and Marrawah, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what is the timeline for this project, (b) how will priority areas for work be identified, and (c) when will the funding be delivered. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, the commitment will be honoured. (a) The project timeline is yet to be finalised. (b) The Australian and Tasmanian governments are working together to prioritise works on the Bass Highway to be delivered within the funding commitment. (c) The funding will be delivered as the project reaches agreed milestones. These will be determined in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government. Murchison Highway (Question No 1024) 170 Question No 1024 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the Government's commitment during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 9 July 2018 to provide $10 million towards work on the Murchison Highway for upgrades, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) what is the timeline for this project, (b) how will priority areas for work be identified, (c) from what program will this funding be allocated, and (d) when will this funding be delivered. Mr McCormack 219646 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, the commitment will be honoured. (a) The project timeline is yet to be finalised. (b) The Australian and Tasmanian governments are working together to prioritise works on the Murchison Highway to be delivered within the funding commitment. (c) The funding is being provided as part of the $400 million Tasmanian Roads Package under the Australian Government's Roads of Strategic Importance initiative. (d) The funding will be delivered as the project reaches agreed milestones. These will be determined in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government. Training Centre (Question No. 1036) 170 1036 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, in writing, on 16 August 2018: 1036- To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education - In respect of the government's commitment during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 3 July 2018 to provide $750,000 to establish an Advanced Welding Training Centre in the Burnie region to allow for the purchase of five state-of-the-art welding simulators, and advanced technical training to help upskill TasTAFE trainers, will this be honoured; if not, why not; and if so (a) from which program will these funds come, (b) when will the funding be delivered, and (c) to whom will this funding be paid. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) From which program will the funds come? Education and Training portfolio Program 2.8 Building Skills and Capability, which provides funds for an effective and efficient skills and training system that is industry led and delivers the skills Australian employers need. (b) When will the funding be delivered? Funding was delivered on 7 August 2018. (c) To whom will this funding be paid? The Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council Limited. University of Tasmania (Question No 1037) 171 Question No 1037 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the Prime Minister's announcement during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 15 June 2018 to provide $2.4 million to the University of Tasmania's Centre for Excellence in Rural and Regional Health in Burnie for research, aimed at preventing health issues in regional and remote Australia, will this be honored; if not, why not; if so, (a) when will the funding be delivered, and (b) what focus will this research have on regional Tasmania. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a)– (b) Under the Medical Research Future Fund's Keeping Australian's out of Hospital Program $2.4 million will be provided over three years from 2018-19 ($0.8 million per annum) to the University of Tasmania for research focusing on preventive health in rural and remote locations and in indigenous communities, the burden of chronic disease and translation of research knowledge into practice to reduce avoidable hospitalisations. My department is actively engaging with the University of Tasmania to identify a range of research projects to be progressed with this funding, the first instalment of which will be provided by the end of the 2018 calendar year. The provision of this funding will provide opportunities to trial new ways to better support informed choices by both consumers and service providers and to scale up proven evidence-based interventions and local prevention activities to larger populations. The outputs from this research will ultimately reduce the burden on the hospital system. Job Ready Generation Package (Question No. 1043) 171 1043 Ms Keay 262273 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, in writing, on 16 August 2018: *1043 MS KEAY : To ask the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education—In respect of the Prime Minister's announcement during the campaign for the by-election in the electoral division of Braddon on 8 July 2018 that the Government will have a North West $3.9 million Job Ready Generation package for collaboration between business and TAFE to upskill 600 North West Tasmanians with the qualifications and on the job training required in agriculture, mining, manufacturing, building and construction, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) from which program will these funds come, (b) when will the funding be delivered, and (c) to whom will this funding be paid. Ms O'Dwyer LKU The Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Australian Government paid $750,000 for the establishment of an advanced welding training centre to the Tasmanian Minerals and Energy Council Limited on 7 August 2018 (response to Question Number 1036 refers). The remaining funding for the Government's Job Ready Generation package for North-West Tasmania will be made available in 2018–19. State Hospital (Question No 1049) 171 Question No 1049 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 16 August 2018: (1) Is he aware of the NSW Government's plan to build a major hospital on the State Significant and productive high yield farmland at Cudgen in Northern NSW. (2) Is he aware that building this major hospital will destroy the highly productive high farmland at Cudgen. (3) Is he aware that this major infrastructure project will also adversely affect the neighbouring properties and thereby jeopardise the viability of the entire State Significant Cudgen Plateau which is one of the most productive food bowls on Australia's East Coast. (4) Is he aware that the NSW Government is ignoring its own planning and priority listing of State Significant farmland on the Cudgen Plateau. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the NSW Government is planning to build the new Tweed Valley Hospital at Cudgen, NSW. (2) I am aware that the site is identified by the NSW Government as State Significant Farmland. (3) This is a matter for the NSW Government who is undertaking a full Land Use Conflict Risk Assessment as part of the planning submission. (4) State planning policies are a matter for the NSW Government. State Hospital (Question No 1050) 172 Question No 1050 Mrs Elliot DZW asked the Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, in writing, on 16 August 2018: In respect of the proposal to build a hospital at the State Significant Cudgen Plateau, one of the most productive food bowls in northern NSW. A) Is he aware that the NSW Government does not appear to be considering the concerns of local farmers and the community regarding the suitability of this site. B) What action will he take to protect the site from rezoning for the proposed development or any other development. C) Does the Australian Government support this plan. D) Does any Commonwealth legislation exist to protect this land from development. E) Is he aware that the NSW Government has rejected a planned, approved and shovel ready site for the hospital at Kings Forest in favour of the proposed Cudgen site. F) Is he aware that the NSW Member for the electoral district of Tweed has been widely criticised for supporting the proposal to use Cudgen as the site for the hospital. Mr Littleproud 265585 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: A) I am aware that the NSW Government is undertaking a community consultation process. B) State planning policies and decisions regarding developments are a matter for the NSW Government. C) This development is a matter for the NSW Government. D) This development is a matter for the NSW Government. E) This is a matter for the NSW Government. F) The matter is for the Member of the NSW Parliament. Hydroxocobalamin (Question No 1052) 172 Question No 1052 Ms Sharkie 265980 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 20 August 2018: Why have subsidies for the medicinal product known as Hydroxocobalamin been removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On 1 January 2016, certain products that can also be purchased over-the-counter (without a prescription) were delisted from general availability on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) – including the B12 hydroxocobalamin injections. The delisting of these medicines was recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC), an independent, expert advisory body, following consideration of submissions from suppliers and consumer groups at its July 2015 meeting. Consumers can continue to buy these medicines over-the-counter at competitive prices from pharmacies, without the need for a prescription. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1056) 172 1056 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: (1) What was the total number of Australian Public Service (APS) employees in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State, including a breakdown of (a) ongoing, (b) non-ongoing, and (c) casual, as at (i) 30 June 2017, (ii) 30 June 2018, and (iii) the current date. (2) What was the total number of APS employees in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State, including a breakdown of (a) ongoing, (b) non-ongoing, and (c) casual, who did not hold Australian citizenship as at (i) 30 June 2017, (ii) 30 June 2018, and (iii) the current date. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1057) 173 1057 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: (1) What was the total number of temporary visa holders working in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State on (a) a non-ongoing, and (b) an ongoing, basis as at (i) 30 June 2017, (ii) 30 June 2018, and (iii) the current date. (2) For each temporary visa holder above, what (a) was the duration of their employment, and (b) is the date on which their current visa expires. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1058) 173 1058 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: (1) What was the total number of temporary visa holders working in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State via on-hire labour arrangements as at (a) 30 June 2017, (b) 30 June 2018, and (c) the current date. (2) For each temporary visa holder above, what (a) was the duration of their employment, and (b) is the date on which their current visa expires. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1059) 173 1059 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: (1) What is the total number of non-citizen permanent visa holders working in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State via on-hire labour arrangements as at (a) 30 June 2017, (b) 30 June 2018, and (c) the current date. (2) What was the duration of employment for each non-citizen permanent visa holder above. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1060) 173 1060 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: What total number of non-citizens working in each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State on (a) 30 June 2017, (b) 30 June 2018, and (c) the current date, held a security clearance. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. )1061 173 1061 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: Where a person is engaged subject to citizenship under subsection 22(6) of the Public Service Act 1999, what is deemed to be acceptable evidence of 'actively seeking citizenship' and the specified timeframe within which evidence of Australian citizenship must be provided. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Commonwealth Employment (Question No. 1062) 173 1062 Mr Hill 86256 asked the Prime Minister in writing, on 23 August 2018: What monitoring of the conferral of Australian citizenship does each of the Commonwealth Government Departments of State undertake concerning non-citizen employees, and to security clearance holders with waivers. Mr Morrison E3L I am advised by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: To attempt to provide this level of detail would involve an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Social Media Spending (Question No 1106) 174 Question No 1106 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In 2017-18, what sum was spent by the Minister's department on (a) external social media and marketing consultants and/or agencies, (b) boosting or sponsoring facebook posts, (c) boosting twitter posts, (d) advertising on (i) youtube, (ii) Google, and (iii) snapchat, and (e) sponsored Instagram posts Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 2017-2018 the Department of Health spent* a) $4,859,351 on external social media agencies and channels for advertising campaigns. b) $2,214,057 was expended on boosting or sponsoring Facebook and Instagram posts (As Instagram is owned by Facebook all costs are paid to Facebook). c) $37,100 was expended on boosting or sponsoring Twitter posts. d) Nil was expended on Youtube, $2,149,010 was expended on Google search and $437,912 was expended on Snapchat for advertising campaigns. e) Please see response to part b). *All figures are GST exclusive. Portfolio Spending (Question No 1085) 174 Question No 1085 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: What sum has been spent on external media and public speaking training in the Minister's portfolio since 2014. Answer: Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The amount spent on external media and public speaking training in the Health Portfolio, 1 January 2014 to 12 September 2018, was $188,058.15 (GST inclusive). Advertising Spending (Question No 1088) 174 Question No 1088 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In 2017-18, what sum was spent on advertising by the Minister's department (a) in Australia, or (b) outside of Australia. Answer: Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: a) In 2017-18, $24,942,745 (GST exclusive) was spent on advertising in Australia by the Department of Health. Nil. Australian Federal Police (Question No. 1089) 175 1089 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In respect of the Minister's personal protective services in 2017-18, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) how many full time equivalent staff were employed to protect the Minister, and (c) what kind of threats was the Minister being protected from. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The AFP is responsible of the protection of Australian High Office Holders (AHOH) and do not comment on these matters. Australian Federal Police (Question No. 1090) 175 1090 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In respect of the Minister's personal protective services in 2017-18, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) how many full time equivalent staff were employed to protect the Minister, and (c) what kind of threats was the Minister being protected from. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The AFP is responsible of the protection of Australian High Office Holders (AHOH) and do not comment on these matters. Australian Federal Police (Question No. 1091) 175 1091 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in writing, on 12 September 2018: In respect of the Minister's personal protective services in 2017-18, (a) what total sum was spent, (b) how many full time equivalent staff were employed to protect the Minister, and (c) what kind of threats was the Minister being protected from. Mr Dutton 00AKI The answer to the honourable member's question is: The AFP is responsible of the protection of Australian High Office Holders (AHOH) and do not comment on these matters. 2017-18 Fraud or Theft Detected (Question No 1097) 175 Question No 1097 Mr Keogh 249147 asked the Minister for Health, in writing, on 12 September 2018: Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by departments or agencies in the Minister's portfolio from (a) internal sources, or (b) external sources, that resulted in cost to the Minister's department or agencies in 2017-18; if so (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to the Minister's department or agencies of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what action has been taken to prevent such theft or fraud from reoccurring1097 Mr Hunt 00AMV The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following table represents information on instances of fraud or theft detected in 2017-2018 by the Department of Health and the Australian Sports and Anti-Doping Authority: Note: It is confirmed that all other Portfolio Agencies of the Department have nil responses. Details on specific cases are not able to be provided as some of the matters are still being investigated and/or pending court outcomes. Definitions applied to question: Fraud – is taken to be fraud relevant to alleged offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995, Part 7.3 and Part 7.4 and the National Health Act 1953. Theft – is taken to be theft relevant to alleged offences under the Criminal Code Act 1995, Part 7.2. This is not taken to be in association with breaches under the Public Service Act 1999, Section 13. Detected – is taken to be formally investigated within the 2017-2018 period and with or without a criminal prosecution outcome. Internal Sources – is taken to be fraud or theft committed by ongoing, non-ongoing or contractors of the department or agency. External Sources – is taken to be fraud or theft committed by service providers and/or third party providers. Resulted in cost – is taken to be an estimated or proven loss of Commonwealth money identified within the 2017-2018 period at the investigation or prosecution stage. Action taken to prevent – is taken to be actions during or post formal investigations such as data analytics capabilities, Fraud Control Plans, fraud risk assessments, Security plans, security risk assessments, fraud awareness training.