
<hansard version="2.2" noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../../hansard.xsd">
  <session.header>
    <date>2018-11-28</date>
    <parliament.no>45</parliament.no>
    <session.no>1</session.no>
    <period.no>7</period.no>
    <chamber>House of Reps</chamber>
    <page.no>0</page.no>
    <proof>1</proof>
  </session.header>
  <chamber.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
        <p class="HPS-SODJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-SODJobDate">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;"></span>
            <a href="Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 28 November 2018</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The SPEAKER (</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Hon.</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">Tony Smith</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">) </span>took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>1</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Selection Committee</title>
          <page.no>1</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>1</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present report No. 34 of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 3 December 2018. The report will be printed in the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The report read as follows—</inline></para>
<quote><para class="block">Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 27 November 2018.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 27 November 2018, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 3 December 2018, as follows:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Mr Danby: To present a Bill for an Act to enable Australia to impose sanctions to promote compliance with international human rights law and respect for human rights or to deter significant corruption, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(International Human Rights and Corruption (Magnitsky Sanctions) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 25 October 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to restrict the long haul export of live sheep, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(Live Sheep Long Haul Export Prohibition Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Ms Sharkie: To present a Bill for an Act to include the Great Australian Bight in the Commonwealth Heritage List, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Heritage Listing for the Bight) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Mr Shorten: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Sex Discrimination Act 1984</inline> to remove discrimination against students. <inline font-style="italic">(Sex Discrimination Amendment (Removing Discrimination Against Students) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Ms McGowan: To present a Bill for an Act to enhance the integrity of the Parliament of Australia, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(National Integrity (Parliamentary Standards) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Mr Bandt: To present a Bill for an Act to prohibit Commonwealth support for coal-fired power stations, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Mr Wilkie: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline>, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Dr Phelps: To present a Bill for an Act to enable Australia to impose sanctions to promote compliance with international human rights law and respect for human rights or to deter significant corruption, and for related purposes. <inline font-style="italic">(Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Mr Ted O'Brien: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) many Queensland families are struggling with cost of living pressures and many small businesses are being crippled by the cost doing business;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the primary responsibility for lowering power prices for Queensland families and small businesses lies with the Queensland Government; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Queensland Government is ripping off everyday Queenslanders through a sophisticated scam that funnels billions of dollars into government coffers;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Queensland Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) immediately pass on recent reductions in wholesale prices to customers in full;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) end the network 'gold plating', write down regulated assets and accept a lower return so that Queenslanders can be charged less;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) provide adequate subsidies to Queensland families and businesses in recognition of the interest they have been paying on unnecessary debt carried by state-owned electricity businesses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) increase competition in the Queensland electricity market by splitting the two state owned generators into three viable businesses with 'fair dinkum' electricity generation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) be honest with Queenslanders by informing them of the real cost of increasing the supply of unreliable electricity to meet Labor's 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) acknowledges that if the Queensland Government was prepared to take serious action, electricity prices could be lowered immediately for millions of hard working Queensland families and hundreds of thousands of small businesses.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Ted O'Brien—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Ms Claydon: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) acknowledges that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 90 per cent of the brain develops before the age of five;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) nearly one in four Australian children—22 per cent—start school without the foundational skills to be successful learners; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) those children who are missing out on early education are children from disadvantaged backgrounds and are the ones who would benefit most from a preschool program;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) agrees that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) according to the <inline font-style="italic">Lifting our Game</inline> report prepared by early education experts for state and territory education ministers, two years of preschool is a key recommendation to achieving educational excellence in Australia; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) age appropriate early learning programs have been proven to have a positive impact on children's outcomes through school;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government has left parents and providers in limbo with its refusal to provide funding certainty;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) without ongoing funding to four year old preschool/kindy, providers are unable to plan ahead;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) since Labor introduced Universal Access to Early Childhood Education in 2008, preschool enrolment for four year olds has increased from 77 per cent to 93 per cent; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the Government's lack of commitment has left us falling behind other OECD countries in early education; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to properly fund four year old preschool/kindy and follow Labor's commitment to provide ongoing funding to four year olds and extend this to three year olds.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms Claydon—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Mr Leeser: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes with great sadness the passing of the former President of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies (JBD), Jeremy Spinak;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges with gratitude the work of organisations such as the NSW JBD; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) recognises the outstanding contribution the Jewish community has made to Australia.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Leeser—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Ms McGowan: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) 7 February 2019 will be the 10th anniversary of the bushfires that devastated parts of Victoria;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the fires were the most devastating in Australian history, killing 173 people, burning more than 450,000 hectares of land and destroying more than 2,000 houses;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) in the 10 years since those devastating fires and the horrific weather conditions that preceded them, communities in the electoral division of Indi have worked hard to rebuild homes, businesses, communities and lives;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in the immediate aftermath of the fires, these communities were inundated with generous offers of help, including the commitment of governments at all levels to work with those affected to rebuild;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) as a result, much has been done to rebuild communities, to provide support to help heal the devastating emotional loss and progress the recovery of those many thousands of people affected by these fires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) while much has been achieved, it is time to finish the task of rebuilding core infrastructure and restore the sense of place and vibrancy within communities that were destroyed almost 10 years ago; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the 10 year anniversary of the 2009 fires presents an opportunity to bring together bipartisan support from all levels of government to announce and complete this rebuild; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) pay tribute to the strength, courage and resilience of those who survived the fires on 7 February 2009;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) continue to provide support to individuals and communities who lost so much;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) honour those who lost their lives in these fires;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) acknowledge the wonderful work of the frontline emergency services personnel and volunteers, the community agencies, governments at all levels and individuals involved in assisting local communities to rebuild in the past 10 years; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) honour a commitment to work with those communities devastated by the 2009 bushfires to complete the task of rebuilding core infrastructure and restore their heart and soul.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Ms McGowan—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Mr Wallace: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House notes:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs launched the Prime Minister's Veterans Employment Commitment (VEC) on 2 November 2018;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) that the VEC is a way for businesses to pledge their support for veterans' employment and provides veterans with a way to easily identify those businesses that recognise the skills, experiences and capabilities they bring to civilian workplaces;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) that hiring veterans is good for business and encourages all Australian businesses to sign the VEC and hire a veteran;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) that the second annual Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Awards will be held in March 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) the awards recognise:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) businesses of all types and sizes that employ and support veterans and spouses of current serving Australian Defence Force (ADF) members; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the significant achievements being made by veterans in the workplace along with those who have built on their ADF experience to start up or take on a successful business; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) the ongoing efforts of the Government to improve the support and services available to the men and women transitioning out of the ADF.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Wallace—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Mr Hogan: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the disparity of petrol prices between regional and rural areas compared to city prices is not explainable and must be investigated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) allegations of misuse of market power, unconscionable conduct and the use of unfair contract terms by the large supermarket chains Woolworths, Coles and Aldi, must be investigated; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) request the Governor-General to establish a Royal Commission into the supermarket and petrol retailing sectors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) draft terms of reference that will investigate all facets of the major operators of the supermarkets and petrol retailing industries, including but not limited to, business practices, conduct and culture with regard to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(i) misuse of market power;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ii) unfair contract terms;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iii) unconscionable conduct; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(iv) pricing collusion.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 26 November 2018.)</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Hogan—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 UNIVERSITIES FUNDING: Resumption of debate (from 13 August 2018) on the motion of Ms T. M. Butler—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the Government's short-sighted $2.2 billion in cuts to universities are equivalent to more than 9,500 Australians missing out on a university place in 2018, and again in 2019;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) across the country this month, students will be attending university, with orientation periods beginning, and that these students are faced with more uncertainty about how the cuts will affect their student experience; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Government's short-sighted cuts will hurt regional and outer metropolitan universities and their students the most; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) calls on the Government to reverse its short-sighted, unfair cuts to universities, which are closing the door of opportunity to thousands of Australians.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—30</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">All Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Mr Gee: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises the commitment of the Government in support of our farming communities through all forms of hardship, including drought;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) notes the continued resilience of our farmers in drought affected areas, and acknowledges the challenges they are continuing to face;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) welcomes the record level of funding committed by the Government to provide immediate and ongoing support to our Australian farmers, their families and their communities; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) commends the significant investment by the Government in announcing the $3.9 billion Future Drought Fund, which will grow to $5 billion by 2029, to provide a new and sustainable source of funding to enable farming communities to better prepare for, manage through and recover from drought into the future.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(Notice given 27 November 2018.)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Time allotted—35 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Speech time limits—</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr Gee—10</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Next Member speaking—5 minutes.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins + 5 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 HOME CARE PACKAGES: Resumption of debate (from 20 August 2018) on the motion of Mr Hart—That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) there are almost 300 older Australians who have waited more than two years for their approved home care package, without any care;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a further 636 older Australians have waited more than a year for care and they currently have no care at all and there are thousands more getting less care than they need;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the latest waiting list for home care packages indicates that more than 100,000 older Australians are waiting for the package they have been approved for; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the latest figures show that the waiting list grew by more than 20,000 between 1 July and December 2017 and it is likely to continue growing without funding for the release of more packages;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) recognises the Government's response in its budget of 14,000 home care packages is woefully inadequate;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) condemns the Government for the aged care crisis it has made on its watch; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) calls on the Government to immediately invest in fixing the home care package waiting list and properly address this growing crisis.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Notices—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Mr T. R. Wilson: To move:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">That this House:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) recognises that 9 December 2018 marks the 70th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) acknowledges the important role played by Australia, in particular Australia's then President of the United Nations General Assembly, Dr Herbert Vere 'Doc' Evatt, in the successful adoption of the United Nations Genocide Convention;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) further acknowledges Australia's leadership as being one of the first countries to ratify the United Nations Genocide Convention in 1949, and its continued commitment to the eradication of the crime through its inclusion of the United Nations definition of Genocide in the <inline font-style="italic">Criminal Code Act 1995</inline>;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) honours the primary initiator and author of the United Nations Genocide Convention, Dr Raphael Lemkin, a lawyer of Polish-Jewish descent, who coined the word 'genocide', informed by his study of the systematic extermination of the Armenians during World War I and the Jews during World War II; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) acknowledges the need for eternal vigilance of all countries, including Australia, to act to acknowledge past genocides as essential to stopping future genocides.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(<inline font-style="italic">Notice given 27 November 2018.</inline>)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—40</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Mr T. R. Wilson—5</inline>  <inline font-style="italic">minutes.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Other Members—5 minutes. each.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Orders of the day—continued</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3   Fair Work Amendment (Restoring Penalty Rates) Bill 2018 (<inline font-style="italic">Mr Shorten</inline>): Second reading—Resumption of debate (<inline font-style="italic">from</inline><inline font-style="italic">15</inline><inline font-style="italic">October</inline><inline font-style="italic">2018</inline>).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 7.30 pm</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Speech time limits—</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">All Members—5 minutes. each.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.</inline></para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>6</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>6</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6230" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>6</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2018 gives effect to the Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Establishing Their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea.The treaty is a historic achievement for Australia and Timor-Leste, and its implementation is firmly in Australia's national interest.</para>
<para>The Treaty will replace the Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of East Timor and the Government of Australia, which established the Joint Petroleum Development Area,and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste relating to the Unitisation of the Sunrise and Troubadour fields.</para>
<para>Through this treaty, Australia and Timor-Leste have settled a long-running dispute over our maritime boundaries, agreed upon a pathway for the development of Greater Sunrise and laid the foundation for a new chapter in our bilateral relations. The treaty also provides for transitional arrangements to deliver stability and certainty for companies with operations in the Timor Sea. This has been done to ensure they can continue under conditions or terms equivalent. The implementation of this obligation is ongoing and further legislation may be required, but the Australian government wants to progress with implementation of this treaty expeditiously and did not want to delay this important bill.</para>
<para>The treaty is a landmark for international law and the rules based order. It was the result of the first ever compulsory conciliation under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.</para>
<para>Australia and Timor-Leste demonstrated goodwill and preparedness to compromise during negotiations. The parties, and the independent conciliation commission, recognise the outcome was fair, balanced and consistent with international law.</para>
<para>The bill proposes to give effect to the treaty by repealing the Petroleum (Timor Sea Treaty) Act 2003 and transitioning the area of current joint administration known as the Joint Petroleum Development Area in recognition of Timor-Leste's sovereign jurisdiction.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973to establish and define the Greater Sunrise Special Regime area as an area over which Australia will exercise its rights as a coastal state jointly with Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>This bill also implements the arrangements for petroleum activities in the joint jurisdiction special regime area as well as for the regulation of petroleum pipelines in areas of foreign continental shelf jurisdiction consistent with the terms of the treaty. The bill further provides for amendments to affected offshore petroleum titles as a consequence of the treaty. Necessary consequential amendments to give effect to all of these elements are also made to other legislation by this bill.</para>
<para>This bill repeals provisions that gave effect to the superseded Timor Sea Treaty and International Unitisation Agreement and amends the scheduled areas for Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands affected by the maritime boundary.</para>
<para>This bill provides for two new 'international offshore areas' for the purposes of the Bayu-Undan pipeline corridor and a potential Greater Sunrise pipeline corridor.</para>
<para>This bill alters particular offshore petroleum permits and licences which adjoined the western side of the Joint Petroleum Development Area. The effect is to reflect that part of their Australian title will transition to the continental shelf of Timor-Leste upon entry into force of the treaty.</para>
<para>This bill gives effect to the Greater Sunrise Special Regime area, which mirrors the special regime area established by the Greater Sunrise Special Regime in annex B of the treaty. The purpose of the Greater Sunrise Special Regime is to facilitate the joint development, exploitation and management of petroleum activities in the Greater Sunrise gas fields.</para>
<para>This bill establishes the legal infrastructure required for the regulation of Greater Sunrise to be transitioned to a designated authority that will act on behalf of Australia and Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>This designated authority will, subject to the approval of the governance board for the Greater Sunrise Special Regime, enter into the Greater Sunrise production-sharing contract with the Greater Sunrise contractor. This will be done as soon as practicable and under conditions equivalent to the relevant production-sharing contracts and to the legal rights held under the applicable retention leases currently in place in accordance with article 22 of the Timor Sea Treaty and article 27 of the International Unitisation Agreement.</para>
<para>The bill also maintains and incorporates the Eastern Greater Sunrise offshore area into the Northern Territory offshore area to ensure the Australian retention leases in the Eastern Greater Sunrise offshore area continue uninterrupted during the period between entry into force of the treaty and when the Greater Sunrise production-sharing contract commences. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 will also continue to apply to these retention leases during this period.</para>
<para>Overall, this bill fundamentally demonstrates Australia's commitment to a robust, mutually beneficial, bilateral relationship with Timor-Leste specifically and to international law and the rules based order more generally. This bill lays the foundation for a stronger relationship with Timor-Leste and creates a pathway for the development of Greater Sunrise, the economic benefits of which will be significant, particularly for Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6227" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2018 complements the Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2018.</para>
<para>This bill amends the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 by replicating the exemption from passenger movement charge in relation to journeys to an installation in the special regime area.</para>
<para>This package of bills gives effect to the 2018 Maritime Boundaries Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the chamber.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>8</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6220" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>8</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 will amend the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 ('the FITS Act') and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 ('the NSLA Act').</para>
<para>When the FITS Act commences, it will establish a registration scheme for persons undertaking certain activities on behalf of foreign governments, foreign government related entities, foreign political organisations and foreign government related individuals.</para>
<para>The secretary of the department administering the scheme will be required to publish, on a website, certain information about such persons.</para>
<para>Under the NSLA Act, persons with existing arrangements that will make them liable to register under the FITS Act once it commences are granted a six-month grace period within which to register. Ordinarily, the FITS Act would require persons who are liable to register to do this within 14 days of this liability arising.</para>
<para>This bill will effect two key changes.</para>
<para>First, the bill will require historical information to continue to be published about persons registered under the FITS Act after they cease to be registered. This will ensure that people can access information about both past and present instances of foreign influence registered under the FITS Act scheme.</para>
<para>Second, the bill will amend the six-month grace period currently granted under the NSLA Act.</para>
<para>The six-month grace period currently granted under the NSLA Act effectively excuses certain people who will be liable to register once the FITS Act commences from having to do so before the next federal election if it takes place in the first half of 2019.</para>
<para>The grace period granted under the NSLA Act will be shortened to a three-month period or the issuing of election writs, whichever occurs sooner. If election writs for either house of parliament are issued before the end of this three-month period, persons who would otherwise have been entitled to the grace period will have to register within 14 days of the issuing of the writs.</para>
<para>This will ensure, consistently with the FITS Act's intention, that the FITS Act scheme includes both existing and new arrangements in time for the next election.</para>
<para>The provisions in this bill will better give effect to the FITS Act's underlying purpose, which is to ensure transparency with respect to foreign influence in Australia's governmental and political processes.</para>
<para>I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>9</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6231" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>9</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PORTER</name>
    <name.id>208884</name.id>
    <electorate>Pearce</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Citizenship Loss Provisions) Bill 2018 implements the government's commitment to strengthen our ability to cancel the Australian citizenship of dual nationals who have, through their own actions, demonstrated repudiation of their allegiance to Australia.</para>
<para>The purpose of this bill is twofold: to keep Australians safe from evolving terrorist threats, and to uphold the integrity of Australian citizenship and the privileges that attach to it.</para>
<para>Australian citizenship is a privilege—one that carries expectations of those who hold it. One such expectation is that Australian citizens uphold Australian values and beliefs. Engaging in behaviour with the intent of harming members of our community—both within Australia and offshore—is in clear opposition to those values. Individuals that are convicted of terrorism offences have demonstrated a complete rejection of their allegiance to Australia.</para>
<para>The threat of terrorism is, sadly, very real. Since the threat level was raised to 'probable' in 2014, our police and security agencies have successfully disrupted 15 terrorist attacks. Sadly, we have also witnessed seven attacks on Australian soil, resulting in injury and death.</para>
<para>These events are a poignant and significant reminder that we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent. We face a constantly evolving security environment.</para>
<para>Our police and security agencies are world-class, and it is the role of government to ensure legislation provides necessary deterrence to support our agencies in the face of evolving threats. This government has introduced, and the parliament has passed, 12 tranches of national security legislation since the threat level was raised in 2014 and this bill will strengthen a further important tool in our armoury.</para>
<para>The ability to cease the Australian citizenship of those who seek to do us harm forms an integral part of our ongoing response to international violent extremism and terrorism. It is a key part of our strategy to keep Australians safe. This bill will strengthen our ability to do precisely that. It amends the citizenship loss provisions to reflect the genuine threat posed to Australia by those who commit terrorism offences.</para>
<para>The bill will amend subsection 35A(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to allow the minister to determine that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen if they are convicted of certain terrorism offences, regardless of the sentence imposed. The bill will remove the requirement for a person to be sentenced to at least six years imprisonment for a relevant terrorism offence to be eligible to lose their Australian citizenship. A conviction for a terrorism offence is all that will be required. This will apply to all persons convicted of a relevant terrorism offence after 12 December 2005.</para>
<para>A relevant terrorism offence will now include the Criminal Code offence of associating with a terrorist organisation, an offence punishable by three years imprisonment. This recognises that knowingly associating with a terrorist organisation, on multiple occasions, for the purposes of supporting the terrorist organisation to expand or continue to exist, is itself a serious offence. A person who is convicted of such an offence has demonstrated their repudiation of Australian values through their association with, and support of, a terrorist organisation proscribed under Australian law.</para>
<para>The bill also amends subsection 35A(1) of the Citizenship Act to adjust the threshold for determining dual citizenship, to remove the effective requirement that the convicted person is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia at the time when the minister makes the determination that a person ceases to be an Australian citizen, and replace it with a requirement that the minister is satisfied the person will not become stateless. Currently, the Citizenship Act requires that a person is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia. The bill provides the minister need only be satisfied that the person will not become stateless if their Australian citizenship ceases. It is well established under case law that where statute provides a minister must be 'satisfied' of a matter, it is to be understood as requiring the attainment of that satisfaction reasonably.</para>
<para>For consistency with existing provisions for cessation of citizenship for serious offences in the Citizenship Act, subsection 35A(1) thus requires the minister to be 'satisfied' the person will not become stateless, subject to the implication that this satisfaction is to be reasonably attained.</para>
<para>I note that there are a number of other matters that the minister must be satisfied of before determining a person ceases to be an Australian citizen. These will remain unchanged.</para>
<para>The minister must still be satisfied that the conduct of the person to which the conviction or convictions relate demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia. The minister must also be satisfied, following consideration of a range of factors, that it is not in the public interest for the person to remain an Australian citizen. Conviction-based cessation of citizenship remains a discretionary power of the minister, based on the public interest.</para>
<para>The bill is consistent with Australia's obligations under international law, including our obligations not to render a person stateless. Cessation of Australian citizenship will continue to apply only where a person will not become stateless.</para>
<para>In conclusion, this bill is designed to protect the integrity of Australian citizenship, and ensure that we have the necessary powers to keep Australians safe. Where an individual engages in conduct that results in a conviction for a terrorism offence, they have indicated, loud and clear, that they have repudiated their allegiance to Australia. And, in light of the evolving terrorist threat, it is entirely appropriate that we strengthen the ability of the minister to strip dual nationals of the privilege that is Australian citizenship.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Drought Fund Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>10</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6222" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Drought Fund Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>10</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>Future Drought Fund Bill 2018 Second Reading Speech</para>
<para>The Liberal-National government is focused on helping farmers and communities prepare for inevitable future droughts.</para>
<para>The Future Drought Fund is a long-term investment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery in our most drought affected communities. It will enable farmers and their communities to fulfil their potential as productive and profitable contributors to the Australian economy by improving the performance of the agriculture sector.</para>
<para>Healthy farming landscapes with innovative farming techniques will contribute to a drought resilient and sustainable agriculture sector. The Future Drought Fund will be available to support research, development and innovation. It will also deliver infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of technology and support improved environmental and natural resource management to encourage sustainable agricultural practices. The Future Drought Fund will provide farm and community support with the aim of bolstering drought resilience.</para>
<para>This bill establishes the Future Drought Fund and provides an initial credit of $3.9 billion. The government intends to grow the fund until it reaches $5 billion, while at the same time drawing down $100 million per year from 1 July 2020 to invest in important drought resilience projects. The establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable revenue stream to build drought resilience across Australia into the future.</para>
<para>This funding is additional to the significant funding already available to assist farmers during an existing drought and will not replace existing funding.</para>
<para>The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the government and maximising returns over the long term.</para>
<para>The bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service to issue directions setting out the government's expectations as to how the fund will be managed and invested by the board, including setting a benchmark return for earnings. In setting the benchmark rate of return, the government will consider the objectives to grow the fund to around $5 billion and make annual payments to the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account of $100 million per year for disbursement to drought resilience projects.</para>
<para>The government will develop and publish the Drought Resilience Funding Plan to ensure that a coherent and consistent approach is undertaken when considering and providing funding for drought resilience projects. The funding plan will be informed though public consultation and will be reviewed every four years to ensure that emerging priorities are appropriately captured in ensuring the fund remains future focussed. In developing the plan, the agriculture minister will have regard to the Intergovernmental Agreement on National Drought Program Reform and any successive agreements, as well as any related government drought policies and strategies.</para>
<para>To ensure consistency with the Drought Resilience Funding Plan, the minister is required to seek advice from the Regional Investment Corporation Board on any grant or funding arrangement. This advice will inform how the new drought resilience funding is allocated in each budget cycle.</para>
<para>Drought is a constant factor in Australian agriculture and the establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable funding stream for drought resilience into the future to ensure the potential of this vibrant industry is realised through drought resilience planning.</para>
<para>The government had intended to use the Building Australia Fund to fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. However, as we already confirmed earlier this year, we have secured the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and ensured that it is fully funded through our better economic and fiscal management, which has delivered a strong and improving budget position. This means that we are able to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme without persisting with the Medicare levy increase or the previous Building Australia Fund measure.</para>
<para>This is why we are now in a position to give our guarantee to Australians living with a disability, and their families and carers, that all planned expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be able to be met in this year's budget and beyond.</para>
<para>Helping our farming communities face the challenges of drought is a key focus of this government and, because we have fully funded the NDIS, we are in a position to now use the uncommitted funds from the Building Australia Fund to build a sustainable source of funding for drought resilience, preparedness and recovery across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6223" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a second time.</para></quote>
<para>The Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill2018 facilitates the establishment of the Future Drought Fund through amendments to related legislation.</para>
<para>The consequential amendments to these acts enable the effective operation of the Future Drought Fund at commencement, including the abolition of the Building Australia Fund.</para>
<para>Commencement and further details can be found in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</title>
        <page.no>11</page.no>
        <type>REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2019</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TEHAN</name>
    <name.id>210911</name.id>
    <electorate>Wannon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>On behalf of the Minister for Health, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That in accordance with section 10B of the <inline font-style="italic">Health Insurance Act 1973</inline>, the House approve the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment Determination 2019 made on 17 October and presented to the House on 26 November.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>11</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>11</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r5974" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>11</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>09:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr STEPHEN JONES</name>
    <name.id>A9B</name.id>
    <electorate>Whitlam</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 is about housing affordability and particular arrangements for social and affordable housing in Australia, a matter which is of keen interest to thousands of Australians who can't afford a house to rent, let alone one to buy, a matter in which the coalition government has failed spectacularly. Former Treasurer Joe Hockey devised a strategy which was built around having rich parents, and it seems that policy in this area for the government has not advanced since that fateful statement. Labor will refer this bill to the Senate and make a final decision once the report has been issued.</para>
<para>There is of course the very good chance that the bill does not get finalised before the termination of this parliament, because the government has effectively gone on strike. Upon the conclusion of sittings for this year there is a meagre 11 sitting days between January and August next year. Frankly, you would struggle to find a parliament in the developed world which was so committed to not sitting. Clearly, the government have given up on governing. They can't trust their colleagues—clearly a motivation for not getting them together—they can't work with the crossbenchers and they can't agree on policies to tackle the big issues and the big challenges. Quite frankly, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has run out of an agenda and run out of policies. They are just so totally focused on themselves and their own dysfunction that they've given up on Australia and they've given up governing for all Australians.</para>
<para>Before the Wentworth by-election, the Prime Minister said that to lose one Liberal MP would be to create economic instability and uncertainty for Australia. Well, the Liberals' contribution to the government has been to lose two Liberal MPs in one short month. We need an election. Quite simply, we need an election so that we can put our positive plans, our alternative plans for the country, before the Australian people; give the government parties the opportunity to sort themselves out in the shade; and enable those who can govern this country get on with dealing with the big challenges.</para>
<para>The Liberals can't be trusted to put the best interests of low-income Australians first. At the 2016 election, Labor pledged to halve homelessness by 2025 by immediately commencing work with the states and territories on a national plan to address this national issue. We are still committed to this pledge. A particular focus for national reform must be supporting women and children escaping family violence. Increasing family violence is forcing women and children out of their homes and into homelessness. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows that each year about 100,000 women and children are seeking support for housing as a result of them attempting to escape family violence. Domestic and family violence is now the main reason why women and children have to leave their homes. Labor has already begun announcing policies to tackle homelessness. They include providing $88 million for a new safe-housing fund to increase transitional housing options for women and children escaping domestic and family violence, young people exiting out-of-home care and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness. I will say something more about that in a moment, as it relates to my electorate. We're also committed to establishing a bond aggregator, to increase investment in affordable housing. We want to improve the National Housing Affordability Agreement by re-establishing the National Housing Supply Council and appointing a dedicated minister for housing.</para>
<para>What we see in the bill before the House today is just some tinkering around the edges of the schemes that were put in place by the last federal Labor government—no new ideas; no initiative. In complete contrast, the Labor government has fresh ideas, new ideas, on how to tackle the concerns around housing affordability and, in particular, homelessness. Our improving the National Housing Affordability Agreement will re-establish a National Housing Supply Council, and we will appoint a dedicated minister for housing—something that this country sorely needs. This builds on other important measures that we've announced to address housing affordability, including reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions.</para>
<para>They are controversial. The government is doing its level best to whip up fear and to provide misinformation about these important reforms, but we know that they are in the national interest, and by putting them forward well ahead of a national election we are ensuring that the Australian people know exactly what they will be voting on. We are doing this to ensure that we have structural reform within the taxation system, to bring the cost of housing down for those people who are currently locked out of the housing market. At the 2011 census, over 105,000 Australians were homeless. Tragically, more than 17,000 of these were children. No state, territory, city or country town is immune from homelessness, and every government has a role to play to reduce homelessness.</para>
<para>Our reforms to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions will limit future negative gearing concessions to new housing and reduce the capital gains tax discount for those houses from 50 per cent to 25 per cent. Important to note is that this is for houses purchased after the implementation of this policy. These changes will moderate the growth of housing prices and redirect the generous tax concessions to where they are most needed—investment in new housing stock. We'll also prevent direct borrowing by superannuation funds, particularly with the growth in self-managed superannuation funds in this sector, by restoring the prohibition on direct borrowing by superannuation funds on a prospective basis, as recommended by the financial systems inquiry in 2014, to prevent the unnecessary build-up of risk in Australia's superannuation systems but also—and just as importantly—to take some of that heat out of the housing market.</para>
<para>We are going to increase the Financial Investment Review Board fees and penalties. Labor will double the fees and penalties on foreign investment rules to help first home buyers and put them on a more level playing field with investors. We're also going to look at the vacant property tax. Labor will establish a COAG process to coordinate and facilitate a more efficient and uniform vacant property tax across all of Australia's major cities. We'll also put in place a homelessness target. Labor will have a homelessness target for 2025 and develop a national homelessness strategy through COAG, in cooperation with the states and territories, to address this national scourge. A wealthy nation like ours should not have over 107,000 people, many of them children, homeless every night of the week.</para>
<para>I would like to say something about the circumstances affecting housing, homelessness and rental affordability, which this bill goes directly to, in my own electorate of Whitlam. We are, in Whitlam, sitting in the middle of one of the greatest urban growth areas in New South Wales outside of the Sydney Basin. More houses are being built in my electorate—in the West Dapto areas and in the Calderwood Valley areas—than in any other place throughout New South Wales. Over 19,500 new homes are being built in the West Dapto area. In the Calderwood Valley area over 5,000 new homes are being built. Over 56,000 people, the equivalent of a new city, will be housed in the West Dapto area, and 12,500 people will be housed in the Calderwood Valley area. This is a phenomenal achievement. But, tragically, there is not a plan in place for affordable and social housing in these areas. I want to repeat those numbers—over 19,000 new homes in the West Dapto area and over 5,000 new homes in the Calderwood Valley area and no plan for affordable or social housing.</para>
<para>This is an indictment on all levels of government. We already have a housing affordability problem in the Illawarra. Anglicare's rental affordability snapshot analysed over 1,050 properties that were available in the Illawarra, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands on the weekend of 24-25 March 2018. Of those 1,050 properties that were advertised, only 16 of them were affordable and appropriate for households on government and income support payments. Of those 16 suitable properties, only five suitable rental properties were in or close to the CBD of Wollongong. The report also found that no rental properties in the Illawarra were affordable and appropriate for single people on Newstart or youth allowance—not one property. Not one of the 1,000 properties that were available for rent were affordable or appropriate for a single young person on a Newstart allowance and only five of the 1,000 were suitable for a person on income support. According to the Property Council annual report, the Illawarra is seeing an increase in demand for affordable housing and a decrease in affordability. The annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey ranked Wollongong as the 20th least affordable housing market of the 406 markets studied in 2016.</para>
<para>We have a crisis, and nobody's doing anything about it. This is an indictment on all three tiers of government. Nearly 20,000 homes are planned to be built throughout the Illawarra, but there is no plan for social housing and no plan for affordable housing, and yet we are ranked 20th on the affordable housing index over 400 regions throughout Australia. People often look at regional Australia as an alternative to living in the capital cities and say: 'That is affordable. We might be able to move to a place like Wollongong. We might be able to move to regional Australia and, if we're lucky enough to have a job, we might be able to afford to buy a house and live there.' That is not the case.</para>
<para>What makes all of this all the more galling is that one of the last acts of the Gillard Labor government was to provide over $13 million to the Wollongong City Council to provide affordable housing arrangements in the West Dapto area. A part of that money was spent on infrastructure—I applaud the Wollongong council for building that infrastructure—and road infrastructure to open up some rural land to housing development. But in excess of $9.5 million has not been spent in the five years since then, at the same time as housing affordability is going down, homelessness is going up and the dream of renting a house, let alone buying a house, is now increasingly out of the reach of people who are desperately in need of housing.</para>
<para>I am calling on the Wollongong City Council to meet immediately with me, the community and social housing providers throughout the Illawarra to agree a plan for the utilisation and the release of those funds. There should be no obstacle to doing this. What is quite clear through this bill before the House and the absence of other proposals to deal with affordable housing and social housing is the government is so wracked by division, so without an idea, so clueless on how to deal with the big issues facing our country that it has not got a plan. But that is no excuse for the local representatives not getting their act together to spend the money that has already been allocated.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I commend the member for Whitlam on his speech and for underscoring those absolutely shocking figures about the nature of homelessness in this country, particularly for children. Equally shocking is the fact that three out of five people who seek help for homelessness are women. Homelessness for women looks like couch surfing. It looks like cycling through shelters, it looks like staying in cheap motels and it looks like living in poverty in private rental. It looks like moving from the homes of relatives to the homes of relatives to the homes of friends, often with children in tow. Homelessness for older women—those over the age of 55—is becoming an increasing problem and is one of our most rapidly growing issues.</para>
<para>Women are more likely to be at risk of homelessness because of inherent financial disadvantage and inequity. For many of these women, homelessness is a case of their income not being sufficient to pay rent. I have so many conversations with women around Canberra who are terrified about their future and who are terrified about their retirement: they're on modest incomes; invariably, they're divorced; they've got very little in the way of super; and they're in the private rental market. They are facing a very bleak retirement future. They know that they are facing a bleak retirement future because of the fact that they are potentially going into a private rental market on the pension. I have so many women coming to me and talking about this issue, and they are invariably in tears.</para>
<para>These women are more than likely to be in casual and low-paid employment. They would have lower superannuation and savings due to time out of the workforce caring for children or other family members. Some will even have been subject to family violence, a significant compounding effect and major driver of women's homelessness. Elements of this bill will entrench poverty for women who may be recipients of income support and who are at risk of, or who are, experiencing homelessness.</para>
<para>At the moment, some social housing tenants are also income support recipients. They can choose to have a portion of their fortnightly payments withheld and paid directly to a housing provider to cover rent and some bills, like utilities. This is the Rent Deduction Scheme, where participation is voluntary, used by 86 per cent of public and social housing tenants. The Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme proposed in this bill will replace the existing voluntary Rent Deduction Scheme and will apply to everyone, not just to those people who are in arrears and at risk of homelessness. It includes pensioners, it includes people on the disability support pension and it includes those on carer payments. It will capture people who have paid their rent responsibly for years and decades.</para>
<para>In its current form, the Compulsory Rent Deduction Scheme risks tenants being forced into serious financial hardship by not having a choice about where discretionary amounts of their Centrelink payment may be directed. Housing stress occurs where more than 30 per cent of a person's net income is spent on housing. It's possible that without amendments to include a capped amount, the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme outlined in this bill could apply a higher percentage than 30 per cent to people who are already doing it tough—people who are already experiencing disadvantage. Without a limit on the amount of deductions there is the potential for people to be left with nothing to live on—absolutely nothing to live on.</para>
<para>Key organisations in Australia's welfare sector are opposed to this current version of the bill. They argue that most income recipients are quite capable of managing their limited finances without outside help and intervention. The one-size-fits-all approach outlined in the bill could have negative consequences for people, including undermining their responsibility for managing their finances and their ability to do so. And they argue the fact that the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme is punitive and likely to do more damage than good.</para>
<para>In their submissions to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee's consideration of the bill, a majority of welfare organisations argued that the proposed Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme is unnecessary and unjustified when the national rent collection rates for social housing and the low number of evictions due to rental arrears are taken into account. Over the five years leading to the committee's review of the bill from 2011-2012 to 2015-2016, the national rent collection rates averaged 99.4 per cent for public housing, 99.2 per cent for community housing and 99.2 per cent for state owned and managed Indigenous housing. Fewer than three in every 1,000 social housing tenants are evicted in any one year.</para>
<para>With rent collection rates averaging these kinds of returns, it looks like the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme is a solution looking for a problem. The problem the government appears to address is the social housing system's bottom line. According to the government, the solution is having certainty of rental income that can then be reinvested in social housing stock. But there's a hitch to this plan: there is no guarantee that state and territory governments would choose to invest the increased rental revenue in social housing rather than allocating it towards some other purpose. If the government were serious about addressing homelessness, it would take action to improve mental health services, provide more assistance for women leaving situations of domestic violence and ensure that vulnerable Australians had affordable housing options. Labor takes a holistic approach to the issue of homelessness, ensuring all causes of homelessness and housing insecurity are addressed, not just the rental arrears of a small number of social housing tenants. We're talking about average national rent collection rates of 99.4 per cent for public housing, 99.2 per cent for community housing and 99.2 per cent for state owned and managed Indigenous housing.</para>
<para>In 2008, the Labor government consulted widely on the issue of homelessness to identify ways to address and reduce homelessness in the longer term. After an extensive consultation process, the Labor government developed a new, whole-of-government approach that would demonstrate national leadership; focus strongly on prevention and early intervention; provide support for homeless Australians, leading to increased social and economic participation; encourage closer collaboration between services used by people vulnerable to homelessness; increase access to safe, affordable housing linked to appropriate support services; and, recognising the complexity of homelessness, address the needs of different groups within the homeless population, including families with children, young people, Indigenous people, older adults, and women and children leaving domestic or family violence. Labor's white paper, <inline font-style="italic">The road home: a national ap</inline><inline font-style="italic">proach to reducing homelessness</inline>, set out Labor's vision at the time: an ambitious target to halve homelessness by 2020 and offer supported accommodation to all rough sleepers who needed it. Interim targets were set for 2013 to ensure the government stayed on track. But, since the coalition has been in government, all movement to reduce homelessness has absolutely stalled. On any given night in Australia, one in 200 people are homeless. Homelessness in Australia increased by 14 per cent from 2011 to 2016, outpacing population growth and outstripping housing supply. In the same period, rough sleeping increased by 20 per cent, the number of people living in overcrowded accommodation increased by 23 per cent, demand for homelessness services increased by 22 per cent and there was a 28 per cent increase in the number of Australians aged 55 and over who experience homelessness.</para>
<para>Despite having one of Australia's most affluent populations and being the seat of federal government, the ACT is not immune to housing shortages and homelessness. In 2016, the ACT Council of Social Service produced a book that highlighted the issues of housing affordability and homelessness in our city. It included the stories of 12 Canberrans who have experienced housing stress or homelessness. There's Gary's story. He went from a happy home on a property to sleeping in cars around the lake following a relationship breakdown. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I don't think anyone wants to be living or sleeping on a concrete floor. It's hard getting housing in Canberra. Because there are many public servants and university students there is a lot of competition. All of the small houses are taken up by students. None of it is affordable to someone like me that only gets $500 a fortnight on Newstart.</para></quote>
<para>And we heard about those challenges in the speech by the member for Whitlam.</para>
<para>There's also Trish's experience. After escaping family violence, she was told not to bother with real estate agents, and she now lives in a house without heating or room for her son to play. She said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If I could speak to a politician I'd say "wake up, you probably have never experienced problems with housing but a lot of us have and it's just getting worse. Something needs to get started".</para></quote>
<para>The issue of older women in our community facing housing stress and homelessness is really brought home by Penny, whose experiences have led her to advocate and fight for older women in public housing. This, as I said, is a significant issue. Every time I speak about family violence, about domestic violence, about the issue of homelessness, about the inequity that women face in Australia today, I always have older women come up to me at the end of the speech, as I mentioned before, in tears. They say to me: 'You are talking about me when you talk about homelessness. That is me staring down that bleak retirement future. I've got very little super. I'm in the private rental market. I'm between 55 and 65 and I'm still working, but I'm on a modest income. I'm divorced and I brought up the kids on my own, and here I am facing a very bleak future on the pension.' They are terrified. They are terrified about their future prospects. This is really brought home by these words of Penny:</para>
<quote><para class="block">A tragedy of commons has led me to where I am now. No secure, affordable, appropriate place to call home, now or in the foreseeable future. Housing as far as I'm concerned is a basic human right. As a person with a disability I am unable to obtain full-time employment. Part-time employment is possible, however this requires willingness on the part of employers to employ me. Therefore I rely on part-pensions to financially survive. In combination with an inequitable financial settlement in my mid 40s I am now relegated to one of the growing number of OWLS (Older Women Lost in Housing).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The housing situation here is at crisis point. I couldn't afford private rent, and real estate agents are unwilling to rent to someone on a pension. High rents and short-term tenancies prohibit my access to private rentals.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The lack of public housing is an impediment to my right to secure, affordable, appropriate housing. So I have rented rooms and moved from a friend's place to where I am now. At one point I had nowhere to go. It was overwhelming and embarrassing for me. I didn't have the financial ability to pay private rent in combination with the lack of places available. I had applied for affordable housing but didn't earn enough to be eligible.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I was shocked to realise that I was actually homeless. I was almost dazed thinking, how did I get to this point?</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I now rent a room at an acquaintance's rented house. The house is not suitable for the nature of my disability. It is a tenuous and precarious living arrangement.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I don't think of the future—without secure housing, that is a luxury. The uncertainty of my housing situation is overwhelming, so I don't think about it.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I have established OWLs as an advocacy effort to raise awareness of the extent and the issues that contribute to older women being lost in housing. My story is not unique—</para></quote>
<para>and I know that, Penny—</para>
<quote><para class="block">I have spoken to many women who are in a similar circumstance regarding housing.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">These women are hidden and underrepresented. It is my hope that government, community, businesses and organisations collaborate in finding housing options that are secure, affordable and appropriate for OWLs.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Home is the key to a safe place. From where we can as individuals continue to build and strengthen Australian communities with our skills, experience, knowledge and connections.</para></quote>
<para>These experiences of people in my community are tragic and they fill me with absolute anger. The failure of this government to treat housing and homelessness with the importance it deserves has only served to widen intergenerational inequality and disadvantage. This government doesn't have a housing minister. It doesn't have a housing strategy. The member for Sydney was the housing minister and released the national strategy to reduce homelessness—our white paper—in 2008 and showed her commitment, Labor's commitment, to the strategy when Labor was last in government. Our commitment to addressing housing affordability and homelessness has not wavered.</para>
<para>Just last week, Labor committed to a number of recommendations from the Community Housing Industry Association's National Plan for Affordable Housing, including the appointment of a federal housing minister and development of a long-term housing strategy if we were elected. It's clear that only Labor will address the housing and homelessness crisis, created by this government's policy vacuum and inaction, to ensure all Australians have access to stable and long-term housing.</para>
<para>Before I finish, I just want to welcome Ella Ezergailis, who is a year 6 student at Gowrie Primary School. She is here for the Girls Take Over Parliament program. She is on her SRC. She is deputy house captain. She is a very active girl guider. She is looking forward to going to Carolyn Chisholm School next year. I hope that, as a future leader, should she get to this place, that she is not discussing this tragic issue of homelessness in years to come.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to sum up this debate. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 introduces the framework for the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme, or ARDS, which enables rent and utilities to be deducted from income support payments and family tax benefit for occupants living in social housing. The bill also makes amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008, to streamline and simplify the administration of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, known as NRAS, until it ceases operation in 2026-27.</para>
<para>This bill introduces ARDS, a scheme to enable the automatic deduction of rent and utilities from public and community housing tenants' social security or family tax benefit payments. The primary objective of ARDS is to reduce the risk of homelessness for social housing tenants, particularly those in serious rental arrears who could face eviction or housing abandonment. It will support existing tenancy management processes in states and territories.</para>
<para>Households living in social housing with severe rental arrears, including families with children, can face eviction. Social housing is generally the most affordable housing option available for these families. If they are evicted, they can end up in specialist homelessness services, staying with family or friends or sleeping rough. This is a terrible circumstance for the individuals and families involved and can lead to long-term homelessness. It also contributes to additional costs for governments and puts extra pressure on community service providers. States and territories estimate that, nationally, their liability for the social housing system from unpaid social housing and related administrative costs exceeds $30 million each year.</para>
<para>This bill takes a significant step to ensure stable rental income streams for social housing providers. This will lead to a more efficient social housing system. ARDS will also address the nonpayment of rent, which can lead to evictions and homelessness among Australia's social housing tenants, by providing a means to pay their rent regularly. ARDS builds on the current voluntary rent deduction scheme by ensuring that social housing providers receive rent from tenants and other household members on time, in particular from those who consistently fail to pay. ARDS will work alongside other available supports to ensure that tenants and other household members continue to be housed safely and affordably while they get the help they need to sustain their tenancies.</para>
<para>The government committed to implement a compulsory rent deduction scheme for social housing welfare recipients in the 2016-17 budget, following a request from state and territory governments. ARDS was scheduled to be available from the first half of 2018, pending passage of the bill that was introduced in the House of Representatives on 14 September 2017, by the former minister, now the Attorney-General. On 19 October 2017, the Senate referred the bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. The committee made a number of recommendations, which the government has considered in consultation with participating states and territories. The government has amended the bill to take account of the issues raised by the committee. ARDS will begin on 1 January 2019, if legislation passes the parliament.</para>
<para>The bill provides additional protection for tenants. As a precondition for participation for the scheme, the minister responsible for housing in the relevant state or territory must write to the Commonwealth minister for families and social services and set out the social housing policies of the state or territory. This will include information on how their policies apply limits to the amount that tenants can be charged and how tenants are protected from financial hardship. These letters may be published to ensure transparency.</para>
<para>ARDS deductions are limited to amounts for rent and household utilities only. Further, any arrears incurred due to suspension of an income support payment cannot be deducted from a single payment under ARDS when the payment recommences. Social housing tenants who are on income management, or the cashless debit card, will only have deductions for ARDS made from the income managed or restricted portion of their payments. These features reduce the likelihood of placing tenants in financial hardship.</para>
<para>The National Rental Affordability Scheme is established by the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008. In 2016, the Australian National Audit Office reported that the NRAS legislative framework is complex and unclear. The report noted that the 'regulations could be reviewed with the aim of simplifying and clarifying aspects of their operation'. NRAS stakeholders are of the same view. In December 2016, the Department of Social Services consulted with NRAS stakeholders to identify ways to improve the administration of NRAS and reduce the regulatory burden on approved participants. Over 30 submissions were received, with suggestions on how the regulations could be streamlined to support the efficient and effective administration of NRAS going forward. In its submission to the NRAS consultation paper in December 2016, the Commonwealth Ombudsman noted the need to improve transparency for investors in NRAS. The Ombudsman's submission also made recommendations on measures to strengthen the integrity and compliance of NRAS.</para>
<para>In January 2017, the Department of Social Services commenced a review of NRAS to address the concerns raised by the ANAO, the Ombudsman and NRAS stakeholders. On 15 July 2017, minor regulatory amendments came into effect to address areas of NRAS that imposed disproportionate penalties for noncompliance which led to outcomes that were inconsistent with the objects of NRAS. Further regulatory amendments were made on 18 November 2017 and 21 December 2017 to permit NRAS investors to request the transfer of an allocation in certain circumstances and to provide other protections to investors. The amendments introduced in this bill clarify ambiguous provisions in the NRAS Act relating to the power to make regulations and lay the foundation to strengthen and simplify the further operation and administration of NRAS.</para>
<para>The NRAS Act requires the NRAS regulations to prescribe that the rent charge for an approved rental dwelling must be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent 'at all times during the year'. The term 'at all times during the year' has been subject to conflicting interpretations. The first amendment supports the correct interpretation of this provision, which is that each time rent is charged it is to be at least 20 per cent less than the market rent. Some people interpreted it to mean the total rent charged across the year rather than each time rent is charged.</para>
<para>The NRAS Act requires the NRAS regulations to prescribe maximum vacancy periods for approved rental dwellings. The prescriptive nature of the current vacancy provisions has been amended to allow greater flexibility for the NRAS regulations to prescribe permitted vacancy periods. This flexibility will assist the future administration of NRAS should changes be required on how the maximum vacancy periods are to operate.</para>
<para>Two new provisions will be added to the NRAS Act to provide express legislative authority for the NRAS regulations to vary conditions of allocation and put it beyond doubt that conditions may be varied or imposed after an allocation has been made. These provisions will reduce the risk to the Commonwealth when varying or imposing new conditions on allocations.</para>
<para>The final amendment provides express legislative authority to transfer an allocation from one approved rental dwelling to another. The ability to substitute dwellings is crucial to achieving the object of NRAS, to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings. If an investor decides to leave NRAS, the ability to substitute a like-for-like dwelling ensures the level of NRAS housing stock is maintained.</para>
<para>The government is also making amendments to schedule 3 of the bill. The amendments put beyond doubt that NRAS can include protections for investors, including by requiring approved participants to pass on state and territory incentives to investors in certain circumstances. The amendments also confirm that NRAS can provide protections for NRAS investors and allow for the adjustment of incentives where an allocation has been transferred for cause at an investor's request.</para>
<para>NRAS relies on a number of the Commonwealth's legislative powers, and the amendments set out in these powers give the NRAS Act separate operation within the scope of each of these powers. The evidence given to the Senate inquiry suggested that there may be circumstances where, through inadvertence or oversight, a particular charge for rent may exceed the maximum rent that can be charged, which is 80 per cent of the market rent. The government's amendments permit NRAS to include a power for the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to grant an approved participant dispensation from an inadvertent breach of the 80 per cent rule in certain circumstances where the tenant has been fully compensated for the mistake.</para>
<para>While most approved participants in NRAS behave appropriately towards investors, a small number of approved participants do not do the right thing, and make life difficult for investors by not passing on incentives promptly and engaging in other undesirable conduct. The government's amendments will permit the Secretary of the Department of Social Services to accept an enforceable undertaking from an approved participant. Enforceable undertakings are a useful compliance tool currently used by a number of Australian government agencies. The inclusion of this tool as part of the NRAS Act will assist the Department of Social Services to take appropriate action to protect investors where necessary.</para>
<para>The government is committed to putting in place measures to reduce the risk of homelessness for social housing tenants and to reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. This bill will assist people living in social housing to maintain their tenancies and lays the foundation for improving the NRAS legislative framework to support the efficient administration of the NRAS until it ceases operation in 2026. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>18</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (38) on sheet EF123 and government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet LP104, as circulated, together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments (1) to (38) on sheet EF123 and government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet LP104, as circulated, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table items 2 to 7), omit the table items, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 15 to 22), omit:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to satisfy an ongoing or outstanding obligation of the social housing tenant for rent, household utilities or both; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to compensate for loss of, or damage to, property, arising as a result of the tenant's occupancy of premises let by the lessor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction to satisfy an ongoing or outstanding obligation of the social housing tenant for rent, household utilities or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 28) to page 5 (line 1), omit ", or loss of or damage to property arising as a result of occupancy of premises,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (line 24) to page 6 (line 7), omit subsection 124QC(1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) For the purposes of this Part, an authority of a State or Territory is a <inline font-style="italic">social housing lessor</inline> if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the authority provides social housing in the State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the authority has a written agreement with the Human Services Department relating to the authority's ability to request deductions under this Part; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a Minister of the relevant State or Territory has provided a letter or document to the Commonwealth Minister setting out the social housing policies of the State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">unless a determination made under subsection (2) applies in relation to the authority.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) For the purposes of this Part, a body is a <inline font-style="italic">social housing lessor</inline> if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the body provides social housing in a State or Territory; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the body:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) is approved to provide social housing by the State or Territory and the approval has been notified, in writing, to the Secretary; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) is registered as a community housing provider under a law of the State or Territory, and the registration has been notified, in writing, to the Secretary; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the body has a written agreement with the Human Services Department relating to the body's ability to request deductions under this Part; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) a Minister of the relevant State or Territory has provided a letter or document to the Commonwealth Minister setting out the social housing policies of the State or Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">unless a determination made under subsection (2) applies in relation to the body.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 11), at the end of section 124QC, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Commonwealth Minister may publish a letter or document provided by a Minister of a State or Territory setting out the social housing policies of the State or Territory on the Department's website.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) In this section:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Commonwealth Minister </inline>means the Minister responsible for administering this Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 24) to page 7 (line 17), omit subsection 124QF(1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction from a divertible welfare payment payable to a social housing tenant if both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the tenant has an ongoing or outstanding obligation to pay an amount for rent, household utilities, or both, in relation to the tenant's occupancy of premises let by the lessor;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the tenant's agreement with the lessor for occupancy of the premises, or another agreement with the lessor, authorises the lessor to make requests under this Part for deductions from divertible welfare payments payable to the tenant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 19), omit ", or the order was made,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 30 and 31), omit subparagraphs 124QF(3)(a)(iii) and (iv).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (line 25), at the end of paragraph 124QG(2)(b), add "; or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (after line 25), at the end of subsection 124QG(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the social housing tenant is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) all or part of the divertible welfare payment is a category E welfare payment, category H welfare payment, category I welfare payment, category P welfare payment, category Q welfare payment, category R welfare payment or category S welfare payment (all within the meaning of that Part); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the deductible portion under Division 5 of that Part is nil; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the social housing tenant is a trial participant or voluntary participant (within the meaning of Part 3D); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) all or part of the divertible welfare payment is a restrictable payment (within the meaning of that Part); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the tenant's percentage of the payment that is the restricted portion under paragraph 124PJ(1)(a) or subsection 124PJ(2) is 0%.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (lines 6 to 11), omit subsection 124QG(5), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) If a divertible welfare payment payable to a social housing tenant is suspended under this Act but such payments subsequently resume, the Secretary:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) may deduct any amounts that would otherwise have been deducted under this Part during the period of suspension from payments paid to the tenant after the suspension ends; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) must make any deduction from more than one payment paid to the tenant after the suspension ends.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (line 18), omit "either", substitute "any".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (line 23), at the end of paragraph 124QH(2)(b), add ";".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 23), at the end of subsection 124QH(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the amount worked out under subsection (3) or (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, item 8, page 9 (after line 23), at the end of section 124QH, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Income management regime</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the social housing tenant is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all or part of the divertible welfare payment is a category E welfare payment, category H welfare payment, category I welfare payment, category P welfare payment, category Q welfare payment, category R welfare payment or category S welfare payment (all within the meaning of that Part);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the amount is the amount that would be the deductible portion, under Division 5 of that Part, of the divertible welfare payment or part (as the case requires) if no deduction was made under section 124QG from the divertible welfare payment or part (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Cashless welfare arrangements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the social housing tenant is a trial participant or voluntary participant (within the meaning of Part 3D); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) all or part of the divertible welfare payment is a restrictable payment (within the meaning of that Part);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the amount is the amount equal to the tenant's percentage under paragraph 124PJ(1)(a) or subsection 124PJ(2) of the divertible welfare payment or part (as the case requires).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 2, item 5, page 18 (lines 8 to 15), omit:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) to satisfy an ongoing or outstanding obligation of the social housing tenant for rent, household utilities or both; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) to compensate for loss of, or damage to, property, arising as a result of the tenant's occupancy of premises let by the lessor.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction to satisfy an ongoing or outstanding obligation of the social housing tenant for rent, household utilities or both.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 2, item 5, page 18 (lines 21 and 22), omit ", or loss of or damage to property arising as a result of occupancy of premises,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 2, item 5, page 19 (lines 3 to 28), omit subsection 67D(1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) A social housing lessor may request the Secretary to make a deduction from family tax benefit (other than family tax benefit advance), whether an instalment or other payment, payable to a social housing tenant if both of the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the tenant has an ongoing or outstanding obligation to pay an amount for rent, household utilities, or both, in relation to the tenant's occupancy of premises let by the lessor;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the tenant's agreement with the lessor for occupancy of the premises, or another agreement with the lessor, authorises the lessor to make requests under this Part for deductions from family tax benefit payable to the tenant.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 2, item 5, page 19 (line 30), omit ", or the order was made,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 2, item 5, page 20 (lines 8 and 9), omit subparagraphs 67D(3)(a)(iii) and (iv).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (line 5), at the end of paragraph 67E(2)(b), add "; or".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (after line 5), at the end of subsection 67E(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the social housing tenant is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the deductible portion under Division 5 of that Part is nil; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the social housing tenant is a trial participant or voluntary participant (within the meaning of Part 3D of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</inline>); and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the tenant's percentage of the restricted portion under paragraph 124PJ(1)(a) or subsection 124PJ(2) of that Act is 0%.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (line 21), omit "either", substitute "any".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (line 26), at the end of subsection 67F(2), add ";".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (after line 26), at the end of subsection 67F(2), add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the amount worked out under subsection (3) or (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Schedule 2, item 5, page 21 (after line 26), at the end of section 67F, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Income management regime</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) If the social housing tenant is subject to the income management regime (within the meaning of Part 3B of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</inline>), then the amount is the amount that would be the deductible portion, under Division 5 of that Part, of the family tax benefit if no deduction was made under section 67E of this Act from the family tax benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Cashless welfare arrangements</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) If the social housing tenant is a trial participant or voluntary participant (within the meaning of Part 3D of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security (Administration) Act 1999</inline>), then the amount is the amount equal to the tenant's percentage under paragraph 124PJ(1)(a) or subsection 124PJ(2) of that Actof the family tax benefit.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1A Section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Before "The", insert "(1)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1B At the end of section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The object of this Act is to be achieved in ways that include:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) protecting tenants of rental dwellings covered by allocations; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) protecting investors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) providing rights to investors; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) recognising the contributions, in cash or in kind, made by States and Territories to participants in the Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), after proposed item 1B, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1C After section 3</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3A Severability</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Additional and severable operation of Act and tax law provisions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Without limiting the effect of this Act or the tax law provisions apart from this section, this Act and the tax law provisions also have effect as provided by this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) To avoid doubt, none of the following subsections of this section limit the operation of any other subsection of this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">External affairs</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) This Act and the tax law provisions have the effect they would have if their operation were expressly confined to give effect to Australia's rights and obligations under paragraph 1 of Article 2 and Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966, as in force for Australia from time to time.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is in Australian Treaty Series 1976 No. 5 ([1976] ATS 5) and could in 2018 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (http://www.austlii.edu.au).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Corporations</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) This Act and the tax law provisions have the effect they would have if their operation were expressly confined to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the regulation of activities, functions, relationships or business of an investor or approved participant that is a constitutional corporation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the creation of rights or privileges belonging to an investor or approved participant that is a constitutional corporation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the imposition of obligations on an investor or approved participant that is a constitutional corporation;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) in respect of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c), the regulation of the conduct of persons or entities through which the constitutional corporation acts;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(e) the regulation of persons or entities whose conduct affects or is capable of affecting the activities, functions, relationships or business of an investor or an approved participant that is a constitutional corporation.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Taxation</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) This Act and the tax law provisions have the effect they would have if their operation were expressly confined to determining the tax liability of a person.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Territories</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) This Act and the tax law provisions have the effect they would have if their operation were expressly confined to apply in relation to the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a rental dwelling that is located in a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an approved participant or investor who is a resident of a Territory;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) an approved participant or investor that is:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) a body corporate that is incorporated in a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a body corporate that is taken to be registered in a Territory under section 119A of the <inline font-style="italic">Corporations Act 2001</inline>; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a trust, if the proper law of the trust and the law of the trust's administration are the law of a Territory; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) an entity, the core or routine activities of which are carried out in or in connection with a Territory.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), after proposed item 1C, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1D Section 4 (definition of <inline font-style="italic">allocation</inline> )</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "an approved rental", substitute "a rental".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1E Section 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">constitutional corporation</inline> means a corporation to which paragraph 51(xx) of the Constitution applies.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">investor</inline>, in relation to a rental dwelling covered by an allocation, means a person:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) who is the legal or beneficial owner of the rental dwelling; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) who is not an approved participant in relation to the rental dwelling.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">tax law provisions</inline> means the following provisions of the <inline font-style="italic">Income Tax Assessment Act 1997</inline>:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) item 23 of the table in section 67‑23;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) Division 380.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), after proposed item 1E, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1F Paragraph 5(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraph, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the obligations of participants that have been approved by the Secretary (<inline font-style="italic">approved participants</inline>);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(31) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), after proposed item 1F, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1G After paragraph 6(c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ca) the adjustment, in certain circumstances, of the amount of an incentive that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) is to be provided to an approved participant; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) has previously been provided to an approved participant;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1H Paragraph 6(d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">After "dwelling", insert "covered by an allocation".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1J Before paragraph 6(d)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(cb) the passing on of contributions made by States and Territories, or their monetary equivalent, by approved participants in certain circumstances;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1K At the end of section 6</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">; (e) the protection of tenants of rental dwellings covered by allocations;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(f) the protection of investors;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(g) the rights of investors.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(32) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 4), after proposed item 1K, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1L Before subsection 7(2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conditions imposed by Secretary under the Scheme</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) Schedule 3, item 3, page 27 (lines 16 to 24), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 At the end of section 7</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(i) may provide for the Secretary to make a legislative instrument prescribing matters relating to the income of a tenant or tenants.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Condition disapplied by Secretary under the Scheme</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The National Rental Affordability Scheme may provide that, in certain circumstances, the Secretary may decide that the condition mentioned in subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) does not apply if the Secretary is satisfied that the Secretary's decision will not result in an increase in rental costs for low and moderate income households.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Conditions varied or imposed directly by Scheme</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Without limiting paragraph 8(a), the National Rental Affordability Scheme may:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) vary a condition of an allocation (other than a condition mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or subparagraph (2)(b)(ii)) or impose a condition of an allocation; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) set out the circumstances (if any) in which the condition is varied or imposed.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The condition is varied or imposed accordingly by force of this subsection.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection (6) has effect despite anything in this Act or the National Rental Affordability Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) Schedule 3, item 4, page 27 (lines 25 to 28), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 After paragraph 8(b)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(ba) the transfer of all allocations made to an approved participant to another approved participant or other approved participants in certain circumstances;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(bb) the transfer of an allocation to another rental dwelling in certain circumstances;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 28), after item 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4A After section 10</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10A Acceptance of undertakings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Secretary may accept a written undertaking given by an approved participant in relation to the National Rental Affordability Scheme.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) The undertaking must be expressed to be an undertaking under this section.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) The approved participant may withdraw or vary the undertaking at any time, but only with the written consent of the Secretary.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The consent of the Secretary is not a legislative instrument.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The Secretary may, by written notice given to the approved participant, cancel the undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10B Enforcement of undertakings</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Secretary may apply to the Federal Court of Australia for an order under subsection (2) if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an approved participant has given an undertaking under section 10A; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the undertaking has not been withdrawn or cancelled; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the Secretary considers that the approved participant has breached the undertaking.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) If the Federal Court of Australia is satisfied that the approved participant has breached the undertaking, the Court may make any or all of the following orders:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) an order directing the approved participant to comply with the undertaking;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) an order directing the approved participant to pay to the Commonwealth an amount up to the amount of any financial benefit that the approved participant has obtained directly or indirectly and that is reasonably attributable to the breach;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) any order that the Court considers appropriate directing the approved participant to compensate any other person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of the breach;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) any other order that the Court considers appropriate.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) Schedule 3, page 27 (after line 28), after proposed item 4A, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4B Subsection 11(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subsection, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) The Secretary may, by written instrument, delegate the Secretary's power to approve a rental dwelling for the purposes of the National Rental Affordability Scheme to an SES employee in the Department.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Schedule 3, item 5, page 28 (lines 1 to 4), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Application</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Paragraph 5(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as substituted by item 1F of this Schedule, applies to an obligation that arose before, or arises on or after, the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Paragraph 6(ca) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as inserted by item 1G of this Schedule, applies to an incentive provided before, on or after the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Paragraph 6(cb) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as inserted by item 1J of this Schedule, applies to a contribution made by a State or Territory before, on or after the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Paragraphs 6(f) and (g) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as inserted by item 1K of this Schedule, apply in relation to an investor, whether the person becomes an investor before, on or after the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsections 7(4), (5), (6) and (7) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as inserted by item 3 of this Schedule, apply in relation to an allocation that exists on the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Paragraphs 8(ba) and (bb) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, as inserted by item 4 of this Schedule, apply in relation to an allocation that exists on the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) Schedule 3, page 28 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Transitional—variation of condition relating to charges of rent</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) This item applies in relation to an allocation that exists on the day this item commences.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Despite paragraph 7(6)(a) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline>, the National Rental Affordability Scheme may vary the condition of the allocation mentioned in subparagraph 7(2)(b)(ii) of that Act for the purposes of the amendment made by item 1 of this Schedule. The condition is varied accordingly by force of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Transitional—delegation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">An instrument made under subsection 11(1) of the <inline font-style="italic">National Rental Affordability Scheme Act 2008</inline> that is in force immediately before the day this item commences, continues in force (and may be dealt with) as if it had been made under subsection 11(1) of that Act as amended by this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, items 2 and 3, page 3 (lines 6 to 11), omit the items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 14), after item 4, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4A Paragraphs 123XI(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4B Paragraphs 123XJ(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4C Paragraphs 123XJA(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4D Paragraphs 123XJB(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4E Paragraphs 123XJC(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4F Paragraphs 123XJD(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4G Paragraphs 123XK(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4H Paragraphs 123XL(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4J Paragraphs 123XM(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category Q welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4K Paragraphs 123XN(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category Q welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4L Paragraphs 123XO(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category S welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4M Paragraphs 123XP(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category S welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4N Paragraphs 123XPAA(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4P Paragraphs 123XPAB(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4Q Paragraphs 123XPA(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the instalment of category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the instalment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the instalment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the instalment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4R Paragraphs 123XPB(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the category I welfare payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4S Paragraphs 123XPC(3 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the economic security strategy payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4T Paragraphs 123XPD(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the household stimulus payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4U Paragraphs 123XPG(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the relocation scholarship payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4V Paragraphs 123XPJ(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4W Paragraphs 123XPK(2 )( b) and (c)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if Part 3E of this Act or Part 3A of the Family Assistance Administration Act (both dealing with automatic deductions of rent or other household payments) applies in relation to the person and the payment—an amount equal to so much of the deductible portion of the payment as remains after a deduction is made from that portion of the payment under:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) section 124QG of this Act; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) section 67E of the Family Assistance Administration Act;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iv) the person's income management account;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—an amount equal to the deductible portion of the payment is credited to:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the Income Management Record; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person's income management account.</para></quote>
<para>I indicate that I have already, in my second reading speech, run through the rationale for the amendments.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will address the issues around NRAS and then talk about the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme and the amendments that have been moved. In relation to the amendments to the section of the bill that deals with the National Rental Affordability Scheme, Labor has been advocating on behalf of NRAS investors for more than 12 months, when issues about the conduct of a small number of approved participants in the scheme were first raised. Labor has written to Minister Tehan and Minister Fletcher on numerous occasions and has consistently raised concerns in Senate estimates about the need for additional protections and about the government's frustratingly slow response. Labor welcomes the fact that the government is finally acting on Labor's concerns and will support the proposed changes to NRAS.</para>
<para>The amendments moved by the government in relation to the Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme address some of the concerns raised by Labor, but they do not address our fundamental concerns. The amendments before the House in general improve the bill. This includes ensuring that deductions are taken out of a quarantined portion of a payment for people on income management or cashless debit card programs. This is important, as it will make sure that people are not left in a situation where they have no access to cash.</para>
<para>The amendment to remove property damage from automatic deductions is critically important. Too often, women who are victims of domestic violence are left with a damaged house—damage that they did not create. It would be completely unacceptable for housing providers to be permitted to dock a person's pay in this situation. That would put women in incredibly difficult situations. The government has also agreed to an amendment that will stop arrears from being deducted from a single payment. While this is an improvement, it does not go far enough. A cap on the portion of a payment that can be deducted is needed.</para>
<para>Labor is concerned about an amendment that would allow the agreement of a tenant for inclusion in an automatic rent deduction to be in a non-written form. We have sought clarification from the minister's office on how this will work. This will be further considered in the Senate, but it must be recognised that public and social housing tenants are not in a powerful position. They are likely to agree to almost anything that will keep a roof over their heads. That is why it's incumbent on the parliament to make sure that a provision like this will operate fairly with due process.</para>
<para>In the Senate, Labor will be moving amendments to address the fundamental deficiencies in this bill. Our amendments will ensure that only people who are in arrears and at risk of homelessness can be included in the scheme. The rental payment rate for social and public housing is well over 99 per cent. There's no need to include pensioners and other social security and family tax benefit recipients who have always paid their rent on time for many years. We want to cap the portion of a payment that can be automatically be deducted to 30 per cent, to avoid people being put into housing stress. We want to make participation in the scheme temporary. It should be temporary, as a last resort measure to prevent homelessness, not the standard method of rent collection. We also want to make sure that tenants are properly informed about changes.</para>
<para>Labor will support the minister's amendments, but we do not support the automatic rental deduction system in its proposed form. We are calling on the government to accept Labor's additional proposed amendments and not hold this bill up, or to at least split the bill so that the NRAS component can be dealt with quickly. Labor cannot support an Automatic Rent Deduction Scheme in the Senate without the safeguards we have called for. Such a scheme needs to be about preventing homelessness; it should not be a standard way of collecting rent, not when the rental payment rate for public and community housing is over 99 per cent, and 86 per cent of tenants are already committed to a voluntary rental deduction scheme.</para>
<para>But to reiterate, Labor will be supporting the amendments as proposed by Minister Fletcher in the House and will obviously move some amendments in the Senate to address the issues that are still outstanding. I do want to put on record that we have had good discussion with the minister's office and it's been a very collaborative and helpful process.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>31</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, Economics Committee</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Membership</title>
            <page.no>31</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>M3E</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker has received advice from Ms Banks resigning as a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Economics.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That Ms Banks be discharged from the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and the Standing Committee on Economics.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>31</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>31</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6048" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>31</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I begin my comments on this very important piece of legislation by noting that the government has removed all its speakers from the speaking list on this legislation. I'm not quite sure why the government has taken that view but I did want to put on record that that is exactly what has happened. Labor has, I think, about five speakers, and we'll be pursuing our list, but I make the point that the government clearly is not.</para>
<para>Labor would never have proposed this bill. We think it is very important that the pathway to citizenship is welcoming; however, we are not in government and we have to deal with what is presented to us. And in the context of uncertainty, and the very substantial impacts that the government's four-year waiting periods would have, we could not leave this to One Nation and the Senate crossbench to decide.</para>
<para>Labor has secured significant improvements to the government's original bill. These improvements will protect vulnerable new residents, families and, importantly, children. We acknowledge that these improvements will not address all of our concerns with the government's bill, but what we have attempted to do in securing these improvements is protect vulnerable families from the government's bill being introduced in its entirety. The government originally proposed an increase to the newly arrived residents' waiting periods for social security payments and introduced waiting periods for family tax benefit, paid parental leave and dad and partner pay to four years. This would have caused significant hardship for thousands of vulnerable individuals, families and children. The government's four-year waiting period would have impacted on family tax benefits for 66,000 families and 144,000 children and on 47,000 individuals for other payments.</para>
<para>In engaging the government on this bill and in pursuing these improvements, we have not only secured substantial reductions in the proposed wait times but prevented the content of this bill from being shaped by the crossbench in the Senate. We have been pragmatic, and it has been a very difficult exercise. As I said, Labor would never, never have introduced this bill. As a result of Labor's negotiations with the government, the number of families and children who have been impacted by the government's family tax benefit waiting period has now been reduced to around three-quarters, and the number of people impacted by other changes will be nearly half. We have mitigated what would otherwise have been a bill that would have delivered more pain. Labor has secured major and meaningful concessions, including: no waiting period for family tax benefit part B; no increase in the waiting period for carer payment; a one-year waiting period for family tax benefit part A, instead of a four-year period; a two-year waiting period for paid parental leave and dad and partner pay, which is what the current waiting period is; and New Zealanders, orphaned visa holders and remaining relative visa holders are excluded from the changes. These are important exemptions. We have expanded access to special benefits, when people's circumstances change, including in the case of domestic violence and family violence, in the case of job loss and in the case of death of sponsors. Exemptions to waiting periods for people who become lone parents will also remain. People on refugee and humanitarian visas will also remain exempted from these changes. These are important concessions.</para>
<para>All in all, Labor's amendments to this bill have ensured that 49,000 families and 107,000 children will be shielded from the family tax benefit waiting period each year and 21,000 people will be protected from waiting periods for other payments. These were not easy decisions. I repeat: these were not easy decisions. My colleagues in the Labor Party have worked incredibly hard to ensure that these exemptions and changes to the original harsh, harsh bill were made. Labor would never have proposed these extensions to resident waiting periods in the original bill or otherwise. We made these difficult decisions to protect those on the lowest incomes and families and children.</para>
<para>It would have been deeply irresponsible to oppose this bill outright only for it to be passed outright without being tempered. We could not in good conscience refuse to engage the government and allow the crossbench to determine policies for newly arrived residents. The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils said today that the federal opposition should be congratulated for securing changes to the government's Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-Sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018. The chairperson of FECCA, Mary Patetsos, said, 'These amendments will protect the most vulnerable new arrivals and their families from the new four-year waiting periods for benefits imposed by the federal government.' As I said, we could not in conscience allow One Nation and like-minded people to determine the outcomes of this bill.</para>
<para>We know it is important that new Australians show that they are able to support themselves financially while they settle in Australia. The vast majority of migrants quickly secure work and do not need to access social security, and that is a very important point to be made. The inquiry into this bill heard that the vast majority of recent migrants do not require access to the social security system. The Ethnic Communities' Council of Victoria told the committee that the workforce participation rate for migrants is 80 per cent, compared to 60 per cent for people who were born in Australia. Migrants are hardworking and committed new Australians. They make a wonderful contribution to the prosperity of the social fabric of Australia. Sometimes people's circumstances do change, and it is important to support people when this happens, which is why the special benefit component is so crucial to this bill. Labor will always work hard to ensure the best possible outcomes for vulnerable Australians and those who find themselves in difficult circumstances. Australians know Labor's record on protecting and maintaining the nation's social safety net. We have always fought for what is fair. We have fought tooth and nail the government's relentless and cruel attacks on the age pension. We have fought the government's attempts to cut Newstart and we will review the payment and how it can work better for Australians who are trying to find work. We have fought the government's cuts to Centrelink and held the government to account over pensioners and students who have been forced to wait months for their payments. Australians know that those vulnerable individuals, families and children will always be better off, will always receive a fairer go, under a Labor government.</para>
<para>In closing, I recognise everyone who has worked very hard on these amendments and on this bill. I particularly recognise my parliamentary colleagues on the Labor side, in particular the shadow Treasurer, for the work that has been done in negotiating with the government on trying to make this bill more palatable, to bring about less pain for those who would otherwise have been affected for four years. I believe that the exemptions and the position that we've gotten to vastly improve this bill, make it vastly better and mean it will affect many thousands fewer people than would otherwise have been affected by the harsh measures of this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the social services legislation amendment, rather euphemistically called 'Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants', bill 2018. This bill seeks to increase the waiting period associated with a number of social security safety nets for those who have come to this country as migrants. The title of this legislation is a complete misnomer. In my view it does not seek to encourage self-sufficiency but, rather, seeks to stigmatise those in our community who need a helping hand. In its original form the bill was completely draconian. I would like to congratulate our Labor executive team of the member for Barton and the member for McMahon, who've been able to modify some of the nastier elements of this legislation that will affect newly arrived migrants to this country.</para>
<para>It's worth pointing out that, according to the 2016 census, around 34 per cent of my community of Macarthur were born outside Australia. While I concede that the coalition government completely botched this census, I will share some of the data it uncovered. First of all, there were just over 4,000 respondents from Macarthur who were born in England, just over 4,000 who were born in New Zealand—they were the top responses for birthplaces other than Australia—1.4 per cent were born in Fiji, 2.1 per cent were born in India and 2.2 per cent were from the Philippines. My point is this: our nation has been built on migration from the very beginnings of white settlement in Australia. Indeed, we're one of the most successful multicultural societies in the world.</para>
<para>Elements of the media, those in the hard Right and some in the government would have you think we're experiencing mass migration to Australia, that these people are coming from parts of the world experiencing civil unrest and instability and that they're coming here to suck resources from the Australian economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The top two responses for people born outside Australia at the last census were that they came from New Zealand and England. I'd also add that the census responses for Macarthur indicated that just over 40 per cent of those surveyed had both of their parents born overseas.</para>
<para>Once again, I would reiterate that this country has been built on migration. Immigrants contribute to a vibrant and multicultural society. Indeed, the Macarthur community is made much, much richer through the contributions of our thriving Filipino community, our Bangladeshi community and people from all over the world. These people are Australians just like you and me. I'd add that I'm proud to represent them. Migrants have chosen Australia as their home, so in many ways they're even more attached to Australia and proud to be Australian than some people who were born here. Australians who were once migrants are actively contributing to my community of Macarthur.</para>
<para>Through this legislation, the newly arrived resident's waiting period for carers allowance, carer payments, youth allowance, Austudy, Newstart, sickness allowance, special benefit, bereavement allowance, widow allowance, parenting payment, mobility allowance, pension, education supplement, the healthcare card for low-income earners and the Commonwealth seniors health card will increase. Presently, from the day a migrant is issued a permanent visa, they have to wait for a period of two years before the newly arrived resident's waiting period is complete and they are eligible for governmental support. The legislation extends this period to three years. It is worth noting that this newly arrived resident's waiting period is applicable from the day residency is obtained, not from the day of arrival in Australia. So those people may wait even longer. Those with any experience in dealing with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will know that it can take quite some time to acquire permanent residency.</para>
<para>Those opposite were initially pursuing an extension of this to four years for the family assistance package, paid parental leave and partner leave. There presently exists no newly arrived resident's waiting period for the family assistance package, carer allowance, paid parental leave and partner leave, yet the government had been progressing a waiting period of four years. Should this legislation be passed, the changes to the newly arrived resident's waiting period will effectively be from 1 January 2019.</para>
<para>We on this side of the chamber would never have proposed such measures and we certainly could not have tolerated this proposed legislation if it had proceeded in its original form. The hardship that would have been inflicted on the most vulnerable in our society by the four-year waiting period being championed by those opposite would have been completely unjustifiable. I have major concerns as to how this will affect some of my patients who have severe disability whose parents are newly arrived migrants. Some of these children were born in Australia. No-one chooses to have a child with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, yet these people will be significantly affected by this new legislation. I think it is very unfair given the contribution that newly arrived migrants have made and continue to make to Australia. I'm very concerned about young families who have children with disabilities and how they are going to cope with these draconian waiting periods. This is not good legislation. It is targeting the most vulnerable and I think it is shameful.</para>
<para>I really do think that this right-wing, reactionary coalition government should be ashamed of itself for attempting to introduce the legislation in its original form. I think they should think very hard about this legislation in the future. I'm very concerned about the negative impact it will have on some of the most vulnerable people in my community. It's yet another example of those opposite failing in their ability to understand they are to represent all Australians. I'm trying to remember the last time this government was bold and chose to do the right thing for the most vulnerable. The coalition have tried to push through some of the most unfair changes to our citizenship laws through their years in government. Just because Australians, whether they were born here or have recently arrived, don't speak perfect English or seem to come from countries that the coalition is unfamiliar with, they should not be punished—and that's what's happening.</para>
<para>I really think that our social security system is designed to help the most vulnerable in our society, not to punish them. You wouldn't deny a toddler and their family access to subsidised child care or family tax benefits because they've only lived in Australia since they were born two or three years ago, so why deny someone access to support because they moved to Australia from overseas two or three years ago and yet want to contribute to this country?</para>
<para>It's unfair that any one person should paint migrants as a drain on our welfare system. Our statistics prove otherwise. I have to say that perhaps if the statistics were reversed there may be other elements at play and issues across our workplaces and in our communities that need addressing prior to severely limiting access to social security for some of the most vulnerable Australians. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have before us the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 and related legislation. The bill acts to increase the newly arrived resident's waiting period—the NARWP—which is the period of time that new Australian residents must wait before being entitled to claim certain benefits and concessions. Currently, there is a two-year waiting period for carer payment, youth allowance, Austudy payment, Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit bereavement allowance, widow allowance and parenting payment.</para>
<para>The government had originally proposed to increase these waiting periods to four years—four years, a wholly unreasonable period—and to increase four-year waiting periods for family assistance, the Paid Parental Leave scheme and dad and partner pay. Thankfully, following extensive negotiations with Labor, the government has agreed to reduce many of these proposed waiting times. However, let me make this clear: Labor would never have proposed this bill and the measures contained within this bill. And we certainly would not have countenanced the government's policy in its original form.</para>
<para>The application of across-the-board, four-year waiting periods for many permanent residents would cause too much hardship—hardship for vulnerable people, vulnerable families and children. But in agreeing not to oppose the significantly reduced waiting periods proposal put forward by the government we have been pragmatic, because the alternative was to leave the entirety of this proposal in the hands of the Senate crossbench and, of course, the One Nation party. It would be deeply irresponsible to allow that party—One Nation—to determine policy in this area. We've done this to ameliorate the harshness of these measures and to limit the impact of this change as much as possible.</para>
<para>We've also achieved the best outcome we possibly can to protect vulnerable people. Labor has secured major concessions to protect vulnerable people, families and children, including: no waiting period for family tax benefit part B; no increase in the waiting period for carer payment; a one-year waiting period for family tax benefit part A; a one-year waiting period for carer allowance; a two-year waiting period for paid parental leave and dad and partner pay; New Zealanders, orphan visa holders and remaining relative visa holders are excluded from these changes; and there is expanded access to special benefit when people's circumstances change, including, it should be noted, in the case of domestic and family violence. Importantly, exemptions to waiting periods for people who become lone parents will also remain, and people on refugee and humanitarian visas, as well as those who become citizens, are exempt from these changes.</para>
<para>The government's four-year waiting periods would have caused great hardship for thousands of families and their children. By securing these amendments, Labor has ensured that 49,000 families and 107,000 children will be protected from the family tax benefit waiting period each year, and that 21,000 people will avoid the impacts of waiting periods for other payments.</para>
<para>When the minister introduced this bill to the House in its original form back in February he said that the measures in the bill were designed to promote financial independence and self-sufficiency for newly arrived migrants. Of course, it is important that new Australian show that they can support themselves financially whilst they settle in Australia. Indeed, the experience is that most migrants quickly secure work and that they do not need to access social security. This is something that I've seen firsthand through the work of an organisation called The Tasmania Opportunity, TTO, in my electorate of Bass.</para>
<para>TTO is a community think tank based in Launceston. It is operating an 18-month pilot scheme called Refugee Employment Pathways, REP, to demonstrate the viability or otherwise of finding full-time employment for previously unemployed Afghan Hazara men in Northern Tasmania. TTO has consulted with the local Hazara community, the Tasmanian government, local councils, the agricultural and construction sectors, community groups and the migrant sector. It works, in my experience, in an open and collaborative manner. In its first nine months, Refugee Employment Pathways have successfully found agricultural employment for six men near Deloraine, a fantastic outcome that indicates such programs can be successful in securing employment for migrants.</para>
<para>This is important, because research indicates that there are five key areas for successful relocation of migrant communities into regional or rural areas—that is, housing, jobs, education services, health services and, most importantly, social inclusion. Once migrants have been supported through the early stages of their settlement journey, they are not only self-sufficient but contribute enormously to our economy and to our community. They do contribute. They add economically and they enrich our communities in many ways. However, we also know that life happens in its sometimes unpredictable ups and downs. People's circumstances can change, and it is important that support is available when that happens.</para>
<para>This conservative government—'liberal' in name only—has tried to make it harder for new Australians at every turn. They've tried to push through unfair changes to our citizenship and antidiscrimination laws. They also wanted to require new migrants to have university level English in order to gain citizenship. And now they were pushing for extended waiting periods for social support, despite there being little evidence that there is a sound public policy justification for this change. In order to reduce the impact of the government's proposed new resident waiting periods, Labor has agreed to support an amended version of this bill. These decisions have been made to protect those on lowest incomes, their families and their children. They're not easy decisions and Labor would not have proposed these extensions to resident waiting periods. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is an attack on multiculturalism. This bill, which is being rushed through in a dirty deal between Labor and Liberal, will make life hard for people who come to Australia through the usual processes and then, through no fault of their own, find themselves in hard times. This bill will create an underclass of migrants in this society and will result in second-class citizens who will now have to wait longer to get the kind of support that most people—other people in this country—are entitled to.</para>
<para>A press release was sent out by the government yesterday to justify this bill—a bill that they are now giving us 11 pages of amendments to, a bill that has been cooked up in the back room between Labor and Liberal—and now we're being asked to vote on it right here, right now, but they're circulating it without the revised explanatory memorandum to tell us what the impact of this bill will be on people. The government has deigned to give us a one-page press release about this bill that they want to rush through this parliament, this minority parliament where there should be extra scrutiny. Now they want to rush it through with the Labor opposition's support. What we do know according to that is that there will now be a four-year wait for people who come here through the usual approved processes to get things like Newstart, concession cards or low-income healthcare cards.</para>
<para>If what the government has set out is right and reflects the deal that has been done between Labor and the Liberals, it will mean this: someone who has come here on a skilled or a family visa—sometimes because they've got the promise of a job when they get here—will settle and expect they're going to be here for an extended period of time, and they start working. Let's say that all of a sudden their employer goes under. Let's say they get placed in administration. The business doesn't work out, so they haven't got a job. What happens to that person? If that person was an Australian citizen, they could go and get support until they get back on their feet to find a new job. Now, Newstart is not high enough—it's below the poverty line and it needs to be increased quickly—but at least it's something. You get a bit of support while you're out there looking for that new job. At the moment, people who come here on visas already have to wait a period before they can get support from the government. If I understand correctly what Labor and Liberal have done, given that we haven't got the time to scrutinise it properly—but if I take the government's press release at its word—a person who is in that situation, or a member of their family, now has to wait four years.</para>
<para>I see the opposition shaking their heads. Maybe they can explain why it is that the government has put out a press release saying that we're going to have a four-year waiting list and why it is that previous speakers from the opposition have said that this bill is heinous and shouldn't be supported. That's what they have stood up here and said. The last two speakers from the opposition stood up and said that this was an outrageous bill from the government that attacks people who come here seeking assistance after coming here to work and, through no fault of their own, might find themselves unemployed. They've said, 'Oh, we've wrung our hands, and we have to vote for some bad bits of the bill.' Well, you don't, Opposition. The clue's in your job title: opposition. Sometimes the thing to do is to stare down a bad government and tell them to go back to the drawing board, not to support them on cuts that are going to hurt people.</para>
<para>When this bill was looked at by the Senate committee inquiring into that, the one thing that shone through from pretty much all of the submissions was people saying there is absolutely no evidence that making people wait longer for forms of assistance is going to do anything to improve their chances of getting a job; all it is going to do is hurt them. And that stands to reason, because the research tells us that—say you've got qualifications or you've got skills from elsewhere—if you come to Australia from a non-English-speaking country, you are more than twice as likely to find yourself in a low-paid job than someone who comes here from an English-speaking country. That has led to us having—for example, in my electorate of Melbourne—reports of jumbo jet pilots who are driving taxis. When you get in a taxi, you often chat to your taxi driver, and you may find that they have a master's degree. They may well have been an accountant in their previous country; they just haven't been able to get their qualifications recognised here, and it has turned out to be difficult for them.</para>
<para>There are barriers that these people face. You would think that in many instances what they actually deserve is extra support should they find themselves unable to find employment. That's why in previous parliaments we negotiated a fund to assist migrant communities to find themselves jobs and to get their skills properly recognised. This government tore it down. That is part of the reason why we have higher unemployment and underemployment rates amongst people who've come here from non-English-speaking backgrounds or who have come here from migrant backgrounds.</para>
<para>What we need to be doing is tackling rising unemployment and underemployment amongst these particular groups so that we make sure that they know that Australia is a place where everyone has a place and saying, 'If you want to work, we as the parliament are bending over backwards to ensure that there are meaningful jobs that are available for you.' What we should not be doing is taking the stick to those people and saying, 'We are going to save a bit of money for the budget by making life harder for you by withdrawing some support from you.' Maybe it's good that the opposition has managed to negotiate with the government that the government's not going to punish people as hard as they would have before, but it still results in punishing people. This bill will still punish people who should be supported.</para>
<para>If it turns out that what the government has said in its press release does not reflect the deal that has been reached between Labor and the government, give us extra time to debate it. Don't come in here and give us 11 pages of amendments that are going to affect people's lives and potentially result in them being left with no government support at all after they've lost their job. Don't come in here and tell us that we've got to vote on this straightaway. Let's give extra time to consider it and let the sector look at all of these amendments and this new deal that has been done. If it's as good as the opposition says it is, give us time to scrutinise it. We are now back in a parliament where the government does not have a majority. We are in a parliament where the Australian people have said, 'We want greater scrutiny of what the old parties are doing because we don't always trust them.' One way of having that now would be to park this bill so that the sector can have a look at the deal that's been done and so that everyone in this parliament can have a look at the deal that's been done and the crossbench can scrutinise the deal that is being done. Asking us to vote on the basis of a press release and saying, 'Trust us; it'll all be okay,' asking us to vote for it when the last two Labor speakers have got up and talked about just how bad this bill is, is not the way this parliament should operate.</para>
<para>At some point we'll go back and have a look at the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline> of the last two speakers. I'm paraphrasing them and I don't intend to misrepresent them, but they said this is a bill that will punish people. They said this is a bill that is going to make life harder for people. Someone who was formerly a doctor said this is a bill that potentially would have made life tougher for his patients. If that is right, if I've accurately represented what they've said, that is not something we should be sitting here voting on today. So maybe we can have some more light shed on it at some point. I listened to all the speeches up until now and certainly it seems to me that the government seem to believe that they're going to make some savings out of this. And how do you make savings? You make savings out of giving people less support. That's how you make savings.</para>
<para>Who are the people who this is going to result in having to wait longer to access payments? They are people who have come to Australia of whom Australia has said, 'Yes, we want you here because of your skills or your family connection.' They are people who, once they are here and have been contributing, find themselves facing hard times. We should not turn our backs on those people. We should not be trying to save money by attacking multiculturalism. That divides Australia. Australia is a place where we say, 'When you are here, we are going to support you if you find yourself in hard times.' We do not think there should be a waiting list such that you go a period of time without your carers allowance, parental leave payment or dad and partner pay.</para>
<para>This is not a situation where we should be trying to save money and negotiating something that's less worse than it would otherwise have been. This is a situation where we should say to the government: 'Go back to the drawing board, because if what you want to do is improve the situation in the budget there are better ways of doing it. Let's start by making the likes of Gina Rinehart pay the same tax on her diesel fuel that everyone else in this country pays on their petrol.' At the moment, Australian taxpayers give her a rebate of a couple of billion dollars a year. Everyone else pays about 40c a litre in tax on their petrol; when Gina Rinehart puts diesel fuel into her trucks she pays that money and then gets a rebate on it. She gets a big refund cheque courtesy of the Australian taxpayer. She and the mining industry are able to come in here and write favourable tax concessions for themselves, and then we wonder why there's not enough money left in the budget. Well, if we need to find some money, let's go and ask people like that to pay their fair share of tax and wind back some of the unfair tax breaks.</para>
<para>If what they want to do is to improve the situation of newly arrived residents and migrants then let's find ways of doing that, perhaps by reinstating the fund that we negotiated in a previous minority parliament—and it was a very good thing that the Labor government then did—and putting money into a migrant communities employment fund so that people who are facing those barriers and who might find themselves out of work are able to get into good work and into good jobs. Let's do some of those things if that's what they want to do. But do not ask us to come in here and vote for a bill that was roundly slammed when it was subject to the Senate inquiry. And do not expect us to take on face value that the 11 pages of amendments that they've negotiated are going to make life better for people.</para>
<para>Maybe they will—maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick! Maybe this is the most fantastic thing for newly arrived migrants. Maybe I've misunderstood it all completely. But they can't blame us for saying no to this now when we got a press release yesterday and 11 pages of amendments circulated now, and they're just saying to us, 'Trust us, it'll all be okay.' Well, no. If this is about making life harder for people who we should be helping then, no, we cannot support this today.</para>
<para>Hopefully, as this bill progresses through the parliament the government and the opposition will agree to defer this today so that we can have time to scrutinise it. Hopefully, they will allow it to be looked at by the sector and by everyone who is going to be impacted by this so that they can understand whether or not this is a good deal. But if they're not going to do that, don't expect us to support it today. And expect it to be scrutinised heavily as this matter proceeds to the Senate. What we should be about is good legislation and good process. They could have, at least, deigned to circulate a revised explanatory memorandum to tell us about this deal. They couldn't even be bothered to do that, because they had done their deal and that was enough. We're not going to stand for that. Let's have proper scrutiny and let's make sure we are looking after people who need our assistance.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am pleased to sum up the second reading debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018.</para>
<para>The government is committed to making the sensible and responsible decisions required to return the budget to surplus and to keep welfare spending sustainable for future generations. This bill will contribute to this by encouraging those who are in a position to support themselves to do so and by better targeting assistance to those in need.</para>
<para>The bill contains amendments that will strengthen waiting periods for newly arrived migrants to access a range of welfare payments. It is reasonable to expect that people choosing to come to Australia on a skilled or family visa should be self-reliant during their initial settlement period. These migrants are well placed to support themselves and their families through work or support from family members already in Australia, and should not expect full and immediate entitlement to our generous welfare payments.</para>
<para>This bill will extend the existing two-year waiting period for certain working-age payments and concession cards, and will introduce a new waiting period to other payment types for the first time. These changes will reinforce expectations that new migrants should make plans to support both themselves and their families during their initial settlement period.</para>
<para>The current bill specifies that the extended and new waiting periods will be three years, as was announced in the 2017-18 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The government has circulated amendments that will increase the waiting period for working-age payments and concession cards to four years, in line with the subsequent announcement in the 2018-19 budget. This increase reflects the nature of these payments and capacity of skilled and family migrants. Those who come to Australia specifically to work or to be with family should not need to rely on working-age payments such as the Newstart allowance and parenting payment. The government has circulated amendments to retain the existing waiting period for the carer payment and reduce the length of the new waiting period for carer allowance, family tax benefit, parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay. These changes respond to concerns raised during the Senate committee inquiry process into the bill and reflect that these payments support particular needs and costs for eligible individuals and families. The new arrangements provide a more proportionate increase for payments which will have a waiting period introduced for the first time.</para>
<para>Importantly, under the government amendments, family tax benefit part B will not be subject to a waiting period. This means that single-parent migrant families, or those who have one main income earner, will continue to be supported to balance work and caring responsibilities, particularly when their children are younger. The government has circulated amendments that will exclude 'orphan relative' and 'remaining relative' visa holders from the changes to waiting periods. This recognises that these are often vulnerable young people who may be disproportionately disadvantaged if subject to increased waiting periods.</para>
<para>There will continue to be a comprehensive range of exemptions—and I emphasise that point in view of some of the comments that have been made during the debate—including for humanitarian entrants and their families, New Zealand citizens on a special category visa and people who experience a substantial change of circumstances and can no longer support themselves as planned. Migrants who experience a substantial change of circumstances will continue to be exempt from the waiting period for special benefit. The bill as introduced was intended to clarify and refine when a substantial change of circumstances could count for the exemption. To address concerns raised through the Senate committee inquiry process, the government will not proceed with those particular amendments. There will be no change to the exemption for substantial changes in circumstances. The existing exemption will remain in place and will continue to provide protection for those in Australia, including, for example, where a person who has applied for a temporary partner visa experiences a substantial change in circumstances, through access to special benefit. This provides certainty that there are no detrimental changes included in the legislation to the exemption for substantial changes in circumstances for special benefit.</para>
<para>The government has also circulated amendments to clarify the operation of the exemptions for family payments. These amendments will enable humanitarian entrants and other migrants who fall within an exemption category from day one to be exempt for the whole waiting period. For migrants who become exempt after the start of their waiting period, the exemption will apply from that point onwards. Inclusive of the government amendments, this bill strikes a balance between encouraging self-sufficiency for new migrants and maintaining a safety net through appropriate exemptions and exclusions.</para>
<para>The proposed amendments also incorporate new measures into this bill. Some of the measures were previously introduced to the parliament in other bills. These amendments include creating a simpler and fairer family assistance system by creating a consistent income test taper rate for family tax benefit part A for families with income above the higher income-free area. Instead of two different taper rates applying to different families with the same income, as currently occurs, a single 30c taper rate will apply. There will also be a one-off increase to the family tax benefit part A higher income-free area, bringing this amount to $98,988 from 1 July 2019.</para>
<para>Finally, the amendments will extend the existing indexation pauses first implemented under the previous government on higher income limits for family and parental leave payments for one further year until 30 June 2021. This will apply to the increased family tax benefit part A higher income-free area as well as the family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit and the paid parental leave pay and dad and partner pay income limits. Maintaining these higher income limits at their current levels will target government assistance to families that need it most. The changes reflected in the government amendments will create a family assistance system that is simpler and better targeted.</para>
<para>The government amendments circulated today will rename this bill the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018. This new title reflects the broader range of measures that will now be contained in the bill. These measures deliver on the government's ongoing commitment to a welfare payment system that promotes self-reliance, is targeted to those most in need and is fiscally sustainable into the future. I commend the bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>HK5</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that this bill be read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [11:39]<br />(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Kevin Andrews)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>96</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Banks, J</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Ellis, KM</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Falinski, J</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Hart, RA</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Husar, E</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Keay, JT</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Lamb, S</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Landry, ML</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dowd, KD</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC</name>
                  <name>Stanley, AM</name>
                  <name>Swan, WM</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>5</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Bandt, AP (teller)</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C (teller)</name>
                  <name>Phelps, KL</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question agreed to.<br />Bill read a second time.<br />Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>39</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (70), as circulated, together.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move government amendments (1) to (70), as circulated, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 6 to 8), omit "<inline font-style="italic">Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self</inline><inline font-style="italic">‑sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Act 2018</inline>", substitute "<inline font-style="italic">Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Act 2018</inline>".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 9) to page 2 (line 9), omit the clause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Commencement</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with any later amendments of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Any information in column 3 of the table is not part of this Act. Information may be inserted in this column, or information in it may be edited, in any published version of this Act.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 5 to 8), omit the items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 10), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 12), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 14), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (line 16), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (line 18), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 20), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 9, page 3 (line 22), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 3 (line 24), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (line 2), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (line 4), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (line 6), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, item 14, page 4 (line 8), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 1, item 15, page 4 (line 10), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 1, item 16, page 4 (line 12), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 1, item 17, page 4 (line 14), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 1, item 18, page 4 (line 16), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(20) Schedule 1, item 19, page 4 (line 18), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(21) Schedule 1, item 20, page 4 (line 20), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(22) Schedule 1, item 21, page 4 (line 22), omit "201AA, 201AB,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(23) Schedule 1, item 21, page 5 (lines 12 to 18), omit subitem (5), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) The amendments of sections 1061ZH, 1061ZI, 1061ZQ and 1061ZR of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline> made by this Part apply in relation to a person who becomes the holder of a permanent visa on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(24) Schedule 1, item 21, page 5 (after line 20), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The amendments made by this Part do not apply in relation to a person who, on or after the commencement of this item, becomes the holder of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subitem (8).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of paragraph (7)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(25) Schedule 1, item 23, page 6 (lines 10 and 11), omit paragraph (ba) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">newly arrived resident</inline><inline font-style="italic">'</inline><inline font-style="italic">s waiting period</inline> in subsection 23(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(26) Schedule 1, item 25, page 6 (lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph (aba) of the definition of <inline font-style="italic">waiting period</inline> in subsection 23(1).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(27) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 12), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(28) Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (line 12), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(29) Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (line 13) to page 9 (line 20), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(30) Schedule 1, item 30, page 9 (line 27), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(31) Schedule 1, item 30, page 11 (line 3), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(32) Schedule 1, item 31, page 11 (line 11), omit "156", substitute "52".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(33) Schedule 1, item 31, page 12 (line 23), omit "156", substitute "52".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(34) Schedule 1, item 32, page 12 (line 25), omit "408CGA, 408CGB,".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(35) Schedule 1, item 32, page 12 (after line 30), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Those sections do not apply in relation to a person who, on or after the commencement of this item, becomes the holder of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subitem (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of paragraph (3)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(36) Schedule 1, Part 3, page 13 (lines 1 to 22), omit the Part.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(37) Schedule 2, item 1, page 14 (line 6), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(38) Schedule 2, item 2, page 14 (line 8), omit "156", substitute "208".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(39) Schedule 2, item 3, page 14 (after line 14), at the end of the item, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Those amendments do not apply in relation to a person who, on or after the commencement of this item, becomes the holder of:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958 </inline>as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subitem (4).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of paragraph (3)(c).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(40) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 8), omit "At the end of Subdivision A of Division1 of Part3", substitute "After section61".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(41) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 9), omit "Add", substitute "Insert".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(42) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 10), omit "30No eligibility for family tax benefit—newly", substitute "61AAPart A rate of family tax benefit is nil for a day in newly".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(43) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (lines 12 and 13), omit subsection 30(1), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Despite Parts 2 to 3A of Schedule 1, an individual's Part A rate of family tax benefit in respect of a day is nil if the day occurs in a newly arrived resident's waiting period for the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(44) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 21), omit paragraph 30(2)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) becomes the holder of a permanent visa, except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (2A).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(45) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (after line 21), after subsection 30(2), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(iii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2B) Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply in relation to an individual if, at any time before the commencement of this subsection, the individual held a visa covered by paragraph (2)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(46) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 26), omit "referred to in", substitute "covered by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(47) Schedule 3, item 2, page 16 (line 5), omit "156", substitute "52".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(48) Schedule 3, item 2, page 16 (line 16), omit "156", substitute "52".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(49) Schedule 3, item 2, page 16 (line 25), omit "156", substitute "52".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(50) Schedule 3, item 2, page 16 (line 27) to page 17 (line 23), omit subsections 30(6) to (8), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exemptions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection (1) does not apply to an individual in respect of a day in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the individual if on that day the individual holds, or is the former holder of, a visa in a class of visas determined by the Minister for the purposes of subsection 739A(6) of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection (1) does not apply to an individual in respect of a day in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the individual if on that day:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the individual is receiving a social security pension or a social security benefit; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the individual is receiving farm household allowance under the <inline font-style="italic">Farm Household Support Act 2014</inline>; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) parental leave pay, or dad and partner pay, under the <inline font-style="italic">Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 </inline>is payable to the individual.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Subsection (1) does not apply to an individual in respect of a day (the <inline font-style="italic">assessment day</inline>) in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the individual if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on the assessment day the individual is a refugee or a former refugee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the individual was a family member of another individual at the time the other individual became a refugee before the assessment day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the individual is a family member of that other individual on the assessment day or, if that other individual has died, the individual was a family member of that other individual immediately before that other individual died; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the individual is an Australian citizen on the assessment day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the individual is residing in Australia on the assessment day and has held a special category visa on any day before the assessment day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(51) Schedule 3, items 3 and 4, page 17 (line 31) to page 18 (line 6), omit the items.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(52) Schedule 3, item 5, page 18 (lines 8 to 12), omit the item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(53) Schedule 3, item 7, page 18 (lines 16 to 24), omit the item, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment of section 1061ZQ of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline> made by this Schedule applies in relation to working out whether a person is qualified for a health care card on a day on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(54) Schedule 4, page 19 (after line 7), after item 1, insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1A At the end of paragraph 15(3 )( a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) is, if the day the child was born is in a newly arrived resident's waiting period the primary claimant is subject to under section 31A, a person to whom subsection 31A(7) or (7A) applies on the day the child was born; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(55) Schedule 4, item 3, page 19 (line 24), omit paragraph 31A(1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) becomes the holder of a permanent visa, except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (1A).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(56) Schedule 4, item 3, page 19 (after line 24), after subsection 31A(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(iii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply in relation to a person if, at any time before the commencement of this subsection, the person held a visa covered by paragraph (1)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(57) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 1), omit "referred to in", substitute "covered by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(58) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 9), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(59) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 20), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(60) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 29), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(61) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (line 31) to page 21 (line 25), omit subsections 31A(5) to (7), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exemptions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on the day before the day (the <inline font-style="italic">relevant day</inline>) that would be the start of the person's PPL period if a payability determination were made; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) if the person is the primary claimant and the relevant day is at least 2 days after the day the child was born—on the day the child was born and on each later day (if any) before the day applicable under paragraph (a);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">the person was receiving either of the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) a social security pension (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>) or a social security benefit (within the meaning of that Act);</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) farm household allowance under the <inline font-style="italic">Farm Household Support Act 2014</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) However, subsection (5) does not apply if paragraphs 15(1)(a), (b) and (c) apply in relation to the child. Instead, in this case, subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a person in the circumstances prescribed by the PPL rules.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection 31(6) does not apply to a person in respect of a day in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the person if on that day the person holds, or is the former holder of, a visa in a class of visas determined by the Minister for the purposes of subsection 739A(6) of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7A) Subsection 31(6) does not apply to a person in respect of a day (the <inline font-style="italic">assessment day</inline>) in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the person if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on the assessment day the person is a refugee or a former refugee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the person was a family member of another person at the time the other person became a refugee before the assessment day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person is a family member of that other person on the assessment day or, if that other person has died, the person was a family member of that other person immediately before that other person died; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person is an Australian citizen on the assessment day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person is residing in Australia on the assessment day and has held a special category visa on any day before the assessment day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(62) Schedule 4, item 3, page 21 (line 26), omit "subsection (7)", substitute "subsection (7A)".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(63) Schedule 4, item 5, page 22 (line 16), omit paragraph 115CBA(1)(b), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) becomes the holder of a permanent visa, except:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 117 (Orphan Relative) visa or as a Subclass 837 (Orphan Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) a visa referred to in the regulations under the <inline font-style="italic">Migration Act 1958</inline> as a Subclass 115 (Remaining Relative) visa or as a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (iii) a visa of a kind determined in an instrument under subsection (1A).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(64) Schedule 4, item 5, page 22 (after line 16), after subsection 115CBA(1), insert:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1A) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a kind of visa for the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(iii).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1B) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply in relation to a person if, at any time before the commencement of this subsection, the person held a visa covered by paragraph (1)(a).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(65) Schedule 4, item 5, page 22 (line 21), omit "referred to in", substitute "covered by".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(66) Schedule 4, item 5, page 22 (line 29), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(67) Schedule 4, item 5, page 23 (line 8), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(68) Schedule 4, item 5, page 23 (line 17), omit "156", substitute "104".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(69) Schedule 4, item 5, page 23 (line 19) to page 24 (line 13), omit subsections 115CBA(5) to (7), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Exemptions</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person if, on the day before the day that would be the start of the person's DAPP period if a payability determination were made:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) the person is receiving a social security pension (within the meaning of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>) or a social security benefit (within the meaning of that Act); or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the person is receiving farm household allowance under the <inline font-style="italic">Farm Household Support Act 2014</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Subsection 115CB(9) does not apply to a person in respect of a day in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the person if on that day the person holds, or is the former holder of, a visa in a class of visas determined by the Minister for the purposes of subsection 739A(6) of the <inline font-style="italic">Social Security Act 1991</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Subsection 115CB(9) does not apply to a person in respect of a day (the <inline font-style="italic">assessment day</inline>) in the newly arrived resident's waiting period for the person if:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) on the assessment day the person is a refugee or a former refugee; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) the following apply:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (i) the person was a family member of another person at the time the other person became a refugee before the assessment day;</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">   (ii) the person is a family member of that other person on the assessment day or, if that other person has died, the person was a family member of that other person immediately before that other person died; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) the person is an Australian citizen on the assessment day; or</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(d) the person is residing in Australia on the assessment day and has held a special category visa on any day before the assessment day.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(70) Page 24 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Schedule 5—Other amendments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 1—Higher income free area and indexation</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic"> A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1 Clause 2 of Schedule 1 (cell at table item 1, column 1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the cell, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">2 Subclause 3(7) of Schedule 4</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Repeal the subclause, substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">Indexation rules for certain income limits for certain years</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) The FTB basic HIFA (A) is not to be indexed on 1 July 2019 and 1 July 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7A) For the purposes of working out the indexed amount for the FTB basic HIFA (A) on 1 July 2021, the current figure for the FTB basic HIFA (A) immediately before that day is taken to be $98,988.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7B) The FTB income limit (B) is not to be indexed on 1 July 2019 and 1 July 2020.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">3 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendment made by item 1 applies in relation to working out the Part A rate of family tax benefit for days on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic">Paid Parental Leave Act 2010</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">4 Section 30</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "30 June 2020", substitute "30 June 2021".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">5 Paragraph 41(a)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2021".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">6 Subsection 42(1)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "1 July 2020", substitute "1 July 2021".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">7 Section 115CA</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "30 June 2020", substitute "30 June 2021".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Part 2—Taper rate for Part A rate of family tax benefit (Method 2)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"><inline font-style="italic"> A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">8 Clause 25 of Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Omit "and 25C", substitute ", 25C and 25D".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">9 Clause 25 of Schedule 1 (at the end of step 3 of the method statement)</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Note: Clause 25D modifies the application of this step.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">10 At the end of Division 1 of Part 3 of Schedule 1</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Add:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">25D Working out the Method 2 income and maintenance tested rate</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">In applying step 3 of the method statement in clause 25, step 2 of the method statement in clause 3 is taken to be replaced with the following:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2. Subtract the individual's income free area (worked out under clause 38N) from the individual's higher income free area (worked out under clause 2).</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2A. Work out 20% of the amount at step 2.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2B. Subtract the individual's higher income free area (worked out under clause 2) from the individual's adjusted taxable income.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2C. Work out 30% of the amount at step 2B.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">Step 2D. The individual's <inline font-style="italic">reduction for adjusted taxable income </inline>is the sum of the amounts at steps 2A and 2C. Take that reduction away from the individual's maximum rate: the result is the individual's <inline font-style="italic">income tested rate</inline>.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">11 Application provision</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to working out the Part A rate of family tax benefit for days on or after the commencement of this item.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill, as amended, agreed to.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Explanatory Memorandum</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FLETCHER</name>
    <name.id>L6B</name.id>
    <electorate>Bradfield</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017, for the information of members.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>45</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6197" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>45</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GILES (</name>
    <name.id>243609</name.id>
    <electorate>Scullin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>) ( ): I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018. This bill will provide much needed redress for students who have taken on VET FEE-HELP debts from unscrupulous providers. It amends schedule 1A of the Higher Education Support Act to introduce a broad remedy for students who incur a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by vocational education and training providers or their agents. The bill will also give discretionary power to the Secretary of the Department of Education and Training to recredit a person's VET FEE-HELP debt.</para>
<para>After five years in government, the Liberals have finally taken action. This is absolutely overdue. There are too many students, many of them very vulnerable people, who have fallen victim to unscrupulous behaviour on the part of dodgy VET providers. We want to see students have those unfair debts removed as soon as possible. No student should be expected to pay an unfair debt. Under Labor, the VET FEE-HELP scheme provided loans totalling around $1.4 billion over five years, yet the scheme's costs have simply exploded under the present government. They went to $1.8 billion in 2014 and more than doubled, to $3 billion, in 2015. In fact, the government, before they finally stepped in to close this scheme, had been in power for three years while a staggering $6 billion in loans were issued.</para>
<para>Disgracefully, this is but one part of a broader pattern of neglect. We now know that more than 9,000 Australians have complained to the Ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they never took. Far too few of those students have received relief from these unfair debts. The measures contained in this bill, which we do support, are way overdue, and that needs to be acknowledged. These students should never have been expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy, for-profit training providers that were allowed to go rogue under this government's watch.</para>
<para>For years we've seen no action from the government while the government knew that this was happening. Way back in 2014, the then Minister for Education, the member for Sturt, was warned of the dismal completion rates occurring under this scheme, but he sat on his hands in this area of his portfolio, as he did in others. In 2015, the government again refused to act while further reports of appalling recruitment practices emerged. Private colleges and their brokers were targeting vulnerable Australians, misleading them about training's cost and, indeed, its utility to them. Unscrupulous providers were using incentives such as free iPads and make-up kits to lock young people into debts that averaged nearly $20,000 a time. They were signing up people twice to courses they didn't even intend to deliver. People with no internet connection were duped into signing up for online courses. Tuition fees skyrocketed. The ultimate disgrace—and this is according to the government's own discussion paper from 2015—is that the poorer you were, the more you were paying. Debt holders from low socioeconomic backgrounds were charged an average of $3,359 more for a course than students from more affluent backgrounds were. Indigenous Australians were paying $5,649 more for a VET FEE-HELP course than non-Indigenous Australians were.</para>
<para>The government failed to deal with the problems of these unfair debts despite all the mounting evidence. Instead, they kept giving hundreds of millions of dollars to companies like Careers Australia. In 2015, Careers Australia were exposed by the ABC for cold-calling vulnerable Australians to flog their dodgy courses. They were charging $23,250 for a double diploma in business management—$23,250!—when the same course at TAFE Queensland South West cost $6,800. In 2017, after receiving around $600 million in Commonwealth funding, Careers Australia collapsed, leaving 15,000 students stranded and a thousand workers without employment. Of course, the government like to perpetuate the myth that this was nothing to do with them, but, let's be clear: they knew exactly what was happening and they chose to do nothing.</para>
<para>All the Liberals have managed to do is to make vocational education more expensive and less accessible. Consequently, I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(1) the Government has slashed:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(a) more than $3 billion of funding for vocational education and skills; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(b) in the last Budget, a further $270 million over the forward estimates in funding for apprenticeships; and</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) there are now 140,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than when the Coalition Government took office".</para></quote>
<para>This legislation does not exist in a vacuum. In considering its terms and adopting it in those terms, we must consider the wider context. Young people, older workers and, perhaps most especially, apprentices have every right to feel ripped off because of the actions and inactions of this government. Through the Liberals' time in power, thousands of students have been ripped off, billions have been slashed from TAFE and vocational education, and more than 140,000 Australian apprenticeships have disappeared. It's appalling. It's not good enough.</para>
<para>Since they were elected, the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. In the last budget the Treasurer, now the Prime Minister, cut a further $270 million from apprenticeships funding. For more than a year the government failed to spend one cent on an apprenticeship out of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund—not a single cent. You can't stabilise a system that has been deeply damaged while you ruthlessly cut back funding. Of course, this system needs much more than simply stabilising. As a result of this chaos, inaction and neglect, we have seen an overall decline in outcomes for students. Enrolments are dropping, completions are low and costs are shifting onto students as fees increase. Under the Liberals, TAFE courses have been cut back, campuses are closing and TAFE teachers are losing their jobs. Dissatisfied employers continue to complain of skills shortages and skills gaps. There isn't enough investment in important infrastructure.</para>
<para>Today we have a VET system that delivers too many qualifications that are narrow, rigid, slow to adapt and simply not fit for purpose, and there is a complete lack of leadership from the present government. The failures in current skills and vocational education policy are there for all to see, and many have commented on this. The Productivity Commission called the system a mess. The OECD has been reporting that Australia simply doesn't have the skills to engage effectively in global value chains. The skills quality regulator, ASQA, has described the training market as a race to the bottom. A recent independent report authored by Terry Moran—someone who knows quite a bit about this, as one of the original architects of our national training system in Australia—says it is fragmented and has been devalued, that there is no effective governance, that the funding arrangements are chaotic and that there is no national strategy underpinning this.</para>
<para>The unfortunate truth is that this government is incapable of developing policies to address these issues. Incapable? That's unfortunate. But it's unforgivable that the government seems unwilling and uninterested in addressing this. Maybe it is because the government are simply so divided and so dysfunctional that they can't formulate a response. While this government have been busy tearing each other apart they have turned a blind eye to what is glaringly obvious to those of us on this side of the House and elsewhere in the community. This is a vital sector to the Australian economy and to Australians—young Australians and older Australian workers—but all it has been getting under this government is funding cuts, on the one hand, and neglect, and sometimes platitudes, at best, on the other.</para>
<para>In contrast, Labor value our vocational education and training system as we value education generally. That is why the Deputy Leader of the Opposition determined to take this portfolio responsibility in opposition and has led the debate in that regard. At the centre of our vision for vocational education is a strong and revitalised public TAFE. TAFEs are, of course, critical anchors in our communities. They have educated and trained millions of Australians since they were formed in the 1970s. They support those students who are thriving in adult-learning environments and they deliver critical education and training to regional and rural Australia, education that is fit for the employment needs of those communities. TAFE is the backbone of technical and trades training in this country, and it has to continue to be. Once you lose a critical institution like a TAFE it is very hard and very costly to get it back. We simply cannot afford for TAFE to be underfunded while private firms engage in rent seeking and make profits of up to 50 per cent. Labor will restore public TAFE as the major provider in vocational education and training. This is why Labor has committed that at least two-thirds of government funding for vocational educational will go to TAFE. The vocational education and training gravy train will end under a Labor government. But we are committing more than this. We have also committed $100 million to the building TAFE for the future fund, to commence a program of revitalising campuses around Australia.</para>
<para>Generations of Australians have followed the trusted path into decent work through apprenticeship. These provide young people with the opportunity to build prosperous working lives, as well as retraining for experienced workers seeking to re-skill over the course of their careers. Labor has always championed quality apprentices. That is why a Labor government will boost apprentice numbers across the country on government funded projects. At least one in 10 jobs on all major infrastructure and defence projects will be filled by an apprentice under Labor. We will only fund projects where major contractors have an apprenticeship and training plan that links in with local TAFEs and provides skills to workers who live locally. Labor will also work to deliver one in 10 apprentices on priority projects already underway like the NBN and in government enterprises like the Australian Rail Track Corporation.</para>
<para>Knowing what you want to do before you start work is tricky. It's a big challenge for individuals and a huge challenge for our national government. It's also one of the reasons why so many young apprentices don't finish their apprenticeship, and Labor is responding to this challenge. We will do so by helping 10,000 young jobseekers choose the best apprenticeship for them by providing nationally recognised, industry endorsed 20-week pre-apprenticeship training. Places will be available to young people through TAFEs where local employers are on board and there is an opportunity for ongoing work.</para>
<para>A trade apprenticeship takes three or four years to complete. That's a long time to spend on training wages for workers who want or need to change jobs. So a Shorten Labor government will fast-track quality trade apprenticeships for up to $20,000 for adults who need to retrain because of changes in the economy. Workers will be given credit for existing skills and knowledge and provided with training at TAFE to consolidate their knowledge and fill skills gaps. These apprenticeships will be available in trades that are in demand.</para>
<para>All Australians should have access through their working lives to the education, skills and training they need for decent jobs and which our economy needs. Education and training allows them to lead decent lives and be active members of their local community. Labor believes that no-one should be excluded from access to vocational education and training as a result of financial disadvantage, course costs, fear of debt or regional disadvantage. That's why Labor has made the commitment that in the first 100 days of a Shorten Labor government we will establish a once-in-a-generation national inquiry to examine all aspects of Australia's post-secondary education system, to examine and make recommendations about how our vocational education and higher education systems address the country's social and economic needs. Critically, this inquiry, championed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, will examine the role of TAFE, which under a Labor government will be at the centre of Australia's future vocational education system as it always should have been, as it should be, as it needs to be. Labor has already met, through the work of the shadow minister, with a panel of eminent experts—educators, unionists and members of the business community—so that they can provide their advice on the scope and terms of reference of this inquiry. This will be the first time a national inquiry puts TAFE and universities on an equal footing, and it will repair the damage done by unscrupulous for-profit providers and the neglect of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments.</para>
<para>Returning to the bill which is before us, we hope that the changes contained in this bill, which Labor is pleased to support, will go towards helping the many students who have been ripped off. More profoundly, we hope that we can see a system where so many vulnerable students are never able to be ripped off by unscrupulous providers and where young Australians and older workers get every opportunity to get the skills they need, deserve and are entitled to.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Clare</name>
    <name.id>HWL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, the amendment is seconded, and I reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As much as I like the member for Scullin and there are some things in his contribution I would agree with, there are other things I would readily disagree with. But that's the nature of this place. I will agree with the member for Scullin that vocational education and training is incredibly important for our economy.</para>
<para>As I go around my electorate to the various manufacturing businesses and other businesses in my electorate, I talk to many people in those businesses that have been there for many, many years. They all have one thing in common: they started in those businesses as apprentices. They did their apprenticeship, they built their skills, they built their knowledge and they gained a long-time profession as a result. We don't often talk about people with trade and vocational skills as professionals, but I think it's fair to say that we probably should, because there are many skilled and talented people out there with vocational training and skills that are highly qualified in their particular trade, and our economy wouldn't function without those skills.</para>
<para>This bill is the result of having to fix a mess that was initially created by those opposite with the changes they made in 2012. It's interesting to reflect on the comments from the Australian National Audit Office in its 2016 audit of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, in which they characterised the amendment made by those opposite in 2012 as 'heavily supporting growth in the VET sector, while providing insufficient safeguards for students from misleading and deceptive conduct and inadequate monitoring, investigation and payment controls for poor or noncompliance by those same providers'. So this is just the latest in a tranche of bills in this space which have sought to clean up the mess created by those opposite as a result of those 2012 changes. This bill is designed to ensure that we relieve those students who were ripped off by those dodgy providers, by having their debts cancelled so they don't have to repay those debts.</para>
<para>We should recognise that, whilst there are those who have done the wrong thing by students, there are still many high-quality VET organisations in our community and in our country. Our vocational education training sector is world class. It serves millions of Australians, providing them with valuable qualifications but it also contributes $5 million of export income to the Australian economy. But, disappointingly, all too often, the achievements of those in the sector are overlooked because of the small number of providers who have done the wrong thing by students and Australian taxpayers.</para>
<para>Sadly, there were one or two of those in my electorate of Forde. Equally, there are some great organisations, who work very closely with our schools to ensure that the students at school who have a desire to follow a trade or a vocational pathway have the relevant opportunities and training available to them. Far too often we speak about schools in the context of those who seek to follow an academic or tertiary education path and we don't speak often enough about the students in our schools who, if you put a screwdriver or a hammer or a tool in their hand, light up with joy at being able to do a vocational trade.</para>
<para>We see every day as we drive around our electorates the importance of those trade skills. Think about the offices in this building for example. If it wasn't for the skilled tradespeople in our economy, we wouldn't have buildings such as this. Think about the mechanics that repair our vehicles. Think about our electricians, carpenters, bricklayers, tilers, hairdressers—any range of skills and occupations that we see across our economy and across our communities every single day. We sometimes forget that they had to go through a training course to develop those skills.</para>
<para>That is why it's so important that, with the series of bills that we have passed over the past couple of years, we seek to ensure that this sector is well regulated and ensure that those students who want to follow those paths are not ripped off and get the training necessary to ensure they develop the skills to follow the profession that they wish to follow.</para>
<para>As I said, the bill will provide a remedy for students who incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt through the inappropriate conduct of those VET providers and their agents. It will introduce a new discretionary power to enable the secretary of the department administered by the minister administering the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to recredit a person's FEE-HELP balance where the person incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by a VET provider or its agent. In facilitating these amendments to the VET guidelines, a legislative instrument will be made by the minister. It will empower the Commonwealth to recover from the VET provider an amount that is equivalent to the debt remitted in circumstances where the VET provider treated a student as entitled to VET FEE-HELP assistance where they were not entitled to it.</para>
<para>At the end of the day, we're talking about students who have incurred a debt for no good reason, because they were ripped off. We're seeking to have these matters resolved by 31 December 2020—hopefully, I would say, before. An important feature is that the bill provides flexibility for VET guidelines to prescribe a later date which also allows appropriate management of costs and resourcing. As I said at the outset, one of the reasons why this is important is that we want to see and want to ensure that we have a robust, long-term, sustainable VET sector to ensure that those people who want to follow that path have the opportunity to do so.</para>
<para>Disappointingly, it's another example of having to tidy up the mess left by those opposite when they were last in government. Most importantly, we're ensuring that vulnerable Australians who were ripped off have their debts cancelled and can get on with their lives and have confidence in the vocational education and training sector. I commend this bill in its original form to the House.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Can I start by saying that it was very good to see that the member for Forde agrees with this side of the House on the importance of the vocational education and training sector; the professionalism of those who have gone through that sector; and the importance of trades in the economic and social welfare of Australia. It was disappointing, however, to see the member for Forde blame the current situation and the current faults in the system on a previous Labor government, because the truth is that this government has, for the last five years, ripped the heart out of the public TAFE system and sat on its hands while unscrupulous for-profit providers have run rampant.</para>
<para>Australia has a very, very proud history of a world-class vocational education and training system. I want to take a little time to tell the story of a delegation that I attended in 2011. I had an opportunity to join an Australian delegation to the Gulf states. I wasn't just proud to represent Australia; I was particularly proud of my own history working in the vocational education and training sector as a TAFE teacher, because during that trip there were so many expressions of admiration for how Australia had structured its vocational education and training sector—its VET system—and, particularly, its TAFEs. There was so much discussion of the opportunities for Australia to export the expertise that we had developed here in our training systems through our TAFEs. That was back in 2011. Sadly, that is no longer the case. That is no longer the case, because since they were elected the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE—from skills and from apprenticeships. In the last budget, as Treasurer, the current Prime Minister cut a further $270 million from apprenticeship funding over the next four years. For more than a year the coalition has failed to spend one cent—one single cent—of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship.</para>
<para>In my electorate of Cowan the largest professional group is in the trades. Yet within Cowan, and indeed across Western Australia, we've seen a dramatic decrease in the number of TAFE enrolments in the trades and the number of apprenticeships and traineeships. I've said before here in this House that that cannot be attributed to natural attrition in that sector; it is a direct result of these cuts to the TAFE system by this government. The Liberals have provided no leadership on VET. They're ignoring the underlying flaws in the vocational education system. Instead what they've done is continue to cut funding and cut support to skills formation.</para>
<para>The Productivity Commission have called the current VET system a mess. The OECD reported that Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively in global value chains. A recent independent report authored by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national system, says that it is, 'fragmented and devalued'. He says, 'There is no effective governance; funding arrangements are chaotic,' and there is no national strategy. That is the current state of our once world-class, once world-envied VET sector and TAFE system.</para>
<para>Before us now we have a bill—the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018—to provide a framework and a remedy for students who have incurred debts from these unscrupulous providers under the previous VET FEE-HELP loans scheme. Labor welcomes this recrediting of the debts to thousands of students ripped off by dodgy for-profit training providers. More than 6,000 students have complained to the Ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they didn't undertake. The member for Scullin outlined some of the unscrupulous practices, including the offer of iPads and make-up kits, to dupe low socioeconomic students into signing up for courses that they either didn't take or didn't complete. Only a small number of those 6,000 students who have made these complaints have actually received any relief from those unfair debts.</para>
<para>Students should never be expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers that went rogue under this coalition's watch. This government knew how much was money was rolling out. They knew the great majority of students weren't graduating. The statistics were there. The reports were there. They knew how much money the rorters were making through these practices of duping young people with aspirations and with dreams of a vocational career. This has been an albatross around the neck of a dysfunctional government for more than five years, and finally we have a bill before us that is going to provide some remedy to those students who have been ripped off.</para>
<para>In 2014, then education minister Christopher Pyne was warned of the dismal completion rates under this scheme, and what did this government do? They just sat on their hands as providers continued to exploit vulnerable people and rip off students. It's particularly heartbreaking if you have children yourself. As a parent, the one thing that you want for your children is that they achieve their dreams. It's that they achieve those dreams they have for what they want to be as they get older and that they get the education and training that they need to be able to achieve those dreams. The most heartbreaking thing for a parent is when you see those dreams crumble before your very eyes and you feel helpless to do anything about it. So it's particularly disconcerting that so many young people in particular, so many students who had dreams of one day having a job, an education, a vocational career, were ripped off by these unscrupulous providers. Despite all the concerns about the appalling recruitment practices at Careers Australia that were raised publicly in 2015, this coalition government continued to provide them loans until they eventually collapsed of their own accord in May 2017, leaving thousands of students stranded, 1,000 workers without jobs and milking the coalition government of $600 million in taxpayer dollars.</para>
<para>From 2009, Labor provided the VET FEE-HELP scheme loans of $1.4 billion. We had costed that for $1.4 billion over five years. But, under the coalition, these VET FEE-HELP loans skyrocketed. They skyrocketed to $1.8 billion in 2014 alone and a staggering $3 billion in 2015, totalling $6 billion from 2014 to 2016. Overwhelmingly, that was to private providers. We'll hear a lot from those from the other side who are speaking on this bill about how this is all Labor's fault and how they're fixing up the mess, as the member for Forde put it, that Labor started with our original VET FEE-HELP scheme. But I'd like to remind the House once again that our scheme was costed at $1.5 billion for five years, but under this government's watch, over the last five years, that has blown out to $6 billion. And that's just the economic cost. Let's not also forget the social cost to families, young people, students and all of those people who had dreams of perhaps retraining or finding work in a changing work environment and in the changing nature of work. There was the cost to young people as they saw their dreams of having an education, of having some training, fade right before their very eyes.</para>
<para>We believe that all Australians should have access to education, skills and the training they need for decent jobs that allow them to live good lives and be active members of the community. I've been very fortunate in my life in that I've worked in all sectors of the education industry. I've worked in training and I've worked in higher education. I started out as a TAFE teacher and, by the end of my career, I was a professor at a university. I've always said that not everybody needs to go to university, not everybody wants to go to university and not everybody should go to university. All Australians should have access to the kind of higher education that they need, whether that be at a university or whether that be through TAFE and through training.</para>
<para>Labor believes that nobody should be excluded from access to vocational education and training, whether it's as a result of financial disadvantage or because of the costs of courses, the fear of debt or regional disadvantage. A skilled and educated workforce should be a national economic priority. It's important to recognise that TAFE is the lifeblood of our VET system. Because of that, Labor is committed to restoring TAFE as the major provider in the vocational education and training system. We've seen TAFE colleges close down. We've seen TAFE teachers lose their jobs. As a previous TAFE teacher, I still maintain a lot of contact with my colleagues who still teach at TAFEs and who tell me just how much more difficult it is to be a TAFE teacher in today's environment with so much money cut from TAFEs under this government.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House have always championed quality apprenticeships and we'll continue to ensure more Australians can follow that trusted path into decent work. The Labor inquiry into post-secondary education will build on the best of Australia's vocational education and training systems and repair the damage done by unscrupulous for-profit providers under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government neglect. But, in the meantime, we are pleased that the government has finally passed this bill and that finally those thousands of students who were duped by private providers can at least see some relief.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BIRD</name>
    <name.id>DZP</name.id>
    <electorate>Cunningham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have spoken in many debates in this House on this very important sector of the education system, vocational education and training. I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 today to support the amendment moved by this side of the House and to indicate that I would support the bill regardless. I do that because it is important that action is taken to provide a scheme that gives remedy to the many thousands of Australians who were the victims of very, very unscrupulous behaviour in the sector by far too many providers.</para>
<para>I was very active in campaigning on behalf of this side of the House on those issues post 2013. I take issue with the characterisation of the problem that we're addressing by those opposite, when they lay claim that this is somehow Labor's fault and that they're trying to clean up the mess. I was there, right at the front of that whole process. Labor did extend the access to FEE-HELP for VET students with the support of those opposite at the time—no crying about concerns with the system at the time those amendments were made—with the intention of making access to vocational training more readily available to more Australians. And in that construction, as my colleague has just pointed out, the cost of the scheme was about $1.4 billion over five years.</para>
<para>Then, at the 2013 election, we had a change of government and those opposite took government. At the time, I must say, I reflected in this chamber and more generally in public that I thought it came as much of a surprise to former Minister Macfarlane that education was in his industry portfolio. I thought it came as a shock to him. We then had a subsequent regular turnover of ministers responsible for vocational education. And it became very apparent in 2014 that those opposite really had taken their eye off the ball with what has happening in the sector.</para>
<para>There began to emerge reports of concerns about very dodgy behaviour going on in the abuse of this scheme. At the time, I took issue on numerous occasions with government ministers who tried to portray those reports as a one-off or an unusual circumstance and it just required an intervention with a particular provider and so forth. But it very soon became, over the next 12 months, glaringly apparent that the signal that had been sent, the hands-off approach by the government in education, had seen a massive ramp-up of the abuse of the scheme. What was playing out was not only a massive cost for the scheme but also a really appalling exploitation of many, many vulnerable people in our communities.</para>
<para>By 2014, the amount that the scheme had signed up in debts had absolutely ballooned out to $1.8 billion. The following year, it was $3 billion. If these were not alarm signals to the government that this was a scheme that needed its attention, I don't know what were. Those on this side of the House and many people in the community, including the media, the Consumer Action Law Centre and others, were starting to raise their deep concerns about the scheme.</para>
<para>What's important about this bill is the fact that it provides an easier and more reasonable opportunity for people who have debts under the FEE-HELP scheme in the VET sector to get those debts remedied. I've spoken to people across the country on these loans, and there are people who don't even know that they have a VET FEE-HELP debt until they get a job and they put a tax return in. That's the first time they know they've got a debt, because of the way these shonky practices are operating in signing people up for these training courses—and people don't even realise that that is what they are doing.</para>
<para>I heard stories from Western Sydney about a group of non-English-speaking women, an elderly group, who had a social group. They just wanted to learn some basic computer skills. This provider came in and said, 'Yes, I can do that,' and actually signed them all up to a diploma. All they wanted was some orientation, some basics, about using a computer. They all signed the forms, because they didn't know any better, and then discovered that they'd actually signed up to a diploma with a significant debt that went along with it. They were told, 'Don't worry about that, because you're all older and you'll never earn enough to have to repay it.'</para>
<para>Wherever you go, there are extraordinarily disgraceful stories about providers going in and ripping people off. It's all very well for them to say to people, 'Oh, you'll never have to repay it,' but, for many people, that feeling of anxiety that is caused by owing a debt of that size is real. It causes enormous distress in many communities. People go out and target remote Indigenous communities, with a car boot full of free laptops, and sign people up to diploma courses. It is just rampant.</para>
<para>It is important that the previous bills we've dealt with have tightened up that whole scheme, and now this bill before us will give some relief from that anxiety to people who have a debt, particularly those who never got any qualifications out of that process, who were misled in what they were signing up for and who may have got extremely poor service and support. All the time I talk to people who tell me that they tried to pull out before what is called the census date—that is, the date at which, if you haven't pulled out before then, you will incur the debt—but they couldn't get people to return their emails and acknowledge what they were trying to do. There are so many examples, and so it is important, given the anxiety that comes from having that sort of debt, that we take action as is proposed in this bill before us to give some remedy for that.</para>
<para>There is another side to what's happened in the sector. It sits alongside this problem of the nature of the VET FEE-HELP debts, and I want to cover it in the time I have remaining to me. Not only did we have the VET FEE-HELP blowout debacle playing out, along with the government's failure to respond, but, at the very same time, we had a government that, at every budget and every MYEFO midyear budget adjustment, cut funding out of programs in the vocational education and training sector. Under this government's watch, there were cuts to the sector that now tally about $3 billion. That meant that the opportunity to go to a reliable, trusted provider—some of them are some of the good-quality private providers out there, but most significantly the public provider, our TAFEs, where people know that what they're being provided is a quality product from a reliable provider—was absolutely decimated under this government's watch. Those opposite who get up and talk about how much they value the career opportunity and lifetime employment that comes out of vocational education and training would do this nation a service by telling that to their succession of ministers and treasurers, because we have seen no follow-through with actual investment into the sector.</para>
<para>The Skilling Australians Fund, which looks to fund apprenticeships out of the money collected by bringing people in under skilled migration programs, has just been a complete failure in addressing the massive decline we've seen in apprenticeships in the country. There have been over 140,000 fewer apprentices since those opposite came to government at a time when we know that there is demand out there for many, many trainees and apprentices in relevant fields and a great career opportunity, particularly for our young people but also for older Australians who might be looking to reskill and retrain, to undertake an adult apprenticeship. This is a really important pathway, and the government have completely failed to address the massive decline under their watch.</para>
<para>In my state of New South Wales, the combination of this government and the state Liberal government is seeing TAFEs close. So we're not just losing courses and we're not just losing teachers and expertise; we're seeing TAFE campuses closed. The Dapto TAFE campus sits in my colleague the member for Whitlam's seat right in the middle of a fairly disadvantaged community with high youth unemployment. They have shut that TAFE campus. It's an unbelievable combination of neglect at both the state and the federal level.</para>
<para>I have been critical of the state government, as have my Labor colleagues, but they are, I have to acknowledge, also dealing with the fact that their federal colleagues have been significantly cutting the funding that the federal government provides to TAFE—as I said, $3 billion over the term of their government. You can't say that you're serious about valuing apprenticeships, traineeships, TAFE and vocational training when all you're doing is slashing the funding that actually goes to providing those opportunities. We are seeing the outcomes in a massive decline not only in TAFEs and apprenticeships but in the numbers of people studying in the vocational education sector. Increasingly, we're seeing reports about that drop in the number of people, particularly in the higher levels of vocational training. This sector deserves better than lip service. It needs real action by government and real funding.</para>
<para>I'm very proud that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party team took a whole raft of policy initiatives to the last election, including requiring that for major Commonwealth projects, projects being built with Commonwealth funding, one in 10 of the employees on those projects be apprentices. That's government leading by example and actually ensuring that that opportunity is provided. They included providing funding for transitioning for older workers who are being restructured through an adult apprenticeship into new career paths and providing protection for our TAFE system and direct funding for our TAFEs. These policies continue on the table from Labor now, today. I hope that we get the opportunity to implement them, because I am quite honestly very concerned that if we have another three years of those opposite in charge of the sector it's going to be really, really difficult to rebuild after the decimation that we've already seen and how that could be compounded upon by more neglect and more cuts.</para>
<para>So I commend the amendment moved by our shadow minister, because it is important to make the point in each and every one of these debates that those opposite have, despite lip service, completely failed to deliver in either direct injection of funding or direct support for TAFEs, apprenticeships or traineeships. Our young people, our restructured workers and our communities are paying the price for that—particularly those in rural and regional areas of Australia. I have to say the National Party have a history of being great supporters of the TAFE system because, I take it, they understand how important it is in their local communities. I hope they can make their voice loudly heard in the joint party room so their colleagues get on board, because they need to be out there fighting for these services in their communities too. Perhaps it hasn't been loud enough yet, but maybe it will get louder, fighting within their own joint party room for better funding.</para>
<para>We need to back TAFE, we need to back our apprentices and we need to back traineeships. We need to be doing that in real and meaningful ways. That's got to be a commitment that is debated at the next federal election. I know communities want it debated. We saw in Victoria how significant TAFE was as a campaign issue in the Victorian election, and we saw the complete dismay that the conservatives in Victoria had no policy in this space. I look forward to having that debate at the federal election because I know it matters to our communities.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018. The reality is that access to quality and lifelong education is really the lifeblood of this nation. It contributes to the prosperity of all Australians citizens, particularly our young people, and the nation in general. I am currently a registered teacher and a former TAFE teacher. I know firsthand how important vocational education and training is. It is particularly a critical component for this nation's future in the skills development and training for the industries of the future for our young people and for those people who are transitioning from one industry to another industry.</para>
<para>It is no secret that under the LNP government dodgy private VET provider numbers skyrocketed, leaving thousands and thousands of students with massive debts related to courses they have not been able to complete due to the collapse of said dodgy providers. I've had numerous constituents from my electorate in my office, some in tears, over the fact they have a debt and no qualification. This was bound to happen, especially when the government ripped money out of TAFE, which enabled the private market to flourish. In effect, this was privatisation by stealth, cutting public funding to fund the private sector—typical LNP ideologies. The bill before the House today is evidence of the Morrison government's attempt to clean up its own mess. It's a bill that recredits the debts of thousands of students who were ripped off by dodgy for-profit training providers. More than 6,000 students have complained to the ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they did not undertake or complete, and only a small number to date have received relief from these unfair debts.</para>
<para>I witnessed this attack on vulnerable people by dodgy private providers in my own workplace, the organisation I ran on Palm Island. People without the capacity or the basic foundation skills to undertake diploma skills training were enrolled in dual diplomas with the hoodwinking, I guess, of the gift of a laptop with an internet connection. Sadly for those people, not only did they not get the training they needed but the internet connection they were given was an Optus connection on an island where only Telstra offers services. So that was a little bit of a worry.</para>
<para>Students would never have been expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers that went rogue under the coalition's watch. The government knew how much money was rolling out. They knew the vast majority of students were not graduating. They knew how much money the rorters were making. This has been an albatross around the neck of this dysfunctional government for more than five years. Labor now welcomes the students getting some relief.</para>
<para>In 2014, the then education minister, Christopher Pyne, was warned of the dismal completion rates under the scheme. However, the government just sat on its hands as providers continued to exploit vulnerable people and rip off students. Despite concerns about appalling recruitment practices at Careers Australia, which were raised publicly in 2015, the coalition continued to provide them loans until they eventually collapsed in May 2015 leaving thousands of students stranded and thousands of workers out of a job after milking the coalition government of some 600 million taxpayer dollars.</para>
<para>From 2009 Labor provided VET FEE-HELP scheme loans of $1.4 billion over five years. Under the coalition VET FEE-HELP loans skyrocketed to $1.8 billion in 2014 and a staggering $3 billion in 2015, totalling $6 billion from 2014 to 2016—overwhelmingly to private providers. The Liberals have provided no leadership on VET, ignoring the underlying flaws in the vocational education and training system, and instead have continued to cut funding that supports skill development. The Productivity Commission have called the system a mess and the OECD reports that Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively in global value chains. A recent independent report authored by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national system, says it's 'fragmented and devalued'. He said, 'There is no effective governance; funding arrangements are chaotic,' and there is no national strategy.</para>
<para>Since they were elected, the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from the TAFE training sector for skill development and apprenticeships. In my own community, we have seen a decline in 46 per cent of apprenticeships. In his last budget the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison, cut a further $270 million from apprenticeship funding over the next four years. What has been the impact of these cuts on apprenticeships? Fewer apprenticeships of course. Australia now has 130,000 fewer apprentices and trainees than we did when this government was elected. As I said, in Herbert that's a decline of 46 per cent. That's 1,554 fewer apprentices in Townsville since the LNP was elected. Jobs are cut and apprenticeships are cut. Funding for public hospitals, schools, TAFEs and universities have all been cut. The LNP is always the government of cuts. They hit workers, families, veterans and pensioners the most.</para>
<para>The LNP's feather in the cap is the top end of town as they try to pass on tax handouts for big banks and big business. To do this they are making massive cuts to publicly funded institutions. I think shadow minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, said it best when he said, 'This is a government who clearly doesn't like the public,' and I couldn't agree more. And who was the person who was the architect of these cuts? Who was the person who took an axe to TAFE funding? Who was the architect behind Townsville losing half of our apprentices? It was the then Treasurer and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was the face of the cuts, but the person who designed the cuts, who gave his official sign-off, was now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. The people of Townsville are not fooled by the faux, bus-driving Prime Minister, whose bus is as empty as his promises to Townsville. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has destroyed jobs and apprenticeships in Townsville and across the country.</para>
<para>In the Australia today, TAFE and vocational education and training funding as well as the number of supported students are lower than they were a decade ago. This is despite an increasing number of jobs requiring vocational education and training skills. In too many towns and regional centres across Australia TAFE campuses have closed and courses have been scaled back, but fees have been increased. Employers are also feeling Prime Minister Scott Morrison's cuts. Between 2013 and 2015 employer dissatisfaction with the availability of vocational education and training in regional and rural areas more than doubled. Investment in TAFE and vocational education and training capital infrastructure fell by a staggering almost 75 per cent. The hours of training delivered by TAFE fell by over 25 per cent.</para>
<para>The Turnbull-Abbott governments have presided over seven consecutive quarters of decline in trade apprenticeships. There are 41,000 fewer trade apprentices in training, while employer groups are reporting shortages in trades and technical occupations, in particular in construction and engineering. In 2015-16 alone, 10,403 temporary migration 457-type visas were granted to fill trades and technical jobs, the very occupations where we see apprenticeships in steep decline. Can you believe the nerve of this government, cutting jobs and apprentices whilst increasing the number of 457-style visas? There are two things in Townsville that have grown under the Morrison government and the LNP: unemployment and 457-style visas.</para>
<para>Australia's economy is changing rapidly. As a result, the skills Australians need to get well-paid and secure jobs are changing as well. For many, these changes have not been easy. Underemployment is at a record high and unemployment is far too common, particularly among younger Australians in the regions and retrenched workers. At the same time, more than one in three employers report difficulty in filling jobs. It's clear the jobs exist; we just need to ensure that Australians have the necessary skills to get the jobs. Australia needs to invest in vocational education, skill development and training now more than ever. The LNP don't seem to care about skilling Australian workers, as evidenced in their failure to spend one cent of the flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship.</para>
<para>All Australians should have access throughout their working lives to the education, skills, and training that they need to acquire and secure quality jobs that enable them to live good lives and be active, contributing members of our communities. Labor believe no-one should be excluded from accessing vocational education and training as a result of financial disadvantage, course costs, fear of debt or regional disadvantage. A skilled and educated workforce is a national economic priority, and TAFE is the lifeblood of our vocational education and training system. Labor will restore TAFE as the major public provider in the vocational education and training system. Labor's plans for apprenticeships and traineeships and TAFE are very simple.</para>
<para>Labor will fight this government's cuts, and invest in skill development and apprenticeships by reversing the LNP cuts to TAFE; guaranteeing that at least two-thirds of public vocational education and training funding goes to TAFE; investing in a new Building TAFE for the Future Fund to revitalise TAFE campuses and facilities in regional and outer metropolitan areas; setting a target of one in 10 apprenticeships on all Commonwealth priority projects, including major government business enterprise projects; expanding preapprenticeship programs for young jobseekers; and investing in advanced adult apprenticeships for workers in transition.</para>
<para>Labor have always championed quality apprenticeships and will continue to ensure that more Australians can follow that trusted pathway into decent work. The Labor inquiry into postsecondary education will build upon the best of Australia's vocational and education training system and repair the damage done by the unscrupulous for-profit providers and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's neglect. Delivering jobs and apprenticeships is the ALP way. Labor is the party that always delivers for apprentices. We will continue to protect TAFE and Australian apprenticeships from this LNP government, because vocational education and training has a major and significant role to play in Australia's future.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOSLING</name>
    <name.id>245392</name.id>
    <electorate>Solomon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 is welcome, and we support it. It goes some way at least to repairing some of the damage that has been caused by, as my good friend the member for Herbert mentioned, some of those unscrupulous for-profit vocational education and training providers. As members are aware, these unscrupulous entities rorted the system and conned prospective students, who were only trying to better themselves by getting some training to improve their job prospects or acquire a new skill. In some cases, the victims were vulnerable people unaware that they had even been enrolled in courses. In other cases, they found they did not receive the training they were promised, but still incurred large debts—debts they were not even aware they were liable for. As one of the previous speakers mentioned, not only were some of these individuals—who were just trying to better themselves and get ahead—conned, but attempts were made to have them pay for courses that they didn't even enrol in. I'm sure all honourable members would agree that it was a great injustice that was done to those students, because they were caused great anxiety and financial hardship through absolutely no fault of their own.</para>
<para>The unconscionable conduct of these rogue operators, basically con artists and snake-oil salesmen, has really damaged Australia's reputation as an education provider. It's an important industry for our country, and that's why this has been so regrettable: not only did many Australian people get caught up in these rip-offs but overseas students got caught up in them as well. So Labor welcome this bill, which will recredit the debts of thousands of students, and welcome efforts to remedy what is clearly an ongoing problem.</para>
<para>I'll just briefly touch on the government's response. I don't want to be negative, but it was disappointing to hear the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, the member for Higgins, say, in her very second sentence on this issue, that the bill is about cleaning up a mess left by a previous Labor government. She then launched into what can only be described as a diatribe about other supposed failings of Labor in government. There's nothing like taking a bit of responsibility after more than five years in government! People don't like this sort of negative name-calling. They're over it. They're not interested in blame-shifting and political pointscoring; they just want something fixed. So maybe the member for Higgins could have a chat to the fixer. Most of what's been put forward in this bill is going to assist, but the problem has caused a lot of anxiety, and that is obviously regrettable.</para>
<para>Australians want a government that gets things done, that takes a positive and optimistic approach. That's why we on this side are putting forward positive and constructive policies in a whole range of areas that are vital to our country, and this is one of them. To look at TAFE as an example, a Shorten Labor government will scrap up-front fees for 100,000 TAFE students who choose to learn the skills that our country needs. TAFE is the best place for young Australians to develop these skills in the communities that need them—in their own communities. Labor's policy to scrap up-front fees will make it easier for Australians to gain the skills that they need to get a trade, a traineeship and a quality job, and it will make it easier for businesses to fill skill shortages. It's part of Labor's $470 million plan to boost TAFE apprenticeships and skills for Australians. I can tell you that in my electorate of Solomon, in Darwin and Palmerston, this is very welcome. What has been unwelcome is that those opposite, in government for the last five-plus years, have cut more than $3 billion—that's billion, with a 'b'—from TAFE and training. Australia has 140,000 fewer apprentices today than it did when those opposite were first elected over five years ago. That's a bit of a problem. That's kind of a shameful record after five-plus years: 140,000 fewer Australians, whether they are young people or older Australians reskilling to get into the workforce in a different capacity, in apprenticeships.</para>
<para>However, luckily, those on this side have a plan and, in addition to our commitment to waive fees for the 100,000 students, we will invest $100 million in modernising facilities around the country. We all know that our workforce is changing. There's a greater reliance on technology to drive innovation, and our TAFE facilities need to keep up so there is going to be an investment in modernising those facilities . We're also going to guarantee that at least two out of three government training dollars go to TAFE because it is the bedrock of skills training in our communities. We've already announced that one in every 10 jobs on Commonwealth priority projects will be filled by Australian apprentices, which is a fantastic initiative. We will provide 10,000 pre-apprenticeship programs for young people who want to learn a trade that will step up into an apprentice program. We'll also provide 20,000 adult apprentice programs for those older workers I mentioned earlier, who need to retrain for the emerging jobs of the future.</para>
<para>Investing in apprentices is important and an additional $637 million into TAFE and vocational education will, in effect, reverse the government's 2017 budget cuts in full. We on this side are guaranteeing at least two-thirds of vocational education funding for TAFE, as I mentioned, and will invest through the Future Fund to revitalise our TAFE infrastructure around the country.</para>
<para>These are all positive policies, constructive solutions to problems that I think Australians want to hear about. As I mentioned, they're over the buck-passing, the blaming. We just need to reinvest funds that have been cut out of this sector, because it is a massive problem. The cuts to apprenticeships, the cuts to the sector and the unfair dealings of some of these unscrupulous for-profit VET providers have meant that more than 6,000 students have complained that they were charged for courses they did not receive. Only a small number of those have received relief from those unfair debts. There was $1.4 billion from 2009 to 2014 in VET FEE-HELP loans. The quantum of these loans that were provided clearly ran out of control and, as mentioned, people were burdened with debt wrongly and unfairly. It was a symptom of a failed VET system that, as we've heard before, was described as a 'mess' by the Productivity Commission, and the OECD has said that Australia is lacking the skills to engage effectively in global value chains.</para>
<para>This bill is welcome, as it's going to offer some assistance in reversing this. It will recredit the debts of thousands of students ripped off by these unscrupulous training providers. The bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to introduce a remedy for students who incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by VET providers. And the bill provides a secretary of a department with a discretionary power to recredit a person's VET FEE-HELP as a result of that inappropriate conduct. In recrediting a person's FEE-HELP balance, there must be satisfaction that the person did not complete the relevant units of study and that it is reasonably likely that the VET provider engaged in inappropriate conduct, which is fair. VET guidelines will prescribe matters which the secretary must have regard to in considering whether it is reasonably likely that the VET provider engaged in inappropriate conduct. And the VET Student Ombudsman will be able to make recommendations to the secretary in relation to the recrediting of the HELP balance.</para>
<para>This bill will give the Commonwealth the ability to recover from the provider an amount equivalent to the amount remitted. However, there are still two uncertainties with the bill. There is no detail about the definition of inappropriate conduct, but current guidelines for unacceptable conduct would appear to be a reasonable guide. Secondly, it is unclear how much this will cost. It is not possible to estimate accurately the total number of students impacted, and the amount of money involved varies in each case. There will certainly be cases where debts are recredited and cannot be recovered from the provider. Unfortunately, many of those dodgy providers are long gone, fly-by-night operators and so they may be difficult to track down. So that goes to some of the provisions in the bill.</para>
<para>In the time remaining I would just like to reflect on the VET provider in my electorate of Solomon, Charles Darwin University. It is the major TAFE provider, offering more than 160 certificate and diploma courses. I'm very proud of our university, Charles Darwin University. It's a great asset to our city and to the Northern Territory. Indeed, CDU has campuses throughout the Territory and does outreach programs from Darwin. The uni is ranked in the top two per cent of universities worldwide and provides a great space for Territorians, other Australians and international students to come and learn new trades and to garner the skills they need to pursue their profession or, indeed, to pursue their passion.</para>
<para>But, unfortunately, what we've seen from a succession of governments—whether it be former Prime Minister Abbott, former Prime Minister Turnbull or, indeed, the current Prime Minister Morrison and their governments—and what we've been left with in the Top End is a $30 million cut to Charles Darwin University. That is not helpful. That is not going to help us train up Territorians, Australians and international students. And those cuts to our university are unfair to young Territorians, not having the resources of some of our larger universities down south. Compared to other students in other parts of the country, that $30 million cut by those opposite is going to affect Territorians, who are already disadvantaged, disproportionately just by virtue of the tyranny of distance and the lack of resources when compared to other universities. However, I do want to acknowledge that the recently signed city deal contains funds for a new campus in the city. That is very welcome, as are the provisions in this bill.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 is a really important bill. I am very pleased that, finally, this House is able to do something to support the students who have been ripped off by dodgy providers and been left with very significant debts. It is good to be able to do something to support vocational education here. I think this is probably one of the first opportunities I've had in the 2½ years I've been in this place to really focus on this issue in a positive way.</para>
<para>Just to be clear about what this bill does: it allows there to be recrediting of a person's FEE-HELP debt when it's established that there has been inappropriate conduct by a VET provider or their agents. That is something that has caught many students. Sometimes only when they've done their tax returns have they found out that they have a debt which they didn't realise they still had.</para>
<para>It is sensible that the secretary who makes this decision has to be clear that the student did not complete the requirements for the relevant VET units of study and that it is reasonably likely that the VET provider engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the person in relation to the unit or course. I will talk later about some instances in my own electorate of Macquarie where people have come to me, where clearly there has been inappropriate behaviour in terms of people applying for courses and signing up for courses. It was certainly a case of 'buyer beware' for many of them.</para>
<para>The core of this is a commitment to ensuring we have a vocational education system that has integrity, and that's something that has been sorely missing for many people. What this also does is raise the issue of the urgent need we have to make changes, so that we have a world-class post-high-school education and training system in this country. Sadly, what this legislation or any other legislation by this government fails to do is address the inequalities that have grown. As student loans have expanded, profit margins have increased and educational costs have been shifted onto younger people, including apprentices and trainees.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, researchers at the Mitchell Institute in Victoria warned that Australia faces a severe shortfall of educated workers by 2030—a little more than a decade away—unless there's a radical change in university and vocational education sectors. They found that, if enrolments in the VET sector stay on trend, there will be 66 per cent fewer people in vocational training, despite a huge rise in demand for trades. That is setting our economy up for a terrible shock. So the researchers at the Mitchell Institute have called on the government to urgently address falling VET enrolments and also to boost growth in the university uptake—something, of course, the Labor Party is very committed to doing. They say we need to do this so that we have the skills in our workforce to offset the costs of an ageing population. So what is the Liberal government's response to studies like these? And this isn't the only one; there has been a lot of research looking at what we're facing. And their response? Nothing. They have no sense of urgency. Well, in fact, it's clear that they are so completely obsessed with themselves at the moment that, as we have seen on energy policy, we have total policy inertia.</para>
<para>I had the opportunity to visit one of my local TAFEs—Richmond TAFE—a couple of times this year for its open day and for a visit with the shadow minister, Senator Doug Cameron. What a privilege it was to speak with the teachers and administrators about the courses that they offer there in the public TAFE system, which include child care, horticulture, computer skills, equine and animal care—a whole range of things. Actually you can learn to do everything from shoeing a horse—in fact, being a blacksmith—to caring for cats as a vet nurse, carving a feature stone wall or creating a water feature in the garden. They provide a lot of practical skills. Their horticultural courses are designed to skill workers to care for everything, from a racing track to landscaping a public building to propagating plants. Richmond is an amazing TAFE and, like so many TAFEs around the country, it would benefit from capital investment in its facilities to bring them up to current industry standards so that students are well prepared for the conditions that they will face.</para>
<para>The courses at Wentworth Falls and Katoomba TAFEs, which skill up students for hospitality, outdoor adventure work, disability work and beauty therapy work, among other things, are also highly regarded in our community. The point I want to make is that there is a huge diversity of courses and they are surviving in spite of, not because of, government policy at the state and federal level, and it's time we had policy at a federal level that helps the sector rather than nobbles it—and that is the public sector of vocational education as well as the private sector.</para>
<para>So let's talk about the VET-FEE rorting that this legislation is designed to try and undo. Students should never have been expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers who went rogue under the coalition's watch. But that is exactly what happened. The government knew how much money was rolling out, they knew that most of the students were not graduating and they knew how much money the rorters were making.</para>
<para>In 2014, then education minister Christopher Pyne was warned of the dismal completion rates under the scheme. However, the government just sat on their hands as providers continued to exploit vulnerable people and rip off students—people who were trying to get themselves a better future; people who were taking the time out of an existing career to develop their skills and train themselves up; people who were somehow juggling their childcare responsibilities or their caring for elderly parents to get some skills. The fact that nothing was done and that it's only being done now is an absolute outrage.</para>
<para>Under the coalition, VET FEE-HELP loans skyrocketed to $1.8 billion in 2014 and a staggering $3 billion in 2015, totalling $6 billion from 2014 to 2016—overwhelmingly to private providers. There has been absolutely no leadership on the VET rorting. I think that one of the worst things that has happened to vocational education students in the private sector has been this government's failure to stem the corrupt practices of unscrupulous for-profit training providers. Obviously not all private providers fell into this category, but there was a serious chunk of them who did, and we're seeing court cases and evidence of that playing out.</para>
<para>This government allowed the ripping off of students and the ripping off of taxpayer dollars long after it was clear that there was a problem and the system was being abused. It's sad to think that it's not actually over yet. A recent report that the Ombudsman received over 6,000 complaints about dodgy private training providers in the last 12 months should have been a wake-up call about VET student loans. Alarmingly, the Ombudsman expects this number to increase as students lodge tax returns, only to find they've been charged for courses that they haven't done. The Ombudsman's report states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… many complainants first discover they have a student loan or discover that the loan amount is larger than they expected, when they submit their tax return.</para></quote>
<para>It's a very rude shock. Described as 'one of the biggest rorts in Australian education history' by <inline font-style="italic">The</inline><inline font-style="italic">Sydney Morning Herald</inline>, we certainly fear that many students remain unaware that they've been charged and have therefore not got around to reporting it yet. Let's remember what some of those practices were: signing people up without them even realising it and offering inducements, like laptops and iPads, to get people to sign up to a course that they may not have had the capacity to complete and that may not have been a course that was going to further their professional development.</para>
<para>One local Blue Mountains woman told me that she signed up for a counselling course with a private provider. She became suspicious of the quality of the provider, concerned when the materials that she was promised weren't provided and that there was very poor student service right from the start. She decided not to proceed with that course. It took weeks and weeks of multiple attempts before she was able to withdraw from it, and months later, when she was doing her tax return, she found she had a $12,000 debt for a course that she had not even started.</para>
<para>Another Hawkesbury local was one of more than 700 hair and beauty students caught in The Australasian College Broadway's collapse in 2016. Not only did the students lose their access to study as a result of the college's going into liquidation with a long list of creditors, none of the students could get access to their academic records to show what work they'd completed. The system had reportedly been hacked and student records were deleted and passwords changed. This meant that they were unable to transfer their credits to other colleges to study, and therefore couldn't complete their course. That was compounded by the fact that they ended up with a big VET FEE-HELP debt for an uncompleted course.</para>
<para>Sarah from Bilpin, who was in her late teens at the time, summed up her situation beautifully and brutally to me. She said, 'It's hundreds of students in limbo with huge fees, no qualifications and only half of their student records.' Two years on, she still had a debt of $24,000 related to her collapsed course. So, through no fault of her own, this young woman carries a debt. I really hope that this legislation means that that will be able to be reversed. Another Winmalee resident had a similar problem, with a debt for a certificate III in aged care with a registered training organisation that had shut its doors and left this older man with a debt.</para>
<para>The Ombudsman's report earlier this year showed 5,193 complaints, of which half were yet to be resolved. The government's failure to act on these matters means many more people were affected than ought to have been. When an initial problem occurs it is our responsibility to act fast. It also resulted in a loss of confidence in the entire sector and has led to VET student enrolments continuing to fall.</para>
<para>I want to point out that it is not every private provider who deliberately sets out to rip-off taxpayers or students. Quality providers, quality private providers, have a role to play in vocational education. I want to particularly talk about the specialist providers who are still being excluded from their students being eligible for VET FEE loans. For instance music, dancing, acting and film schools that provide professionally focused training, often using professional standard equipment, with very small groups and high teacher/student ratios—a large number of teachers to students—do not deserve to be tarnished by the same brush as the dodgy mass providers. These courses may not meet the criteria that you need to demand from the more online delivery focused courses on offer, but they provide a vital role in skilling up our actors, dancers, musicians and filmmakers to be telling Australian stories.</para>
<para>Be in no doubt any abuse of the system in place by any provider should be acted on fast, and the vast majority of training should be delivered, I believe, through a public system. In contrast to the government's approach, Labor will ensure that at least two-thirds of all government funding for vocational education will go to the trusted public provider, TAFE. The balance will go to not-for-profit community and adult educators, and only high-quality private providers with demonstrated links to industry should be able to access it. There would, therefore, be less opportunity for bad operators in the private sector to take advantage of students.</para>
<para>We need a robust inquiry into vocational education in Australia, which Labor has committed to doing. We need to look at how the sector—the TAFE sector, the vocational education sector—interacts with the university sector as we prepare people for the careers of the mid-21st century. The Abbott-Turnbull government—and I should now add Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, because the practice continued—has stripped $3 billion from vocational education since they were elected. The vocational education system has been damaged by privatisation, poor regulation and unhealthy competition.</para>
<para>In the first hundred days of office Labor will establish a comprehensive inquiry into postsecondary education, ensuring secure consumer protection for students will be a key part of our review. When you think about the data on what's happened to TAFE and the VET system in the last five years it is a sad tale: $3 billion out of TAFE skills and training funding and a fall of more than 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships, and that is still falling. In towns and regional centres across Australia TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back, fees have increased and teachers have lost their jobs. There has been a 30 per cent drop in government funded training happening at TAFE between 2013 and 2016 and the data keeps coming out and continues to be damning.</para>
<para>There have been so few initiatives by this government, but the one they have tried is the lamentable Skilling Australians Fund that depends on visas being issued to foreign workers. As the number of visas goes down, so will the funding for much needed skills development for Australians. There's absolutely no commitment by this government to training young people or retraining older workers.</para>
<para>TAFE needs to be many things. It needs to be financially and geographically accessible to people, it needs to be providing well-skilled people that meet employers' needs and it also needs to provide secure work for teachers. These aren't easy things and only Labor has the belief in TAFE and its importance to see it through.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill and Labor's amendment put to the House to make note of the federal Liberal government's woeful record when it comes to vocational education. I'm pleased to follow the member for Macquarie and her well put contribution to the House on this legislation.</para>
<para>None of us will ever forget the vision we saw on our television screens of people heading to northern Australia in cars with boots full of laptops ready to sign students up to courses that either didn't exist or were sold to students who either didn't have an interest in, or weren't capable of, completing their course. This bill goes some way to correcting some of the ills of that era. The ills that we speak of today are those—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, when the member for Lalor can seek continuation.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</title>
        <page.no>59</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Girls Take Over Parliament Program</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RISHWORTH</name>
    <name.id>HWA</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingston</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's wonderful to have Anna from Merici College in Canberra in the chamber today. She has joined me as part of Girls Take Over Parliament.</para>
<para>One of the issues that Anna prepared before she came on her day is an issue that interested her after she spent some time looking into it, and that is: how is it that young children can form a mindset based on gender stereotypes? This is reflected in many things in their lives, including some things as simple as choosing toys which are tailored specifically to boys or girls.</para>
<para>When reflecting on the treatment of girls and boys, Anna has reflected on how this can often be compared in the language we use around gender. Anna raised the example of boys perhaps being described as confident and boisterous, whereas girls, in contrast, would be called loud and rude. Anna viewed this as a problem and said that these descriptions don't always empower women to stand up and have their voices heard equally or recognised.</para>
<para>Anna believes that there are still issues around girls being able to have their voices heard as equal to their male peers, and that is something which has been recognised in early education. Anna is here today to ensure that young girls and women are able to have a voice. Today they have a voice in parliament, and I am so impressed by Anna's deep thought on this issue. I wish her the best of luck—hopefully, we'll see her in this chamber one day.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kelly, Mr Noel Raymond, OAM</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FALINSKI</name>
    <name.id>G86</name.id>
    <electorate>Mackellar</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to acknowledge rugby league legend and Order of Australia recipient Noel Kelly and his inclusion on this year's Queen's Birthday Honours list for services to Rugby League.</para>
<para>Noel was born in Ipswich. In 1956, at the age of 20, he began playing in the Ipswich rugby league competition. Noel was then selected as hooker for his first test match, against New Zealand. In 1961 he moved to Sydney and signed with the Western Suburbs Magpies. Noel was instrumental in the Magpies sides of the 1960s and played in all of the club's consecutive grand final losses to St George in 1961, 1962 and 1963.</para>
<para>Following his playing career, Noel returned to Sydney to coach the North Sydney Bears from 1973 to 1976. At the end of 1976, he was named to coach Sydney in a tour of New Zealand, while also becoming a board member and ambassador for the Men of League Foundation.</para>
<para>Today Noel resides in Collaroy, just around the corner from me, and continues to remain an integral part of the rugby league community. He is well known for assisting those facing hardship, and the community of Mackellar is very fortunate to call him one of its own.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Lyons Electorate: Flight Paths</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:32</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BRIAN MITCHELL</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyons</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have stood here before on the issue of the flight path changes at Hobart airport, and it is with some reluctance that I stand again. This issue has still not been sorted out after more than a year of a sham community consultation process with the people of my community.</para>
<para>A final decision on these new routes is expected in January, but I'm standing here today to say that it has to be delayed. We need an inquiry into this process, because these new flight paths have been developed without community consultation and they are going to badly affect the people in the south-east of my electorate. They have never before been subjected to flight path noise, but under these new routes they will have jets flying over at low altitude from as early as 4 am, affecting families, businesses, tourism accommodation and the like.</para>
<para>It's been a sham consultation process all the way along. The aviation ombudsman has slammed the process; it's just been an absolute joke. Absolutely, we need an inquiry into this entire process to ensure that the people of my electorate get the justice they deserve. What we need is an inquiry. We need this process to start again. We need the flight paths to go back to what they were before; they were safe and they were uncontroversial. These new changes have been a disaster. They are no good and it has to stop. Airservices Australia has to get its act together, and we need an inquiry now.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Berowra Electorate: Maraylya Public School</title>
          <page.no>59</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to congratulate the Maraylya Public School on its 150th birthday. I had the privilege of attending the sesquicentenary celebrations, which included dance performances and presentations on the history of the school from past and present students, on Friday, 2 November. Maraylya's youngest student, Sienna Kassis, cut the cake with the oldest living alumnus, Audrey Jorgensen. It was a lovely tribute to the school's long history of educating Maraylya residents over the past 150 years.</para>
<para>The school is located on the border of my electorate in the rural area which was once known for mushroom farms. Maraylya Public School had humble beginnings. On 27 July 1868, nine residents signed an application guaranteeing their 26 children would attend the new school. On 2 November that year, North Rocks Provisional School, as it was first known, opened with 12 students in attendance. In those days, before the Public Education Act, many New South Wales schools were organised by the church. It became a public school in 1880. Over the next 150 years, the school would change its name twice, becoming Maraylya in 1920.</para>
<para>It became much more multicultural in the 1970s, with Italian, Irish, German, Polish and Dutch families. I would like to acknowledge Gary and Jakalyn Holloway for documenting Maraylya's history. Today, Maraylya has over 110 students. It has enthusiastic and committed staff under the leadership of Stewart Gaffey, their principal. I want to acknowledge the great work of their P&C president, Angela Latter, and all the members of the association, who make a valuable contribution. Happy 150th birthday, Maraylya Public School.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Girls Take Over Parliament</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Today is the day that Girls Take Over Parliament. Girls Take Over Parliament is a program organised by Jasiri Australia, in partnership with the Alannah & Madeline Foundation and Girl Guides, to enable girls aged between 12 and 20 to be politicians for the day. This year I'm paired With Ella Ezergailis from Girl Guides ACT. Here she is, in the chamber. Ella is in year 6 at Gowrie Primary School in my electorate of Canberra. She is a school vice-captain and class representative on the student representative council. Earlier this year, Ella was awarded the Gowrie Cup for being an outstanding citizen of Gowrie Primary School. I asked Ella why it was important for her to take part in this program, and she said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">I wanted to have a say in my country plus see how it is run. I also wanted to show Australia that girls and young people want to have their say.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">I would like to change the acronym STEM to STEAM because you also need artistic flair to solve problems, think outside the box and build marvels of the world.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">It is important to me that everyone is represented equally, no matter who they are.</para></quote>
<para>I am proud to have a change-maker taking over my office today, and she's earning plenty of Tim Tams too. I hope that as a future leader, should she get into this place, or if she inspires others as an arts teacher, she will empower the next generation of girls to realise their true potential and to live a bold, big life, free of fear, in true equality.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Risdon, Mr Josh</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The sport of soccer has gained popularity in Australia. I would like to congratulate one young man from my electorate of Forrest who has been making a terrific contribution to the sport at the national and international level. Josh Risdon's love of the sport started at an early age, and his parents, Ray and Leanne, would drive him from Bunbury to Perth on the weekends to support his dream. At the age of 14 he moved to Perth permanently to seriously pursue his chosen sport; he always acknowledges his parents' sacrifice.</para>
<para>It was a sacrifice that paid off. In 2007, Josh was accepted into the Football West National Training Centre. Within a year he was picked as part of the Perth Glory training quad. He made his professional debut for Perth Glory in the A-League in 2010, starting against North Queensland Fury. Since that debut, he has made 153 appearances for Perth Glory, before signing a contract with Western Sydney Wanderers in 2017. In 2015 he made his debut for Australia and has since played 13 games for the Socceroos, including representing Australia in this year's World Cup in Russia. I understand a number of international clubs are seriously interested in his talents. This is the combination of great talent, passion, commitment and hard work—from my part of the South West—by both Josh and his parents. He is supported by fantastic parents.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>60</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms KEARNEY</name>
    <name.id>LTU</name.id>
    <electorate>Batman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My electorate of Batman is home to a vibrant and passionate community of activists. Many dedicate their time to acting on the climate emergency, including young schoolchildren who came to see me whilst on climate strike. The recent IPCC report paints a catastrophic picture for the future of the environment. The crisis we face is on a global scale so large it risks our national safety and indeed the existence of the human race. Action must be swift. It must be big. But it must ensure that people's livelihoods are secured and that their communities are maintained.</para>
<para>So I am proud that Labor has started us on this journey with policies that fit the bill: subsidised solar batteries for 100,000 homes; neighbourhood renewables programs that will assist renters and social housing residents to access renewable energy; a just transition authority, a vital part of the social infrastructure we need to assist families affected by the change; and a $10 million retraining fund for workers in the coal-fired power sector, because we need to transition away from coal based energy but we can't leave these workers in the lunch. Of course these policies are not all we will do to ensure we start cooling the planet. The member for Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition have made that clear.</para>
<para>My community, like me, are concerned about new coal mines like Adani, which many feel should not go ahead. They are concerned about the rising costs of electricity, which can be contained with large-scale investment in renewables. My community are concerned about the impact on works. Only Labor has policies that take real action on climate change because we understand the urgency but we also care about people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Leeming Senior High School Education Support Centre</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:40</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORTON</name>
    <name.id>265931</name.id>
    <electorate>Tangney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was again my privilege to join proud parents, families and teachers celebrating the Leeming Senior High School Education Support Centre graduating students. The young people of this class have worked so hard to reach graduation and have achieved a very significant milestone in their lives. Their efforts and hard work deserve the acknowledgement of our parliament, as does the support of their teachers, led by their principal, Keran Davies, and their year coordinator, Louisa Franceschini-Piil.</para>
<para>I was able to offer my contribution to the celebration by sponsoring and presenting the citizenship award to the well-deserving recipient, Zed Dicker-Lee. Zed has been a role model to his classmates, leading by example and contributing to his school community. He is a caring person and is greatly valued and respected by his peers and teachers. Zed made the most of every opportunity and displayed excellent bushranger qualities. He is also a keen sportsperson and always participates with energy and enthusiasm on camps. I was pleased to meet Zed and his proud dad, Ross, at the ceremony.</para>
<para>I wish Zed and every graduating student the very best as they go on to great things next year. I thank all teachers in the Tangney electorate for their contribution to the lives of students in Tangney as they graduate this year.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Victorian State Election</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms McGOWAN</name>
    <name.id>123674</name.id>
    <electorate>Indi</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Colleagues, a wonderful thing happened in north-east Victoria last weekend. People were the change that they wanted to see. People said the future is not a determined definition or a place; it's one we're going to create. Colleagues, never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Today I'd like to sing the praises of, to honour, to acknowledge and to say thank you to the people who put their hand up and stood up as candidates in the recent Victorian election.</para>
<para>I'd especially like to say thank you to the five wonderful independent candidates who stood in the four state electorates in my electorate of Indi: Jacqui Hawkins, Jenny O'Connor, Tammy Atkins, Don Firth and Michelle Dunscombe. These community candidates made such a strong approach and won the support of the people of Indi that 22,244 individuals gave them their first preference vote—22,244 individuals said, 'Independents are what we want.' These were grassroots campaigns. These were bottom-up, not top-down. These were oily rag jobs. These were community people all over the place getting out there and saying, 'We want a change and we want independents who report to their communities above and beyond people who play to parties.'</para>
<para>We're now waiting on the preferences in Benambra, and it's going to be really close. A 28-year-old— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Labor Party</title>
          <page.no>61</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There's been a lot of arrogance shown by the people opposite this week. I think Labor thinks they've already got the election in the bag. They get so excited, licking their lips almost. Big government, big unions, big taxes—that's what they get excited about. We know the truth and so do the Australian people. Labor comes with a cost, and guess who pays. The average pensioners, retirees, families, students—that's who has to pay for the Labor Party.</para>
<para>Only last week I received a letter from a man who's in his 70s on the Sunshine Coast, recovering from open heart surgery. He is distressed because he and his wife are going to lose 25 per cent of their meagre income because of the retiree tax of the Labor Party—25 per cent, and yet the Labor Party think it's funny. They love their puffed-up hubris.</para>
<para>As we all know, the Labor Party are more than happy to rip off everyday Australians. But they're not going to get away with it. No matter what immoral disregard they show for senior Australians, they will be fought every step of the way so that they do not come to this side of the House.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moreton-Rankin Unity Shield</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr CHALMERS</name>
    <name.id>37998</name.id>
    <electorate>Rankin</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It was the last delivery of the day, the light was low, my bowling was, as always, slow and predictable and the member for Moreton was facing me. He spooned up this little dolly of a catch and I, of course, didn't hold onto it! It was the last delivery of the Moreton-Rankin Unity Shield, the fifth time that the member for Moreton and I have hosted this important game between the mosques in our local communities and an important opportunity to build understanding between our communities and within our communities.</para>
<para>I think I dropped that last ball of the day because I was thinking about how I might explain it to the House. I had already started thinking about what I might say. Instead, I'm here to tell you that the member for Moreton's team was victorious again. They comprehensively beat the Rankin team. I congratulate him and his teammates. They've taken a 3-2 lead in the series—a well-deserved 3-2 lead, with a comprehensive win, as I said.</para>
<para>It's a very enjoyable day, but it's an enjoyable day with a deeper message about unity. It's about rejecting fear and division, and building understanding. It works because of the effort put in by our teams and by our co-captains, Ahsan Assadi and Ali Kadri. And, if I may say so, it also works because of the spirit that the member for Moreton brings to the contest every year. It's a real honour to play each year at the beginning of summer—it's the key contest of the summer in cricket! I want to congratulate him and thank him for working with me on such an important cause.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>UNICEF Australia Young Ambassadors</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm really pleased to speak on behalf of Indiana Hehir, a 16-year-old young person from Wide Bay. Indiana is one of nine Young Ambassadors for UNICEF Australia who are consulting with children and young people across the nation to listen to what's important to them. UNICEF supports young people to advocate for the rights of children and young people. Children and young people are experts in their own lives, so who better to understand them than themselves.</para>
<para>A few weeks ago I met with Indi in Gympie and she shared with me the work that she and the team are doing. Some of the things that Indi heard during her consultations in Gympie included: students respond to different styles of learning; young people want to learn more life skills; and they want more attention given to the environment.</para>
<para>Indi is continuing her consultations in Queensland during the first week of December to ensure regional and young people with diverse experiences are heard. The most important part of the consultation is that they are hearing, firsthand, what matters to children and young people in Australia. Indi and the other Young Ambassadors will release their findings next year. It was a pleasure to meet Indi, and I commend her for the great work that she is doing.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Moreton-Rankin Unity Shield</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PERRETT</name>
    <name.id>HVP</name.id>
    <electorate>Moreton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm honoured to inform the House, as mentioned by the member for Rankin, that the Moreton-Rankin Unity Shield cricket cup that we held a fortnight ago has been retained north of Compton Road, remaining with its rightful owners, Moreton. I would also like to note that in this fifth annual match Moreton's first innings 110 was the highest-ever score. I'll leave any commentary to the member for Rankin if he needs to correct that record later on. I do note my contribution of five runs with the bat and four wickets with the ball—good preparation for Sunday. The game was played in a very positive spirit, with just a hint of well-established and friendly rivalry.</para>
<para>I put on the record that the energetic Rohingya Strikers might have helped my side, although I did have a couple of primary school kids. Ali Kadri, my great captain from the Islamic Council of Queensland, has been doing great work with these young Rohingya who love their cricket. It's a wonderful event. As the member for Rankin said, it's about embracing people and doing all we can to promote cohesion and understanding, not the fear and division some people like to cultivate.</para>
<para>I thank Ahsan Assadi, the captain of the Rankin team; St Laurence's College for letting us use their sporting fields in Runcorn; and Queensland Cricket for providing a wonderful umpire. I look forward to the next match with the member for Rankin, where we'll be going for the trifecta or the hat-trick.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Budget</title>
          <page.no>62</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HOWARTH</name>
    <name.id>247742</name.id>
    <electorate>Petrie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>After six years of the previous Labor government delivering budget deficit after budget deficit after budget deficit, one of the reasons why I wanted to become a member of parliament and ran for this seat was to help bring the Australian budget back to surplus. So yesterday's news from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer was great news for all Australians, particularly younger Australians and our children. The budget next year will bring us back to surplus for the first time since 2007, since the Howard government. It will mean our children won't have to pay more, pay higher taxes and be left with higher debt.</para>
<para>Today I've been taking part in the Girls Take Over Parliament program, which gives young Australian women the opportunity to raise their voices with parliamentarians here in Canberra. I asked Maddy Woodward and Arrsha Clemente why the surplus was important to young people. They said, 'We will be creating a sustainable future for young people across the country, opening doors for new opportunities, funding such important sectors as education and recreation.' How true is that? That relates well in my electorate, where every school is receiving a funding increase and where we're also funding the new Moreton Bay Regional University on the Sunshine Coast at Petrie. What a surplus will mean is lower taxes for people in the future, unlike Labor's plan of higher taxes and higher rent for young people.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coalition Government</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I became a member of this parliament to work hard for the people of my community and to advocate for families, small-business owners, single parents, young people, students, people living with disabilities and all those people who need a voice in my seat of Paterson. I became a member to advocate for stable jobs, a functioning NDIS, reliable NBN, affordable energy, world-class education and accessible health care. I'm sure some of those opposite share that desire, but as the days pass it is becoming increasingly evident that many do not. They are here for themselves.</para>
<para>The 2019 parliamentary calendar revealed that there are just 12 days—not the 12 days of Christmas—of parliament sitting between now and the 2019 budget in April of next year. This government has given up. They're not turning up. They're not speaking. They're not doing their job. This government has run out of ideas and as the days pass they're running out of members. This government is not interested in representing the people of Australia. Their disunity and division has become a dereliction of duty. They are a disservice to democracy.</para>
<para>It is a privilege and an honour to have this job, and you should be turning up and doing it, just like every single day since I've been elected I have been turning up to do my job, speak in the parliament, represent the people of Paterson and make a contribution to our great democracy. You're making a farce and a joke of Australia on the world stage. Get on with the job or get out.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr O'DOWD</name>
    <name.id>139441</name.id>
    <electorate>Flynn</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Fire started in the Deepwater National Park on Saturday and immediately spread. Over 20,000 hectares have been lost to the fire in Deepwater, Baffle Creek, Rules Beach and Oyster Creek. This area of land is situated between Bundaberg and Gladstone. We have more than 70 ground crew fighting the fires, and 100 New South Wales fighters have also arrived. Victoria is also sending reinforcements. I thank those two states for their efforts. There are seven water bombers, including a 737 water bomber from Sydney.</para>
<para>Deepwater is an environmentally sensitive area. No fire retardants can be used putting out the fires. There are two evacuation centres: one at Miriam Vale and one at Agnes Water. Because the fire temperatures are six to 10 per cent higher than normal, this is causing further problems. These firestorms are now ripping through parts of Rules Beach and other areas. I urge all local residents to stay vigilant, listen to your local authorities, stay cool and hydrated and adhere to all warnings. Thank you.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Coalition Government</title>
          <page.no>63</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:54</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CHESTERS</name>
    <name.id>249710</name.id>
    <electorate>Bendigo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>You know the Liberal Party's in complete disarray when I, the lady who wears the red jacket, receive in my inbox the unofficial newsletter of the members of the Victorian Liberal Party's summary of the state election. What does it say? It has, for example, 'Victorians just don't like, trust and respect Matthew Guy.' That's not a surprise to anybody who was actually engaged on election day or anybody who was actually listening to what was going on.</para>
<para>It's rare that I actually stand in this place and say that I agree with the member for Higgins, but I agree with her comments that have been reported that the Liberal Party are simply anti women, homophobic and climate change deniers. That's exactly what we saw in the state election. People voted in numbers to say that this Liberal government are out of touch, that they are mean, tricky and not engaged with voters. That is why Liberals, their own people, were not turning up to hand out how-to-votes on state election day.</para>
<para>We on this side of the House are not taking anything for granted because we respect the Australian voters and we listen to the Australian people. People want a government that supports women, that doesn't see them quit and move to the crossbench because they are not addressing the cultural behaviour in their own organisation. People want a government that acknowledges and acts on climate change. And people want a government that is truly embracing of our LGBTI community. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Medicare</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PASIN</name>
    <name.id>240756</name.id>
    <electorate>Barker</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Our government is delivering an additional 30 Medicare subsidised MRI services across the country. Indeed, our government can do this because of sound economic management. The expansion of Medicare eligible MRI licences for 30 additional sites is estimated to provide access to important diagnostic scans for up to 132,000 Australians a year, patients like those living in my electorate in the Riverland, if it's successful in its application to access one of these 30 licences. Over a five-week period in my electorate, I ran a petition, collecting signatures from across the Riverland from people who would benefit from one of these licences. It would save them a three-hour trip to the closest service. I presented this petition to the federal minister today with over 4,000 signatures. That's 4,000 signatures in less than five weeks, demonstrating that an MRI licence for the Riverland is very much needed. With applications currently being assessed, I'm confident that my persistent lobbying of the federal minister will pay off and residents of the Riverland will get access to the services they deserve and which, throughout Labor's time in government, they didn't get.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Last night, as rain drenched Sydney and fell here in Canberra, 80 fires were burning across Queensland. Premier Palaszczuk has described these fires and the extreme heatwave, wind and storm conditions as 'unprecedented'. All-time records have been shattered from Cooktown to Gladstone. So I wanted to say on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people: we are thinking of Queensland and Queenslanders today. We're thinking of everyone who has been evacuated from their homes or those making the hard decision to leave. We're thinking of the local brigades, the last line of defence, that have been on the job since last week. The Wartburg, Agnes Water and Captain Creek rural fire services have been working around the clock, supported by other regional fire services.</para>
<para>But, in particular, I want to talk about Baffle Creek. It is a little town like so many others in Australia. There's a general store, petrol station, bait-and-tackle shop, cafe, real estate agent and pub. Their fire brigade has been fireside for five straight days, defending the place they love. The Gladstone Regional Council mayor, Matt Burnett, told me this morning that today is the crunch point for Baffle Creek. The fire is headed to Coast Road and, if Coast Road is blocked, people will be trapped. So we salute the courage of all the volunteers and the courage of those coming from interstate to lend a hand. They are the best of Australia, standing together, helping each other, and they are in our hearts today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Hinkler Electorate: Regional Deal</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>13:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PITT</name>
    <name.id>148150</name.id>
    <electorate>Hinkler</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It took a while, but we got there eventually. In recent weeks, we announced a regional pilot and regional deal for my electorate of Hinkler. I just want to place on the record my thanks, particularly to the former minister, John McVeigh, for the work that he did in changing this policy to allow this to happen as a trial in our area. I also thank Prime Minister Morrison and others for having the sense to do what is necessary.</para>
<para>Those on the opposite side don't particularly care. They've got no interest in the fact that the people of my electorate have the lowest per capita income per annum in the country—just $34,000 per year. We have a youth unemployment rate which is unacceptably high. Now we are implementing the cashless debit card, which is a tough policy—tough but necessary. We now have the overlay for economic development in our region with a regional deal.</para>
<para>They tell me it can't be done. They tell me it will be difficult, and I acknowledge there'll be challenges. But Premier Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad can do this deal and they can demonstrate to the people of Queensland they are not just a government for the south-east corner, that they care about the regions and that they are interested in putting investment in infrastructure in areas like Hinkler. We need the help. We need the assistance. This is the opportunity for all levels of government to work together on what is a challenging area that needs support. I look forward to the announcement from the Premier— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</title>
        <page.no>64</page.no>
        <type>STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Queensland: Bushfires, New South Wales: Storm</title>
          <page.no>64</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I note the Leader of the Opposition has made comments on this in 90-second statements but I also wanted to say that I have spoken to the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier of Queensland today and I do want to place on record the fact that the entire parliament, the entire place here, is standing with the people not just of Queensland but also of New South Wales today. In Queensland, we know they have been dealing with these ravaging fires now for some days, particularly in the member for Flynn's electorate, in and around Gladstone. We've heard about the real challenges there, particularly over the next 24 hours, and we are expecting some extreme heat conditions across Queensland over the next three or four days. The Commonwealth stand ready to provide support to Queensland and the emergency services there through our own offices, and that offer has been made to the Queensland Premier today.</para>
<para>Also, in New South Wales there have been some very severe storms, both across the Sydney metropolitan area and particularly down on the South Coast of New South Wales in the electorate of Gilmore. The Premier is currently on her way to attend a briefing there and she will update me further this afternoon. All agencies of government will be working with their state counterparts in both New South Wales and Queensland to ensure that the services they need are provided in the most prompt and most cooperative way possible.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I wish to echo the Prime Minister's comments. We live on a challenging continent, where you can see not only amazing storms drench Sydney but terrible bushfires further up the Australian coast between Cooktown and Gladstone. There are 80 fires burning but of particular concern in these conditions are some of the fires near Gladstone. There is a little town called Baffle Creek. It is not even really a town. There is the Wartburg State School, a bait and tackle shop, a petrol station convenience store, a liquor store and a real estate agent. There are about 1,000 households in this area. Most have evacuated. There are perhaps 50 households which have not.</para>
<para>What's been happening for the last number of days is all of the emergency services, the volunteers and the professionals, in particular the rural fire brigades, have been fighting this fire site for five days. I spoke to the Mayor of Gladstone, Matt Burnett, and he explained that today was crunch day. So as the rains and the heavens fall upon us here further south, the fire brigade there has got to try and stop the fire getting to Coast Road; otherwise, people will be blocked. We're very fortunate to have our volunteers and professionals, and they should know that we're thinking of them today.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>65</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>65</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. The government has discontinued funding to the Keeping Women Safe in Their Homes program, which helps protect women who have experienced family violence. This program improves security for women and children, including changing the locks on the front door and sweeping for listening devices in the home. Australian women shouldn't have to choose between staying at home or staying safe. So will the Prime Minister match Labor's announcement from yesterday and commit $18 million to continue support for this vital program?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Leader of the Opposition would know, this is a program that had a set period of funding. We are in the process of working through the consultation phase of how that funding can be extended and we're working through that in the normal budgetary process. It is still funded until June. We are providing that funding towards these essential services to address the serious issue of preventing domestic violence. Preventing domestic violence is a shared commitment of every single person in this place. I must say I'm a little disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would seek to make some political capital of this issue in this place.</para>
<para>The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-2022 is a commitment from all governments through COAG. It will again be addressed at the COAG meeting later this year. Since the national plan has been in place, the Commonwealth has invested over $700 million to reduce domestic, family and sexual violence. Yesterday we announced an additional $10.9 million for the 1800RESPECT number service. The funding will boost the number of counsellors to ensure people can receive help when they need it. In 2017-18 1800RESPECT answered almost 100,000 telephone and online contacts, which was a 54 per cent increase from the previous year. This year the service is expected to answer more than 160,000 such contacts. Through the Women's Safety Package, the Commonwealth gave some states and territories supplementary funding for the Keeping Women Safe in their Home and local support coordinators programs.</para>
<para>We are getting on with the job of delivering these essential services, and we are committed and should be committed as an entire parliament, together with state and territory governments, to addressing the very serious issue of domestic and family violence. We're committed to that, and I have no doubt that other members of this place—those who sit opposite and those who sit on the crossbench—are also committed to this. I would ask that we continue to address these issues in a bipartisan way and not seek to play politics with them.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VASTA</name>
    <name.id>E0D</name.id>
    <electorate>Bonner</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on without having to increase taxes?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Bonner. Our plan for a stronger economy, which we've had in place for five years, continues to work. It's working. It is built on some solid and fundamental principles that we, the Liberal and National parties, believe in to our core; that is, if you have a go, you get a go. Also, you don't lift some people up in this country by bringing other people down through the politics of envy that riddles every single policy proposal on the economy that you see come forward from the Labor Party.</para>
<para>Our plan for a stronger economy has got unemployment down to five per cent. It has got 50,000 people off the unemployment queues from before the last election. It has ensured that the budget that we will hand down before the next election, that the Treasurer will hand down, will be the first surplus budget in 12 years. It's a budget that will be supported by a growing economy, not higher taxes. Almost two million people have got a job in the last five years under the economic policies of this Liberal-National government. On top of that, over 100,000 young people got a job in the last financial year, which was the strongest year of youth jobs growth in Australia's recorded economic history. On top of that, our economic policies mean that Australians of working age in this country have the lowest dependence on welfare—at less than 15 per cent—that we've seen in 25 years.</para>
<para>Our plan for a stronger economy is working, and that means we can invest in the essential services that Australians rely on: an additional $37 billion for schools over the next 10 years; an additional $30 billion for hospitals over the next five years; some $7 billion has been made available to support our farmers in drought in rural and regional communities; 1,900 new and amended drugs listings, with $1.4 billion in the last budget to support new drugs listings; and an extra billion dollars going into aged care every year. We are doing all of that without increasing taxes. We're doing it because we know how to run a strong economy.</para>
<para>The $200 billion in higher taxes that those opposite want to impose on the Australian people, if they win the next election, is an admission that they do not know how to run a stronger economy and that they do not know how to run a strong budget. The Australian people know that they cannot trust Labor with money and they cannot trust them when it comes to letting them keep more of the money they earn. The Labor Party are the party for higher taxes. Higher taxes under Labor; lower taxes under the Liberals and Nationals. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>66</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:09</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that since moving on Malcolm Turnbull the government has cancelled parliament because it couldn't decide who was the Prime Minister, lost two government members and its majority, and next year is going to run a part-time parliament? Has the government given up on even pretending to govern? And why isn't Malcolm Turnbull still the Prime Minister of Australia?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The leader of the Labor Party is so cocky that he thinks all he has to do to become Prime Minister is come in here and ask the same question every day. That's how cocky he has become. He thinks he can just walk into the job of Prime Minister without explaining to the Australian people why he wants to take a $200 billion tax sledgehammer to the Australian economy. He thinks he doesn't have to explain to the Australian people how taking our industrial relations arrangements back to the 1970s—to reintroduce division and conflict in our workplaces—is somehow supposed to support bringing Australians together to make a stronger economy.</para>
<para>What we know of this Leader of the Opposition is that he think that he can so simply become the Prime Minister of this country that he can just give up on growing the Australian economy or having one policy that might seek to grow the Australian economy. He thinks the way to deliver essential services in this country is just to tax Australians more. That is a confession that he does not know how to run a strong budget and he does not know how to oversee a strong economy.</para>
<para>But I can tell him, again, what our government has been getting on with the job of doing. Whether it was announcing the new city deal up in Darwin, which will be ensuring a better standard of living and livelihood for people living in our tropical capital; or the fact that we have finalised negotiations on the Hong Kong Free Trade Agreement; that we put $300 million over the next four years to reduce red tape for small businesses; and that we are delivering on ensuring that small businesses get paid on time, and that their payment terms go from 30 days down to 20 days—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The women of this country can continue to expect the support of our government as we see record levels of female participation in the workforce and the gender pay gap coming down to record lows. We are providing security and safety for Australians by introducing into this House legislation that will cancel the citizenship of people who engage in terrorist acts. Whether they're terrorists that come from a radical Islamic extremist view that is the most dangerous form of religious extremism in this country—if we believe they have other citizenship and they have committed a terrorist act, we will cancel their citizenship. On top of that, we will introduce temporary exclusion orders to ensure that returning foreign fighters do not get to come back into this country and wreak havoc.</para>
<para>This is a government that knows how to keep our economy strong and how to keep Australians safe. We are getting on with the job of doing all of those things. This is an arrogant and cocky Leader of the Opposition who thinks all he has to do is turn up in parliament, throw a few zingers around and— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Infrastructure</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAUNDY</name>
    <name.id>247130</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport and Regional Development. Will the minister update the House on how the government is delivering essential transport infrastructure that Australians need without having to increase taxes, including building game-changing infrastructure in Western Sydney?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
    <electorate>Riverina</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Reid full well knows how important the Western Sydney Airport is. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Macarthur is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity: a $5 billion investment. There's $3 billion worth of enabling supporting infrastructure, including roads. During the construction period, there are going to be 11,000 jobs created, and, once the airport is completed, 28,000 direct and indirect jobs created from this piece of nation-building infrastructure. The Prime Minister knows how important it is. He turned the first sod for the Western Sydney Airport in September.</para>
<para>When we, as Liberals and Nationals, say that we're going to do something—do you know what?—we get on and we do it. When we say we're going to lower taxes for small and medium-sized and family enterprise businesses, we do it. We don't just say it; we do it. We live by our credo—we get on and we do it. When we say we're going to help small and family enterprises, and big businesses too, create a million jobs in five years—do you know what?—we do it. We don't just say it; we do it. When we say we're going to lower taxes, we don't just say it; we do it.</para>
<para>Western Sydney Airport is not Sydney's second airport; it's Western Sydney's first airport. And it is going to create so much hope and opportunity and enterprise in Western Sydney. The member for Reid knows full well how many jobs and opportunities this is going to create. This 24-hour airport is going to create 24 hours of jobs, 24 hours of enterprise, 24 hours of industrious activity in Western Sydney. I'm sure that those opposite who represent that Western Sydney Airport area are going to be cheering this home too, as well they should. The member for Lindsay, the member for Macquarie and the member for Chifley know how many jobs and opportunities this is going to create.</para>
<para>We're getting on with building the infrastructure that Australians want, need, expect and deserve. Just last week, I was in the member for Parkes's electorate talking to people about inland rail—the Inland Rail, a 1,700-kilometre corridor of commerce. The first plans for inland rail were drawn up in 1905—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Burney</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Whoa!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr McCORMACK</name>
    <name.id>219646</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>'Whoa!' the member for Barton says. She's excited about it—as well she should be, because it's not just regional Australia that this is going to benefit. It is about Melbourne. It is about Brisbane. It is about easing congestion on our roads. Just like Western Sydney Airport is going to ease congestion around Kingsford Smith, so too is the Inland Rail going to ease congestion, making sure that people get home sooner and more safely on our roads. We're building the aviation, we're building the Inland Rail, we're getting on and building the roads, because we don't just say it, we don't just talk about it; we do it.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>G20 Argentina 2018</title>
          <page.no>67</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Why has the Treasurer cancelled, at the last minute, his planned trip to meet with his international counterparts at the G20, the leading forum of the world's major economies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the member for McMahon would know, it's a leaders meeting. It's a leaders meeting—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and the treasurers and the finance ministers were at the recent meeting in Bali.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We were at the recent meeting in Bali. And the member for McMahon would know—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause for a second. Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thank you. The member for McMahon would know that at the recent G20-IMF-World Bank meeting of finance ministers and treasurers in Bali Australia's economy was revered for its strong economic growth. The IMF, the OECD and the World Bank praised the strong Australian economy—our relatively low levels of debt, our falling taxes, our falling unemployment and our strong economic growth. That is the result of good economic management that the coalition has undertaken over the last five years. And when the Prime Minister—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I never ever thought you'd be modest!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>represents this country at the G20 over the weekend, the finance minister will be with him. He has been at the last three meetings of the G20—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Husic</name>
    <name.id>91219</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You've changed!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley is warned!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>and he and the Prime Minister will be reminding all the other leaders—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. The member for Chifley will leave under—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>of the strong—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Treasurer will pause. The member for Chifley will leave under—</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Australian economy—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Treasurer, just stop talking for a second. Thank you.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Chifley will leave under 94(a). The member for McEwen is warned. The Treasurer has the call.</para>
<para> <inline font-style="italic">The member for </inline> <inline font-style="italic">Chifley</inline> <inline font-style="italic"> then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Prime Minister reminds me, the member for McMahon struggles when it comes to international countries, because he put out a press release, about following Labor's lead and supporting the Varghese report, which said, 'We support increasing trade between Australia and Indonesia.' The only problem was that the Varghese report was about Australia and India. That was nearly as good as the member for Chifley, who thought Africa was a country.</para>
<para>The final thing I would say is the thing about the Prime Minister, his ministers and his government is that, when we go overseas, we talk Australia up. But the member for Fenner, when he writes about Australia overseas, he talks it down. He went and said to the investors of the world, through the <inline font-style="italic">New York Times</inline>: 'Don't come here and invest in the Australian economy. Don't support regional jobs. Don't support Australia's growth record. Forget about what <inline font-style="italic">The Economist</inline> has said about how "Aussie rules the world" and "Australia rules the world". Forget all about that,' because they want to talk down the Australian economy, whereas the Liberal and National parties talk Australia up and we have a proud record on which to do so.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McMahon—what's the member for Fenner doing? The member for McMahon is seeking to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Bowen</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I am, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the transcript of the Treasurer on 9 November, talking about the important issues he would be discussing with his finance colleagues at the G20.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for McMahon will resume his seat. I'm not even going to ask whether leave is granted. It is a public document. The member for Fenner is seeking to table a document?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr Leigh</name>
    <name.id>BU8</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I seek leave to table an article by the member for Kooyong, published on the UK <inline font-style="italic">Spectator</inline> website—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Fenner will resume his seat.</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's called getting warned. The member for Kennedy.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Investment</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Treasurer, the biggest farm in Australia, Van Diemen's Land Company's dairies, is owned by China; the second biggest, Cubbie, is owned by China. The biggest grain farm, Nicoletti, is owned by China. The biggest farming aggregation, Kidman's, is controlled by China. The biggest of all, Ord stage 2 and 3, is owned by China. Australia's most strategic port, Darwin, is owned by China. The taxi-hire industry, Uber, is foreign owned. Car manufacturing, glass, textiles, petrol and whitegoods have all gone overseas. To us Australians, free trade means jobs exported and cheap labour imported. Treasurer, do we have a new regime that won't continue to sell off Australia, or is it business as usual: Australia for sale?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Kennedy for his question. Foreign investment is absolutely critical to lifting Australia's living standards, to jobs and to growth in the Australian economy. And it's about meeting the savings gap that we have in Australia, which is about 3½ per cent of GDP, which is the difference between our domestic savings and the investment opportunities.</para>
<para>We have put in place a number of safeguards around the agriculture space in relation to foreign investment. We're now requiring more transparency and openness around the sales process. When it comes to critical infrastructure, we take the advice and the input that comes not only from the Foreign Investment Review Board, led by David Irvine, but also from the critical infrastructure committee, which involves a number of leading agencies.</para>
<para>So I would say to the member for Kennedy, it's about getting the balance right, and that balance is about foreign investment that is in Australia's national interests. It's a very serious topic. It's not a free-for-all. There are considered opinions and inputs that are taken and, whether it's in the agriculture space or in critical infrastructure or in other aspects of the Australian economy, the Morrison government, the Liberal and National government, will always take decisions that are in the national interest.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:22</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LEESER</name>
    <name.id>109556</name.id>
    <electorate>Berowra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is guaranteeing the essential services Australian families rely on, without raising taxes? Is the Treasurer aware of any risks to the future prosperity of Australian families?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to thank the member for Berowra for his question. He's a hardworking local member who supports a strong economy. When the Liberal and National government came to power, we inherited an economy where unemployment was going up, investment was in freefall and debt was growing at more than 30 per cent per year, locking in decades of recklessly high government spending growth. In contrast, after five years of hard decisions at the ERC and across government, we have seen unemployment fall to five per cent. We have created more than one million new jobs. We have had our AAA credit rating reaffirmed by the leading credit-rating agencies. We've also seen wages increase, with the biggest jump in three years, and we've seen GDP growth of 3.4 per cent through the year, which is the fastest rate since the height of the mining boom.</para>
<para>As the Prime Minister has told this place, the next budget we deliver will be a budget surplus. That is in stark contrast to those opposite, because the last time the Labor Party delivered a budget surplus was 1989. The Berlin Wall was still standing. Taylor Swift was born. The last time Labor delivered a budget surplus was 1989. I thought to myself, 'What went wrong with those four surpluses that the member for Lilley announced in this chamber?' I found the answer in this book, <inline font-style="italic">Kevin Rudd: the PM Years</inline>. This is what Kevin Rudd had to say about the member for Lilley. He said the member for Lilley lacked 'cerebral horsepower' and the 'basic level of intellectual software capable of being trained'. That is what Kevin Rudd, the former Labor Prime Minister, thought of the member for Lilley.</para>
<para>We are growing the Australian economy. We are creating jobs. We are cutting taxes. The choice at the next election will be between a Labor Party and $200 billion of higher taxes and a Liberal-National government that has delivered lower unemployment and more than 1.1 million new jobs.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>G20 Leaders' Summit</title>
          <page.no>69</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr ALY</name>
    <name.id>13050</name.id>
    <electorate>Cowan</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to reports that the Treasurer has cancelled his planned trip to meet with his international counterparts at the G20 because of government chaos and division. Given the Treasurer's recent success as a cinematographer, has the Treasurer considered sending a video message to the G20 instead?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:28</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Both the Prime Minister and I are having a session with Mark Humphries shortly! But the reality is the economy is a serious business. The Australian economy and the jobs of more than 100,000 young people who have been put in a job as a result of the strong economy that we have helped create is a serious business. The Labor Party left this government an economy where unemployment was rising, investment was in freefall, debt was rising and, as the Deputy Prime Minister reminds this place, confidence was falling. In contrast, we have delivered what Liberal and National parties do—more jobs, lower taxes and lower unemployment, which is now at its lowest level since 2012. The Prime Minister will represent this country at the G20 meeting, accompanied by the Minister for Finance, and he will be talking Australia up, unlike the Labor Party, which talks Australian down.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Energy. Will the minister update the House on how the government is working to bring down electricity prices without having to increase taxes and ensuring reliable electricity for Australians? What impact will alternative approaches have?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:30</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forde for his question. It was great to spend time recently in his electorate in Queensland, talking to small businesses about the rip-offs that have been imposed on them by the big energy companies in Queensland—big energy companies that, incidentally, are owned by the Queensland Labor government. It turns out that Labor governments want higher electricity prices, and in the last year they ripped over $2 billion out of hardworking families and small businesses in Queensland.</para>
<para>The government has a strong plan for affordable, reliable energy for Australian families and hardworking small businesses. Our pressure on the big energy companies is delivering. We saw a couple of weeks ago AGL offering discounts of 10 per cent to its standing offer customers. That means 150,000 families and 27,000 small businesses will be better off. Just yesterday, EnergyAustralia announced discounts of 15 per cent on standing offers. That will be focused on concessional customers, which includes older customers, who don't have the ability to spend time negotiating with those companies every year.</para>
<para>We said we would deliver on lower electricity prices, and that is exactly what we're doing. On top of those initiatives, we'll bring forward big-stick legislation to the parliament that will hold the energy companies to account—legislation that those opposite are not supporting because they sit on the side of the big energy companies. We will underwrite 24/7 reliable supply in the market.</para>
<para>In contrast, those opposite want higher electricity prices. The member for Isaacs was outed yesterday. He was trying to hide carbon tax 2.0 when he said, 'I'm not going to rule it in or rule it out.' I heard this one live while I was sitting in the car, and almost drove off the road: the member for Shortland confirmed in an interview last Thursday that their policy is an implied carbon price—a sneaky hidden carbon price. The member for Port Adelaide, the shadow minister for energy himself, when asked by Leigh Sales on <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>: 'Will Labor's policy include a carbon tax?' said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">It will cover all the other sectors of the economy apart from electricity.</para></quote>
<para>Well that's agriculture, that's manufacturing, that's transport. They're the sectors that we will back, the sectors that we will support, because we believe in lower electricity prices. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>70</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the member for Curtin said, 'Given that we've had so much uncertainty for so long, the ground must be fertile for there to be some negotiation on energy policy. I would like us to come up with a bipartisan solution.' Why won't the Prime Minister listen to the member for Curtin and work with Labor on the National Energy Guarantee, a policy which the current Treasurer designed and the current Prime Minister said would lower power prices?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Leader of the Opposition referred to this policy as a Frankenstein policy. What that demonstrates is that you can never believe anything this bloke says. He is for everything and he is against everything. You have no idea. The Australian people—</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister will pause for a second. The member for McEwen has already been warned. He interjects regularly; he can leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for McEwen then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>That's why after five years the Australian people have come to a conclusion on the leader of the Labor Party, and that is he can't be trusted on anything. He will blow with the wind whichever way political opportunism follows, because that is the nature and the character of the Leader of the Opposition. If you scratch him you won't find a belief. If you scratch him you won't find a conviction. All you will find is unvarnished ambition, as he took down one leader after the next. That's his bag. That is what he is known for. That's why people don't trust him. That's why all of his backbenchers don't trust him either. The Leader of the Opposition cannot be trusted. He can't be trusted by his colleagues, he can't be trusted by the Australian people when it comes to the economy and he can't be trusted by the workers of Australia, who he sold out as their advocate. He sold them out as their representative, as a union leader, for nothing other than his own vain ambition. The Australian people have a clear line of sight on this bloke, and they know he cannot be trusted.</para>
<para>By contrast, what we are saying when it comes to electricity prices is that we are working to bring them down. As the Minister for Energy has clearly stated today, both AGL and Energy Australia have taken decisions, after discussions with the government, which have resulted in actual real savings for hundreds of thousands of Australian on their electricity bill. Those opposite do not support the big stick legislation that will take it to the electricity companies to ensure we keep them in line. The Labor Party are going to side with the companies that have been increasing their profits at the expense of households.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Shorten</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I have a point of order on direct relevance. My question went to the member for Curtin's advice on the National Energy Guarantee. Why won't the Prime Minister ever mention the member for Curtin or the National Energy Guarantee?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister is in order.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The other thing the Leader of the Opposition plans to do is put a 45 per cent emissions reduction target on. We know that will increase electricity prices for every pensioner, every household and every business. It will see places like, as the member for Flynn knows, the Boyne Island smelter, with 1,000 jobs, going out of business because of the reckless policies of the leader of the Labor Party.</para>
<para>The Australian people will be faced with a choice at the next election: higher taxes and reckless policies on energy from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party, or lower taxes, a stronger economy and services that Australians can rely on from the Liberals and the Nationals.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'd like to inform the House that we have joining us here on the floor of the House this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from Ireland, led by Deputy Speaker Pat 'the Cope' Gallagher. On behalf of the House, I extend you a very warm welcome, indeed.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>71</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Women's Economic Security</title>
          <page.no>71</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations and Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is guaranteeing the financial security of Australian women and their families without having to increase taxes? What would be the consequences for women's financial security were an alternate course of action followed?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:38</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the very hardworking member for Boothby for her question. She, like so many on this side of the House, understands how crucial it is for women to be able to build their financial security to ensure they fulfil their full potential. We know that when Australian women do well their families do well and our economy and our nation prospers. We know that financial security allows women choices and opportunities to live the life they want. They should not be forced to settle for anything less.</para>
<para>The government has already delivered a strong and growing economy that has seen more women in work than ever before. In fact, of the almost 1. 2 million new jobs created in this country, the majority have been taken up by women. There are more women participating in the workforce than ever before. We have a record level of workforce participation. Under our economic stewardship, we have seen the gender pay gap come down, having been so high under those opposite.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Hill</name>
    <name.id>86256</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>What's the gender pay gap in the cabinet?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">The member for Bruce then left the chamber.</inline></para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>But we're not standing still. Despite the talk from all of those opposite, we are the only party, the only government, to have actually delivered the first dedicated economic security statement for Australian women. As usual, it has taken a coalition government to talk about the practical policies that Australian women demand and expect, like the Career Revive initiative that will help regional businesses to remedy barriers to women accessing and returning to work, and to support those who are returning to work, and the Curious Minds program that will encourage young girls in the STEM field so that they have the skills and education for the jobs of the future.</para>
<para>But what have we heard from those opposite? Last night we heard the Leader of the Opposition announce a plan to have a plan about a plan. The very fact is that those opposite are very, very good at virtue signalling, but they have not got a clue when it comes to delivery. In fact, the only thing those opposite will be able to deliver, and that they promise to deliver, is higher taxes—$200 billion worth of higher taxes. Let us not forget the mega retiree tax, a tax that will hurt 30 per cent more women—vulnerable women, older women. It is shameful that they would do such a thing. The coalition can be relied upon to deliver the economic security that Australian women demand and expect, not like those opposite.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>72</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:41</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BURNEY</name>
    <name.id>8GH</name.id>
    <electorate>Barton</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Women. The minister failed to answer the question yesterday, so I ask: does the minister agree with herself that this Liberal government is widely seen as 'homophobic, antiwomen climate change deniers'?</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I have a concern with that question. I obviously haven't memorised every aspect of the <inline font-style="italic">Hansard</inline>, but I will flag my concern now. That question cannot be identical to the question from yesterday. The Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>On a point of order—</para>
<para>Honourable members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To those interjecting: the Manager of Opposition Business actually has a job, and he doesn't need your help.</para>
<para class="italic">Mr Pyne interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You'll always help me, Christopher! Yes, point of order: two things. Firstly, the question is different to the question from yesterday. Secondly, the rule on the same question only applies if the question has been fully answered, which, yesterday, it clearly wasn't.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No, that's just a matter of your judgement. The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat for a second. You don't get to score on your judgement on how answered a question was. I could detain the House for a lengthy period of time on this, but <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> makes it very, very clear that that would only apply if a minister simply didn't say a word. The whole history of this place is well-written. The Manager of Opposition Business.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was referring to the requirement in the standing orders that a question cannot be asked again if it has been fully answered; I was giving you a reference to that. In terms of the first part of it, the question yesterday included these words but had another section added to it, and today's question is different.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Rather than rule it out unilaterally, I just wanted to flag the concern. I will call the minister.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
    <electorate>Higgins</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for her question. It gives me an opportunity to explain again to the House how this government is the natural government for Australian women.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>We are the government that best represents the hopes—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause for a second.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Members on my left will cease interjecting.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If members don't cease interjecting, I will simply eject them one by one. Particularly with that level of interjection, members are really disrupting the House. If members can't contain themselves, I will take action. The minister has the call.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>As I said, we are the government that naturally represents Australian women. We represent their hopes and aspirations. Let me explain why. We are a government that believes in lower taxes, we are a government that believes in smaller government and we are a government—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will resume her seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the extension allowed under standing orders of time be given for this answer.</para></quote>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll pull out the standing order, but you can only move that motion once the period of time has concluded. You can't move it. Anyway, we've got two minutes and 20 seconds. Why don't we let the minister keep going and we'll work it out.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're saying you'll give me the opportunity, but the thing is that you actually don't want to listen to a woman who is at the despatch box, so I will not take a lesson from you on that. As I was saying, we are a government that believes in lower taxes, unlike those opposite. We believe in smaller government. We believe that people should be able to choose their own path, and that includes Australian women. We want to help them to build their financial security, and that is why we have delivered the first ever Women's Economic Security Statement. I know it is very inconvenient—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The minister will pause for a second. I'm not going to have anyone at the despatch box shouted at continuously.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms Madeleine King</name>
    <name.id>102376</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Why don't you go to the crossbench?</para>
<para class="italic">Ms O'Neil interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The members for Brand and Hotham will leave under 94(a).</para>
<para class="italic"><inline font-style="italic">The members for Brand and Hotham then left the chamber.</inline></para>
<para class="italic">Mr Khalil interjecting—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>If the member for Wills wants to follow, he can start packing up.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'DWYER</name>
    <name.id>LKU</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I know it is very inconvenient for those opposite to actually have to listen to the measures that we have delivered for Australian women. I really am very happy about this opportunity. We have measures to increase women's workforce participation: over $54.8 million over four years to reinstate the time use survey, which will actually measure women's economic security—something, by the way, that the Labor Party abolished when they were in government. We are going to recognise women's time, whether it's in the home or in the workforce—something that they abolished when they were in government. We are improving the Workplace Gender Equality Agency systems to make sure that we capture the right equality data, to reduce the cost for business that is reported so that around 70 per cent of workplaces will in fact be reporting their data. We are going to have a reducing barriers to work forum. This particular forum will ensure that we can have an even stronger focus on the gender pay gap, because, like I said, those opposite saw the gender pay gap increase under them to 17.2 per cent, and it has come down under us to 14.5 per cent. We are supporting regional employers through career revive, as I've said. We are providing scholarships to women to help them to be able to advance their careers and give them better earning potential. And I am happy to go on. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Just for the clarity of the Manager of Opposition Business in the House, page 528 of <inline font-style="italic">Practice</inline> outlines it very clearly. It says that after the maximum period allowed for a member's speech has expired it can be moved for an extension.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Drought</title>
          <page.no>73</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOYCE</name>
    <name.id>E5D</name.id>
    <electorate>New England</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is providing the vital drought resilience and preparedness package Australian farmers and regional communities rely on without having to increase taxes? What are the consequences of not supporting our farmers and their communities in this way?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:49</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LITTLEPROUD</name>
    <name.id>265585</name.id>
    <electorate>Maranoa</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for New England for his question, because he knows full well the impact the drought is having not only on his electorate of New England but also as the drought envoy for this government. He has an understanding that, while we have had rain recently, there are some drought-affected areas that haven't had any.</para>
<para>It's important for us all to acknowledge that one rainfall event will not break this drought. So it's important the government continues to be agile, to not only deliver in the here and now for our farmers and our communities—because it is not just farmers who hurt through drought; it is also those small communities and small businesses in those communities that also hurt—but to make sure we prepare for the future and learn from this drought. And that's why, we are proud to say, we have already put $1.9 billion on the table. One of the key measures was increasing the farm household assistance to put money in farmers' pockets so they can spend it in the local butcher, baker, IGA to keep the money flowing in the communities.</para>
<para>We have made sure we have made it easier for them as well by investing in more rural financial counsellors. These are the angels of this drought. They help the farmers fill out the application forms and have a strategic look at their businesses for their future resilience and for their business profitability for years to come. It's important we get these people on the ground, so an extra 39 have been employed, and 37 of those have already hit the ground. I'm proud to say we haven't stopped. We're going to continue to make sure we deliver this in an agile way.</para>
<para>It's also about making sure we broaden our investment into the communities by making a $1 million investment for each local shire for those shire councils to invest in projects to build infrastructure that employs local tradies and to procure a lot of the materials from local hardware stores to keep those businesses going through the tough times.</para>
<para>But, to look further than that, the National Water Infrastructure Fund will get an extra $500 million to complement the $500 million we have already put for key water infrastructure projects around the nation. We have already started eight shovel-ready projects around the nation. Looking to farmers, we are giving them $50 million in rebates to put in on-farm water infrastructure projects to build the resilience and preparedness of their farms for the drought. We are also investing in one of our great natural resources, the Great Artesian Basin, an extra $30 million to continue the capping and piping to make sure that resource is there for the future.</para>
<para>One of the proudest things for us as a government is, for the first time in this nation's history, we will have a nationally coordinated drought approach underpinned by a $5 billion Future Fund, which will give it a dividend year in, year out from 2020 that will invest in new research and development and in infrastructure to build the resilience and preparedness of the agricultural sector, to prepare and protect our regional communities.</para>
<para>The story of agriculture is a good one. The story of agriculture is just to add rain. We are proudly a $60 billion industry and, with this investment, we'll go a lot further.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>DISTINGUISHED VISITORS</type>
      </debateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to inform the House that joining us in the gallery this afternoon is the Australian Political Exchange Council's 26th delegation from the People's Republic of China. On behalf of the House, I extend a very warm welcome to you.</para>
<para>Honourable members: Hear, hear!</para>
</speech>
</debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</title>
        <page.no>74</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>74</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Port Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with himself when he said: 'The National Energy Guarantee achieves lower electricity prices.'?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The misrepresentation of the National Energy Guarantee as being some measure that the opposition has somehow taken from the coalition, I think, is deeply misleading to the Australian people. I will tell you why. In the proposal that was considered by the government, the emissions reduction target was 26 per cent; it wasn't 45 per cent. The Labor Party cannot use the National Energy Guarantee as some sort of Trojan horse to legislate a 45 per cent emissions reduction target. The Australian public should not be fooled by this lie, because it is a very tricky and shifty lie from the Leader of the Opposition—very tricky and very shifty.</para>
<para>A 45 per cent emissions reduction target will turbocharge electricity prices higher. That will hit pensioners, it will hit families, it will hit small businesses, it will hit the agricultural industry, it will hit the smelting industry and it will hit businesses and regions all across the country. If you're interested in taking electricity prices down, you do not have reckless targets when it comes to managing your emissions. We have a sensible target; it's 26 per cent. We're committed to it and we will continue to meet it. We will have met Kyoto 1. We will meet Kyoto 2 and we will ensure we meet the Paris reductions as well by 2030.</para>
<para>We have sensible targets. The Labor Party has a reckless target, and, as we heard from the member for Isaacs, it is quite possible that that will include a carbon tax from the Labor Party. They refuse to rule it out. They've ruled it out in the past; they've ruled it in in the past. They've done it, and we were the ones who had to get rid of it. A 45 per cent emissions reduction target is a job-destroying, economy-destroying tax on electricity which will undermine the strength of our economy. This is important, because it's the strength of our economy which delivers hospitals. It's the strength of our economy that delivers schools and affordable medicines—affordable medicines that when Labor were in power they could not fund because they could not manage money and they could not fund a budget. In next year's budget, the first surplus budget in 12 years, our budget will fund those medicines. It will fund hospitals, it will fund schools, and it will do so without higher taxes and without reckless targets that only undermine our economy.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Economy</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:55</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep our economy strong is guaranteeing the essential services Australians rely on, without having to increase taxes, including supporting Australia's science agencies?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs ANDREWS</name>
    <name.id>230886</name.id>
    <electorate>McPherson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank the member for Forrest for her question. I know how passionate she is about science and technology. The Liberal-National government is absolutely committed to a strong and growing science and technology sector, and we are able to do that because we have built a strong economy.</para>
<para>Today the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of the National Science and Technology Council. That is the peak advisory body that is to support the Prime Minister and other ministers on science and technology. It will focus on the key science and technology challenges that are facing Australia and it will ensure that the government is receiving the best independent advice possible.</para>
<para>The coalition government supports science and technology. We have leading agencies, science agencies, here in Australia—CSIRO, ANSTO, AIMS—with world-leading scientists here, and the coalition government continues to invest in them. The coalition government has invested $1.5 billion more in science agencies than Labor did. We have invested more money: $97 million more in CSIRO, $126 million more in ANSTO and $53 million more for the Australian Institute of Marine Science. The scientific advances that these investments support are going to attract talent. It's going to build our skills, it's going to create jobs, it's going to unlock discoveries and it is going to enable Australian industry and businesses to thrive. For example, the coalition government invested about $520 million in the Australian Synchrotron through the National Innovation and Science Agenda. A new technique has now been developed by Australian researchers that will assist in the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer, and that was all thanks to the strong economy that the government has been able to build, which enables us to invest in our leading science agencies.</para>
<para>On top of that, we have invested $41 million to establish the Australian Space Agency, which is going to grow jobs from 10,000 to an additional 20,000 by the year 2030. Let me say this: while those opposite were staring into space, the coalition government was the government that made space a reality.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>National Energy Guarantee</title>
          <page.no>75</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BOWEN</name>
    <name.id>DZS</name.id>
    <electorate>McMahon</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer agree with himself when he said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… if you believe in lower power prices, if you want to see Australian households $550 a year better off, if you want to see the wholesale price down by 20 per cent, if you want to be side by side with the big employers across the country, you get behind the National Energy Guarantee …</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>14:59</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr FRYDENBERG</name>
    <name.id>FKL</name.id>
    <electorate>Kooyong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As the Prime Minister made very clear, the Leader of the Opposition, when the National Energy Guarantee was being discussed, called it a Frankenstein policy. In doing so, he revealed everything that he is about: just politics. It's all about politics; it's not about reducing power prices. Do you know the Labor Party's record on power prices when they were last in government? Power prices doubled. They doubled. The member for Port Adelaide comes from the state where they had that big, failed experiment where they had a blackout and businesses saw their power prices rise and families were hurt by higher power prices.</para>
<para>The member for Hume, the Prime Minister and our side of politics are making a real difference in lowering power prices. On 1 July this year, power prices came down in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. As the energy minister said, AGL have just reduced their standing offers, which will see 150,000 households up to $180 a year better off and 27,000 businesses up to $340 a year better off. That's a result of policies we are taking; the energy companies are reacting. The wholesale power price is down about 20 per cent year on year. We have avoided the gas shortfall that was created by those opposite, by their own gas policy when they were last in government, and when they ignored the warnings from AEMO.</para>
<para>As the energy minister has made clear, we have a broad suite of reforms which include the default price, backing new generation and dealing with a market failure. We have taken the advice of the ACCC and we have a policy that will not only reduce power prices but also reduce emissions, which are at the lowest level on a per capita and GDP basis in 28 years. There hasn't been as much investment in renewables as there has been under a coalition government. These are inconvenient truths for the Labor Party. When the Labor Party have an energy policy it's a recklessly high 45 per cent target, which the Business Council of Australia said will be a wrecking ball through the economy. Only the coalition can be trusted to reduce people's power prices.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TIM WILSON</name>
    <name.id>IMW</name.id>
    <electorate>Goldstein</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is for the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the government's plan to keep Australia's economy strong is guaranteeing affordable access to life-changing medicines Australians depend upon without having to increase taxes? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the supply of treatments recommended by medical experts?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:03</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HUNT</name>
    <name.id>00AMV</name.id>
    <electorate>Flinders</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to thank the member for Goldstein, who has been a great advocate for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, in particular, for better access to new cancer treatments such as immunotherapy. On that front, I was very privileged recently to meet with Peter Suffolk. Peter Suffolk was a gentleman who had been diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer. It had spread to other parts of his body and he was given six months to live. It was six years ago, however, that he was given six months to live. He was one of the first Australians to receive Keytruda, one of the new immunotherapies, through a trial program.</para>
<para>I met him on the day we listed Keytruda, only two months after it had been recommended by the PBAC for inclusion on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This medicine for non-small cell lung cancer will mean that 850 patients will save up to $188,000 a year and that they have the prospect of a long life. It is a profoundly important thing—something of immense value—that you can only do if you've got a strong economy which actually allows you to deliver these essential services. This is the human face of a strong economy. This is the human face of medical research. It's the human face of all the different things that we do. What Peter said to me that day is that the fact that every Australian who has this condition and qualifies will now have access under the PBS is an absolute gift. He gave thanks that day for what we were able to do.</para>
<para>I'm asked whether or not there are any alternatives. We know from history, sadly, that it has not always been the case that new medicines are listed when the medical experts recommend them. We know that in the 2011 budget the then government deferred the listing of new medicines until fiscal circumstances would permit. That's what happens when you can't run the economy and you can't run a budget. I was doing a little bit of research and I discovered that, following that decision, 60 groups put out a statement saying:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Vital lifesaving medicines are being shelved by the Federal Government—just to keep the Budget in surplus.</para></quote>
<para>They were right about the first, but the surplus was never delivered. They went on to say:</para>
<list>Affordable medicines and vaccines that save and prolong lives are being denied to some of the most vulnerable chronically ill Australians by a short-sighted decision by the Government to disregard the recommendations of PBAC.</list>
<para>Who were these groups? They were Cancer Voices, the Lung Foundation, the Breast Cancer Network of Australia, MS Australia, Alzheimer's Australia and another 55 groups that I plan to explore in the coming days. So it was the patients who were denied access to medicines by a government and a party that couldn't manage the economy— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Morrison Government</title>
          <page.no>76</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SHORTEN</name>
    <name.id>00ATG</name.id>
    <electorate>Maribyrnong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that this government last year cancelled an entire week of parliament, this year shut down parliament and next year will come to parliament just 10 days in eight months, creating the first part-time parliament in Australian history? If ordinary workers skipped work like this, they'd get the sack. Why is it there is always one rule for this divided, dysfunctional and chaotic government and another rule for everyone else? <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr MORRISON</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
    <electorate>Cook</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What I can confirm is that the budget is being brought forward by a month and the sitting schedule has been prepared to reflect the bringing forward of the budget by a month. The number of sitting days that are scheduled to take place between the start of next year and 18 May is exactly the same as it was this year. We're bringing the budget forward a month. In that time before the budget, the Treasurer and I, the members of the Expenditure Review Committee and the cabinet will be preparing a surplus budget. That's what we'll be doing at the start of next year. Our government will be preparing and delivering the first surplus budget in over a decade. That's what we'll be hard at work doing at the beginning of next year.</para>
<para>Those opposite haven't delivered a surplus budget since the year Taylor Swift was born, 1989, and now they want to 'shake it off' as if there is some way of walking away from their failure to deliver a surplus when they were in government. Up the back we've got the member for Lilley, apparently the world's greatest Treasurer. I'll tell you what: this Treasurer over here is going to deliver a surplus in April, and that will put him ahead of every Treasurer that preceded him, other than Treasurer Costello. I was proud to do the lead-up work, but I absolutely know this Treasurer is going to be delivering the first budget surplus in more than a decade because of the hard work that this government knows you have to do to get expenditure under control.</para>
<para>Having expenditure under control means that we have had the slowest growth in expenditure of any government in more than 50 years. We've got expenditure under control and we've also got taxes under control. We'll put a speed limit on taxes because that's how you manage a budget. The Australian people know that this leader of the Australian Labor Party can't manage money, he can't manage a budget and he can't run a stronger economy, and that means Australians can't be assured of the medicines that they rely on, the hospital funding they rely on and the school funding they rely on.</para>
<para>Instead, this Leader of the Labor Party will give them $200 billion in higher taxes. He is coming after their house prices with his abolition of negative gearing and his increases in capital gains tax. He's coming after retirees with his retirees tax of $5 billion a year. There will be 30 per cent more women hit by it than men. He's coming after earnings by putting up an increase in personal taxes. This will be the highest-taxing Leader of the Labor Party in Australia's history if he has the opportunity to become Prime Minister of this country—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister's time has concluded—</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Morrison</name>
    <name.id>E3L</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the <inline font-style="italic">Notice Paper</inline>.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Presentation</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr PYNE</name>
    <name.id>9V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Sturt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the <inline font-style="italic">Votes and Proceedings</inline>.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Questions in Writing</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SHARKIE</name>
    <name.id>265980</name.id>
    <electorate>Mayo</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Speaker, under standing order 105(b), may I request that you write to the Treasurer to seek the reason for the delay in answering question No. 1008. I have been waiting 107 days for that answer. May I request that you write to the minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to seek the reason for the delay with respect to questions Nos 1129 and 1130. And may I request that you write to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to seek the reason for the delay in answering question No. 1139.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I will do so this afternoon.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</title>
        <page.no>77</page.no>
        <type>MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Energy</title>
          <page.no>77</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
    <electorate></electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Government's energy policy paralysis.</para></quote>
<para>I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>HWK</name.id>
    <electorate>Port Adelaide</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This is definitely a matter of public importance because, still, Australian households and Australian businesses find themselves in the throes of a deep energy crisis, and under this Prime Minister—this new Prime Minister—and this new energy minister, this crisis is simply getting worse.</para>
<para>Last week, the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and I released a comprehensive, fully costed plan to take charge of our energy system again and to put consumers back at the centre of this essential, largely privatised service. The centrepiece of the announcement that we made last week was an offer, as we said time and time again in question time today, to resume negotiations and to finish the work on the National Energy Guarantee that was so close three months ago.</para>
<para>About the National Energy Guarantee: those opposite are trying to forget this little inconvenient piece of history, but there were no stronger advocates than the new Leader and the new Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party back when they were the Treasurer and energy minister in the Turnbull government. The new Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, for example, said that this idea, the National Energy Guarantee, had the broadest support of any initiative he had seen in his more than 10 years in parliament. He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">If you're not for the National Energy Guarantee, then you're for continued uncertainty which leads to higher prices.</para></quote>
<para>On another occasion he said that the NEG was the 'only credible plan to reduce electricity prices in Australia'.</para>
<para>Now, this was a plan—somewhat like the Clean Energy Target in 2017, which almost got there, and somewhat like the emissions intensity scheme in 2016, which almost got there—that had the support of every single business group in Australia. It had the support, broadly, of every state government in the National Electricity Market—Labor and Liberal alike—in Australia. It was something that the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and I had said, time and time again, was a model we thought was workable and which could be subject to agreement between the two major parties in this parliament.</para>
<para>But, again, it was subject to a veto exercised by a loud minority in the coalition party room, led by the hard Right. Time and time again over the last few years, sensible policy fell victim to the hard Right of the coalition party room. This is the group that the member for Higgins, quite famously over the last 48 hours, has called out as the 'homophobic, anti-women, climate-change-denier faction of the Liberal Party.' Our offer last week was genuine, because we have heard time and time again, not just over the last few weeks but particularly since the National Energy Guarantee was dumped by this new Prime Minister, that the best solution to this deep energy crisis in Australia is a bipartisan solution.</para>
<para>Since we made this offer back on Thursday last week almost every serious business group in the country has again called on the Prime Minister and the new energy minister to accept our offer and to sit down and resume negotiations on the National Energy Guarantee. Again, as we raised in question time, the former deputy leader, the member for Curtin, this week said on a couple of occasions on a front page from the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review</inline>, 'Do NEG deal with Labor.' The member for Curtin said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The government needs to consider energy policy through the prism of securing bipartisan agreement with Labor, to establish a long-term, stable regulatory framework that will support private-sector investment in generating capacity.</para></quote>
<para>Not a new message, it is a message that has been given to this parliament, both sides of this parliament, time and time again by business groups that are struggling with the energy crisis that has emerged under this government in various prime ministerial forms.</para>
<para>Labor is clear about the National Energy Guarantee. This framework is a means to an end. The important end here is delivering investor confidence that is able to renew our aging, increasingly unreliable electricity generation system, much of which was built 30, 40 years ago. As I have said, as the assistant shadow minister for climate change and energy, some 75 per cent of our generators in the NEM are already operating beyond their design life. Whether it's an inconvenient truth over on the other side of this parliament or not, they simply have to be replaced. To be replaced, particularly given the privatisations led by Liberal state governments over the last 25 years, we need the investor certainty that the member for Curtin has rightly pointed to.</para>
<para>The National Energy Guarantee must be capable of delivering on Labor's commitment to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That is a core condition for the Labor Party and it is also the nub of the problem we encounter on the other side of this parliament. The hard Right of the coalition party room is so deeply opposed to renewable energy for its own sake that they are willing to cripple investment and prolong this energy crisis that is biting household budgets and business viability. The hard Right continues to force the Liberal-National Party into positions like dumping the National Energy Guarantee, a policy that the now Prime Minister has said time and time and again would lead to lower power prices and increased reliability in our system, and had broader support than any other initiative he'd seen in his 10 years in parliament.</para>
<para>The hard Right position, and their stranglehold over climate and energy policy, forces the Liberal Party at different levels in this Federation to continue to run campaigns against Labor's renewable energy policies and campaigns that instead propose using taxpayer funds to build coal-fired power stations. Over the last 12 months we've seen two of them: in Queensland 12 months ago and in Victoria a couple of weeks ago. How did they go for the Liberal Party? How in touch are they with the sentiments of the community of Australia about what they want to see the future of their energy systems look like? This is a party under the control of the hard Right that is too busy fighting the inevitable future. For the time being at least, energy policy in this government remains in the hands of the hard Right of the Liberal Party.</para>
<para>The new energy minister boasts that now his only focus is on getting down power prices. We heard the Prime Minister boast about decisions that AGL and EnergyAustralia have announced over the last 48 hours or so, decisions that were initiated by the Labor Party being the first party to accept the ACCC recommendation about default capped pricing—a decision the Labor Party took that was then followed by the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. They don't point out, of course, that the AGL and EnergyAustralia announcements amount to less than three per cent of households in Australia, nothing for more than 97 per cent of Australian households. And we know what is going to happen for the other 97 per cent of Australian households, because the government's own modelling indicated that a failure to deliver the National Energy Guarantee wouldn't see power prices come down by $550, which the NEG would have, but instead would see power prices rise by almost $300. A failure to deliver that bipartisan policy would see power prices rise.</para>
<para>We are already seeing that. As we've seen reported in the <inline font-style="italic">Financial Review </inline>time and time again, futures prices—the prices that the market is expecting in 2019—in the NEM have already risen by 40 per cent in the wholesale market over the last few months, as this new fellow took over the energy ministry. That is what the coup against Malcolm Turnbull and the National Energy Guarantee is delivering for households.</para>
<para>Other than playing catch-up on the Labor Party's initiation of default capped pricing, what has this government done? It has pulled out the big stick in the form of an investment policy that is reminiscent of the height of Venezuelan socialism—just an extraordinary piece of recklessness. If it was in the interests of consumers, perhaps the consumer watchdog might have recommended it after its 18-month retail price inquiry. It deliberately didn't recommend it. Such a grab bag of vapid, fatuous headlines—that's all we have from this new energy minister. We have an idea of building coal-fired power stations; that has gone really well in Queensland and it went really well in Victoria.</para>
<para>This new energy minister has even said he would be prepared to indemnify the operator of a new coal-fired power station, something the Australian Industry Group has suggested could cost taxpayers as much as $17 billion. These are the headlines this energy minister has put up in place of a bipartisan framework that was supported by every single business group in the country. There is nothing on renewable energy, nothing on a just transition for workers in coal-fired communities, nothing on batteries, nothing on the transition to the 21st century energy system that Australian households and businesses are crying out for. Why is that? It is because, although this deep energy crisis is of the government's making, the paralysis in the coalition party room means that they have no plan whatsoever to address it.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:21</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
    <electorate>Hume</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to be able to speak about our plan to get Australians' electricity prices down through practical action and giving practical outcomes for everyday Australians, for families and hard-working small businesses who deserve a better deal on their electricity prices, who deserve electricity supply that is on 24/7. We've made very clear that the heart of our policy is lower prices and we are seeing the outcomes already. As we heard during question time, AGL has reduced its standing offers for its customers, with 10 per cent reductions in New South Wales and Victoria. That comes to $180 for a typical household and close to $400 for a typical small business. There will be 150,000 households and 27,000 small businesses who will see the benefits of that. Similar benefits are now coming from Energy Australia and the smaller retailers as well. Next Energy is cutting its standing offer prices by 14 per cent for New South Wales and 8.5 per cent for Victoria, the states where they participate.</para>
<para>But right at the heart of our policy is holding the big energy companies to account, something that those opposite have absolutely no interest in doing. We're bringing forward to the parliament in the coming weeks legislation that will hold them to account, legislation that will stop the market manipulation that we have seen, manipulation that we saw when Northern Energy and Hazelwood withdrew from the market.</para>
<para>The ACCC made it very clear that, when supply is pulled out of the market, these big energy companies have behaved badly, including the big energy companies owned by the Queensland government. They're the worst of them, taking $2 billion out of the wallets of hard-working Queensland families, hard-working Queensland small businesses and those big businesses, like the member for Flynn knows so well, in towns like Gladstone that provide the jobs for so many Queenslanders. But that legislation will also stop the price gouging, the hikes above wholesale prices, the failure to pass on wholesale price reductions. Wholesale prices are down 20 per cent from the peak despite what the shadow minister just said and continue to come down through the hard work of this government. And the big stick legislation will also ensure that we retain supply in the market, supply those opposite want to see gone. They want to see those coal-fired power stations gone. Well, we need that supply. We need that supply to keep prices down, to keep the lights on, to keep our factories going and to keep our smelters going in Gladstone, in Portland, in Tomago and in Bell Bay—crucial supply for the jobs of so many Australians.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, we will bring new supply into the market. By early next year, we will have a shortlist of 24/7 projects that will ensure we have the supply we need for all Australian businesses, for those energy-intensive businesses that have been the backbone of this country for so long. Right at the heart of this plan—</para>
<para class="italic">Ms Keay interjecting—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Braddon is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TAYLOR</name>
    <name.id>231027</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>is our commitment to the reliability obligation, which the Labor states need to step up to in the coming weeks. That's an obligation that requires every energy retailer to ensure that, years ahead of time, it has the supply it needs to meet the demand of all Australian families and businesses. That reliability obligation has been worked up over a long period of time. We hope the opposition is going to support this, because this is absolutely crucial to making sure we have the supply in the market to meet the needs of all Australians.</para>
<para>Meanwhile, we know that we will achieve more emissions reductions in the next three years than at any time in Australian history in our National Electricity Market. We're going to see the generation of wind and solar in the NEM go from 17½ terawatt hours to 44½ terawatt hours in the next 2½ years—that's a 250 per cent increase. The result of that is we will reach the Paris emissions target, the 26 per cent reduction target, in an absolute canter. We will get there in the early 2020s. That gives us breathing space. That gives us the ability to focus on getting prices down and making sure we have the supply we need for all Australians.</para>
<para>The shadow minister likes to talk about the NEG, which he described as a Frankenstein policy. But the real difference between our policy and those opposite is that they have a reckless target of 45 per cent emissions reductions. The question is: how are they going to achieve that? As I said in question time, the answer is becoming clearer by the day. On 27 November we heard an interview by Laura Jayes on Sky with the member for Isaacs. She asked the member for Isaacs, 'Are you ruling a carbon tax out, though?' The member for Isaacs said, 'I'm not ruling it in or out.'</para>
<para>But it gets better. A journalist was interviewing the member for Shortland over there on regional Victorian radio. I was driving along the road and, all of a sudden, up he came on the radio. The journalist said, 'If elected, would Labor go so far as restoring a price on carbon?' His answer went on to say, 'You can argue there is an implied carbon price in our policy'—a tricky carbon price; a sneaky carbon price.</para>
<para>Then, on 22 November, the member for Port Adelaide appeared on ABC's <inline font-style="italic">7.30</inline>—and at least he was honest. Leigh Sales asked him, 'Will that include a decision about whether you will or will not be pricing carbon?' and he went on to say, 'It will cover all the other sectors of the economy, apart from electricity.' That's a pretty long list.</para>
<para>Those opposite need to come clean with Australian farmers about what this is going to mean for the control they have over their land. What are you going to do to native vegetation laws? What are you going to do to stocking rates? What will it mean for the control that Australian farmers have over their ability to run their businesses and to deliver their products—the best agricultural products in the world—to their customers all over the world? Markets have grown at an unprecedented rate under this government, and you want to control how that land is used.</para>
<para>On the transport sector, you snuck in, at the last election—a very sneaky one, this one—a vehicle emissions standard for light vehicles of 105 grams per kilometre. Now, let's talk to the tradies out there. What do the tradies use now? A Toyota Hilux at over 200 grams per kilometre. A Ford Ranger at 244 grams per kilometre. What are they going to drive? Mini Minors? Are they going to put a shovel and their toolkit in the back of the Mini Minor? Guys, this is not going to work. Let's be clear: this is not going to work, and yet that is your policy right now. So fess up. Come clean to the Australian people about what your policies are.</para>
<para>Then we get to manufacturing. The member for Flynn over there knows only too well, as the member who represents the great city, the centre of Gladstone, an aluminium town—smelting and refining. What is the future of the aluminium industry? Tomago, Gladstone, Portland and Bell Bay—what's the future of those places? Well, let me tell you—I know this industry well—it will not survive under the opposition's policies, because they want to get rid of affordable, reliable power in this country.</para>
<para>We know that you as a party believe in higher prices. We see it in Queensland, where you've taken $2 billion from Australian families and businesses by hiking prices and refusing to drive competition. We've called on the Queensland government to split two companies into three to create real competition. No go; no interest, because they rely on higher electricity prices for their policies. And we've heard it from this wonderful organisation, LEAN, the Labor Environment Action Network, which says:</para>
<quote><para class="block">High prices are not a market failure. They are proof of the market working well.</para></quote>
<para>Well, go and tell that to the workers at Tomago. Go and tell that to the workers at Bell Bay. We say it to the workers at Boyne in Gladstone, because they know they need affordable, reliable power, as all Australians do. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CONROY</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
    <electorate>Shortland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>What a shameful and disgraceful performance by the minister. A man who's come in to this place with probably more raps than Andrew Peacock. A man who looked pretty doing the job—you look pretty doing the job—but failed to deliver. Sadly, the member for Hume is repeating that standard. The truth is, this government's energy policy is an abject fiasco. In the great month of August, can anyone guess how many energy policies this government had in 14 days? One, two, three—four energy policies in 14 days. We had NEG 1, NEG 2 and NEG 3 without an emissions reduction policy, and then the big stick. Four in 14 days. You wouldn't see that out of a Third World military junta, but we've seen that out of this shameful LNP government, a government that has abandoned any pretence of policymaking. That would be fine if it just reflected on them—if it didn't impact on anyone in the rest of the world or the rest of Australia—but it's having a market impact already.</para>
<para>In the two months since they junked the NEG, wholesale prices in the NEM went up by 122 per cent. Their abandonment of energy policy more than doubled wholesale energy prices in two months. The 2019 future price rose by 20 per cent in that same period. Consumers right now are paying the price for this government's abject failure on energy policy. Don't just take our word for it; take the words of the BCA—no friend of Labor—who labelled the coalition's policies ad hoc and extreme. By contrast, we've got a reasoned policy, a policy that reaches across the aisle to try and reach a bipartisan settlement on this energy crisis. Our policy around the NEG will have a market impact. It will provide investment certainty that will lead to lower power prices. Don't take our word for it. Who supports the NEG-plus policy? The BCA, AIG, the Energy Council, ACCI, BlueScope, the Energy Users Association, APPEA, the member for Curtin, the Clean Energy Council, Energy Networks Australia, the Smart Energy Council and Solar Citizens.</para>
<para>Who supports their policy? Maybe Alan Jones, maybe Andrew Bolt. But no-one who lives on this planet or in reality supports their policy, because it's a dog of a policy. It is a policy that puts prices up, removes certainty and ignores the basic, fundamental truth of our energy sector, which is that 75 per cent of our existing power stations are operating beyond their planned plant life. They're getting awfully old and they're getting awfully unreliable. In my home region of the Hunter, all four coal-fired power stations have use-by dates completely unrelated to government policy. Liddell will close in 2022; Eraring in 2032; Bayswater in 2035; and Vales Point, people think, around 2029—that is, 25 per cent of Australia's total electricity production will close in the next 17 years.</para>
<para>Only Labor has a plan to deal with it. Only Labor has a plan that will replace it with cheaper and more reliable power. The Australian Energy Market Operator has found that, of the replacement options for those power stations, the cheapest is renewable energy. Origin Energy, which has investments across the whole spectrum, has said that not only is renewable energy cheaper than new coal-fired power but it is cheaper than running existing coal-fired power stations. It was a watershed moment when they made that statement a few weeks ago.</para>
<para>Our policy provides a plan for the sector, will reduce power prices and will create up to 71,000 new jobs in our economy, according to independent experts. Ours is a reasonable plan. It is a plan that is honest with the people of Australia that change is coming and we must adapt. Those on the other side will be condemned by history not only because they are they lying to workers and communities but because they're lying to future generations who will pay the price for their abandonment of any pretence of taking action on climate change, investing in the energy sector to drive lower prices or making the sector more reliable. History will damn them. I say it's not too late to change. Bring on the NEG. Support it. Have one more chance at redemption.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:37</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
    <electorate>Corangamite</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's my great pleasure to rise and speak on this MPI. I note the member for Shortland speaking about abandonment. One thing very clear about the modern Labor Party is that the Labor Party here now in this chamber has abandoned coal workers. That's what the Labor Party has done. The Labor Party, in its rant against coal, in its ignorance of the importance of a balanced energy mix in this nation, has abandoned coal workers.</para>
<para>The member for Shortland talks about honesty. Well, I will give him credit for one thing: the honesty of saying what is coming if Labor ever got the chance—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's inevitable!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Inevitable? What's coming is an implied carbon tax, by the words of the member for Shortland. They are the words. I notice the member for Corio has left this parliament. The member for Corio slunk out of his parliament because he knows what happened when Labor had a carbon tax in his region.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Marles</name>
    <name.id>HWQ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm still here!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HENDERSON</name>
    <name.id>ZN4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Oh, there he is over there. He hasn't slunk; I withdraw that. He's hiding in another part of the parliament. The member for Corio knows what the toxic carbon tax did to the people of Geelong, Geelong workers and manufacturing. I can tell you, under our watch we will never allow that toxic carbon tax to ever, ever be introduced again. It was a wrecking ball for manufacturing, a wrecking ball for our economy and an absolute disgrace. It's no wonder the CFMEU is already at loggerheads with this Labor Party, already exercising its muscle, because even the CFMEU is saying that this is a disgrace.</para>
<para>I am very, very proud of our government's focus on driving down power prices. What will our plan do? Our plan will stop the price gouging with a big stick—yes, a very big stick; a legislative package that will introduced into parliament next week. There will be a price safety net in place by 1 July next year, with a down payment introduced from 1 January. Already we have seen that embraced by two large power companies who have given the commitment to lower power prices.</para>
<para>We say the power price rip-offs, the loyalty taxes, have got to go and, under our government, that is happening. Small businesses could be paying up to $3,457 more per year in higher electricity costs because of what is currently going on with the gouging, and we will not cop it. Members opposite can sit there and take it and say, 'Yes, it is fine to rip off Australians', but we won't cop it; it's disgusting. The gouging, the loyalty taxes, the penalties on customers who loyally stay with their energy companies are unacceptable, and we're tackling them. We are calling the big energy companies out and this is having an impact, as I say. AGL has already announced cheaper power prices for over 150,000 families and 27,000 small businesses and, of course, we welcome Energy Australia's move to lower standing offers for concessional customers.</para>
<para>So we are taking very strong action and this is on top of what we've already done—secured more gas for Australians. Spot prices are down by up to 50 per cent from the peaks of over $20 a gigajoule to between $9 and $11. One of the things that is really interesting about members opposite is that as soon as we fix an issue, fix their mess, they stop talking about it. Isn't it interesting that Labor has stopped talking about gas prices? It is because we had to fix their mess. Those prices have come down by 50 per cent. We have reined in the networks, which Labor could have done sooner. We have secured better deals for 1.6 million households and we have seen retail prices already come down in Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales. We won't cop the rip-offs. We won't cop the gouging. We're taking strong action, driving down power prices and we are very proud of the action that this government is taking.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms OWENS</name>
    <name.id>E09</name.id>
    <electorate>Parramatta</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very slow to anger. Actually, I have lost my temper about three times in my life but I'm very close at this point, so you might see the fourth one today. Look, government, would you just stop? For 10 years, we have known how important this is. I'm going to quote John Howard's energy minister in 2007, who said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Australian Government will commence work on a world-leading greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme with careful analysis on a long-term goal for emissions reduction…</para></quote>
<para>That was from 2007, from John Howard's energy minister.</para>
<para>When Labor came to power, we worked constructively with the government to put together a trading scheme. It was rolled when past Prime Minister Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as the then opposition leader. We then introduced another emissions trading scheme; it was scrapped by this government. Then we worked on a bipartisan approach to an emissions intensity scheme, then we offered bipartisanship on a clean energy target, then we offered bipartisanship on the National Energy Guarantee and we offered it on the NEG. The NEG, by the way, we have announced, is not the policy we would have developed if we were off on our own in a perfect world; but it's something achievable that industry backs, that the government backed in its own party room, twice. It's something that is achievable that industry is calling for.</para>
<para>What the country needs most now, more than anything else, is certainty so that business can get around to finding the solutions to act on climate change. And we have to do that. I went and visited the school students on strike today. I spent an hour with a bunch of kids, some of them from primary school, some of them as young as nine—between nine and 17—and they told me very clearly that what we do today affects their lives. It affects the world they will live in. One of them said it affects whether they are going to be able to go out in the afternoon in summer. It affects that.</para>
<para>We have climate scientists all over the world telling us that we are not on target to hold 1.5. We're not even on target to hold two. We have the UN telling us that Australia is nowhere near meeting our 2030 Paris climate agreement targets, that our emissions will continue to rise right up to 2030. Ten years after 2007, we have some of the highest power prices in the world and the highest per person emissions target in the world. Yet we are a country that is built to respond to climate change, of all the countries in the world. Europe responds better with solar. They are further away from the equator than Tasmania. We are absolutely in a position to benefit from what is necessary.</para>
<para>For every major problem, there are opportunities to solve it. We are so well positioned for that. We were a world leader in solar technology. We had 13 per cent of the world market before John Howard came to power. We were leading the world. But we lost our edge because we gave it away, because we couldn't provide the industry with certainty so they could invest. The rest of the world is doing it. It is inevitable. It is now cheaper to produce wind power and solar power than it is to produce coal-fired power, particularly if you have to start again and build a whole new coal-fired power plant. It's not going to happen, because it's cheaper to have other alternatives. The whole world is going that way. If we want to be on that path, if we want to be part of the solution, if we want to own the prosperity that responding to climate change can bring, we need certainty for business to respond.</para>
<para>And business is well and truly telling us. In a recent survey of business, 92 per cent of respondents—Australian business and industry leaders—agreed that Scott Morrison's current national climate and energy policy is insufficient to drive emissions targets needed to meet the Paris targets by 2030. They overwhelmingly agreed that current climate and energy policies are inadequate, and 82 per cent of business leaders agreed that Australia should set an economy-wide net-zero emissions target for 2050, in line with Labor policy. That's 82 per cent of businesses surveyed that are agreeing.</para>
<para>Get on board, government. How many more years are you going to do this boom and bust, where, no matter what policy comes up, somebody on the Liberal Party side tears it down? If we come up with a policy, you're not prepared to even talk about it. We heard it from the previous speaker. We can see what the next election is going to be. It's going to be scare campaigns again; there's going to be no action. We've got a government that is actually going to go to an election campaign with no policy on climate change—none. Ten years after John Howard—11 years after John Howard actually—we've got a Liberal government that will go to an election campaign with no policy on climate change, no serious energy policy and no policy that provides consistency for business to do what business does well, which is find solutions. Get on board, guys.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:47</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
    <electorate>Gippsland</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>At least there's one section of the previous member's speech I agree with: we do need policy certainty in relation to energy and energy affordability. Reliable, affordable energy is at the heart of our economy and it is at the heart of our household cost of living. It's good for households. It's good for jobs in our communities if we can provide that policy certainty.</para>
<para>We need to support an energy mix and get it right. We need a mix of renewable energy and base-load energy, which is provided largely in Australia at the moment by coal-fired power stations. We also need to do our share to meet the emissions reduction target and get that balance right. But I'm afraid that, when it comes to getting the balance right, there is one very clear fact when it comes to energy policy and the Australian Labor Party—that is, it has sold out the blue-collar workers for green votes. Throughout the 10 years I've been in this place, I'm have been amazed at the manner in which the Labor Party, which once proudly represented the blue-collar workers in my electorate of Gippsland, particularly around the Latrobe valley, has vilified power station workers—vilified them and labelled them as 'dirty big polluters'.</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I invite the members who interjected to come to my electorate and have a meeting with some of the power station workers, and ask them, ask their families and ask their kids how they felt about the language used by the Australian Labor Party when it was in government.</para>
<para>You only need to look at the result in the seat of Morwell over the past 20 years. The Labor Party used to hold the seat of Morwell with a clear majority on primary votes. Over the last 20 years, the Labor Party vote in the seat of Morwell has dropped by 20 per cent on the primary vote, and that's because you sold out the blue-collar workers in the Latrobe Valley.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Where was the National vote? It was on 10 per cent!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I hear the member interjecting. At the last election the Labor primary dropped by another two per cent.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Conroy</name>
    <name.id>249127</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, but what was the local National Party's official vote?</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I accept the interjection by the member opposite. Right now in the seat of Morwell, the count is about 50-50 between the former National Party member turned Independent, against the Labor Party candidate. Labor's primary vote has dropped 20 per cent in the last 20 years. As a local MP, I'm very proud to stand up for the power station workers in the Latrobe Valley. I stand up for the workers at the Australian Paper mill as well. I stand up for the workers at the timber mills that the Andrews government has sought to shut down as well. When it comes to natural resource management in the seat of Gippsland, the Australian Labor Party has sold out blue-collar workers in their enthusiasm to try and harvest green votes in the city. It's like they’ve swapped their high-vis vests and steel-capped boots for skivvies and canvas loafers. They’ve sold out every blue-collar worker they can.</para>
<para>This government, this side of the House, is determined to provide reliable and affordable base-load energy—</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>There are plenty of hydro workers in high-vis.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>because we understand it underpins regional jobs.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Lyons is warned.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In my electorate we're quite literally at the coalface. The four large power stations in the Latrobe Valley—sorry; there are only three coal-fired power stations in the Latrobe Valley now, because the Andrews government worked so hard to shut down Hazelwood—are absolutely critical to the economic wealth of Victoria and much of the south-east corner of Australia. So we are quite literally at the coalface of this debate. When it comes to the other major providers of jobs in the Gippsland electorate, they too are dependent upon reliable, affordable base-load energy. The dairy farmers in my electorate obviously have a high dependency on good, cheap, reliable energy. The food-processing companies, which employ hundreds of workers in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley, rely on affordable base-load energy. The timber mills—the ones left after the Andrews government cut their supply of timber—rely on base-load energy to be available to them 24 hours a day.</para>
<para>We need a balanced approach to this issue. Unfortunately, the Labor Party, with their absolute obsession with winning green votes in the city, have failed to stand up for the jobs of blue-collar workers in regions like the Latrobe Valley.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Brian Mitchell</name>
    <name.id>129164</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>You're so two-dimensional.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHESTER</name>
    <name.id>IPZ</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member opposite can interject as much as he likes. In fact, he's welcome any time to come to Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley. I'll take him round. We can meet with some of those workers and ask them what they think about Labor's policies in relation to energy in our region. I invite any of those members opposite to come and join me. We'll go round the power stations and talk to people about their views on the Labor Party's efforts to sell out their jobs in the search for green votes in the city. Those opposite have gone quiet because they know it's true. There was a 20 per cent drop in their primary vote in the state seat. As the National Party in that seat, we receive a primary vote in the order of 50 per cent in many towns in the Latrobe Valley.</para>
<para>I'll make just one other point. There's actually no Australian solution to climate change. We emit less than two per cent of total global emissions, so there's no Australian solution. We do need to do our share to meet the emissions reduction targets, but there is no Australian solution. It is misleading to our young people to suggest there is. We don't need to mug our economy. We don't need to punish households. We don't need to set unrealistic targets that drive investment offshore and shut down our manufacturing sector, which, I'm afraid, is the Labor Party's plan for energy policy in this country.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:52</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LAMB</name>
    <name.id>265975</name.id>
    <electorate>Longman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It has been years since Australia has had a real energy policy. Not since Labor was last in power has anything really been done. It's costing us. It's costing my community, it's costing our families and our small businesses and it's costing our economy. And the blame for all of this—the damage to our wallets and to our environment—can be laid squarely at the feet of a small band of malicious MPs. 'The reactionary right' you might call them, as the member for Chisholm, of course, described them in her speech yesterday. It may well be just a handful of coalition members and senators who are leading this crusade against scientists, economists and the business community but, aided by their Prime Minister, they are costing every Australian, year after year after year.</para>
<para>That's not to mention what they're doing to our environment. No matter what these reality-refuting rejects of the reactionary right may rasp, climate change is having a huge effect on our country. Just take a look outside today. It's flooding in Sydney, it's hailing in Brisbane, and in regional Queensland emergency services are fighting vicious bushfires that are being further fuelled by huge dust storms. There are children in parliament today who walked out of school in protest against this government's inaction. They are doing more than anyone—anyone!—on the other side of this chamber.</para>
<para>It's not just activists, either, who are taking matters into their own hands. If you were to take a short drive around my community, you'd see household after household who have taken it upon themselves to install solar panels. Private citizens are investing in renewable energy because they know it's cheaper; they know it just makes sense. I remember how, just a couple of years ago, somebody living on Bribie Island excitedly showed me her home's new battery system. I remember going out to her home, and it was pretty breathtaking seeing live, on her mobile phone, just how much energy her panels were capturing, how much her battery was storing and how much money she was saving. At the time it seemed that it was probably beyond the grasp of many to have this piece of technology—and, to an extent, at the time it really was; those things weren't a cheap up-front investment. But prices have fallen, efficiencies have risen and now, for many people, these systems are just within reach.</para>
<para>For many, however, the initial investment comes at too great a cost, which is why a Shorten Labor government will give them a hand, providing a $2,000 rebate for 100,000 households. Not only will this allow consumers, like this woman from Bribie, to focus on lowering their own power bills but it will also reduce demand on the electricity grid in peak times, lowering prices for everyone. It just makes sense, doesn't it?</para>
<para>It's not just homeowners who will win under Labor; we have committed $75 million to a neighbourhood renewables program to ensure that renters and social housing tenants will be able to benefit from cheaper and cleaner energy. Businesses, of course, will be supported by comprehensive and robust policies to increase energy efficiencies and to retain workforces in the new job-creating space of renewable energy—a just transition into renewable energy.</para>
<para>With the Prime Minister announcing yesterday that his government seemingly wants to avoid an election until May next year, Labor is willing to work with them to force down pressure on power prices before we go back to the polls. Labor is willing to accept this government's National Energy Guarantee—a guarantee supported by the Business Council, by AiG, by the Australian Energy Council, by ACCI, by BlueScope, by the Energy Users' Association of Australia, by APIA and, of course, by a government member, the member for Curtin, Julie Bishop. We are willing to accept the National Energy Guarantee, which the Prime Minister lauded time and time again—though, of course, that was before his party room erupted into an all-out civil war. But he did laud it time and time again, that this was the way forward.</para>
<para>It's been years since Australia has had a real energy policy. Let's just get something done! We are more than willing to work with the government to ensure positive outcomes, but let's be very clear: we will not wait for this government.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>15:57</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr TED O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>138932</name.id>
    <electorate>Fairfax</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>There are some differences between the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party. We believe in small government, they believe in big government. We believe in low taxes, they believe in high taxes. We back people, they back unions. We believe in substance and in getting things done, they believe in politics and motherhood statements.</para>
<para>These distinguishing differences—these differentiators—are seen very much in energy policy. The coalition has a very clear policy for energy, the objective of which is affordable and reliable energy relying on a balanced mix of energy. To date, because we are a party that gets things done we have already cut the carbon tax, we have already reined in the networks, we have already lowered the RET and we have already put more gas into the market. We have already announced the Snowy and we've already brought pressure to ensure that wholesale prices come down. We've already made transparency key with retailers. We've already exceeded Kyoto 1, we are on track for Kyoto 2 and we're going to meet Paris at a canter. This is what you have when you actually have a government that understands substance—a government with a very clear policy objective of reliability and affordability, relying on a balanced mix. We already have runs on the board.</para>
<para>And yet what do we have over there in the Labor Party? Their energy policy relies on a carbon tax that the Australia people have already said no to. Or does it rely on a carbon tax? Anybody over there want to put their hand up? Hands up, Labor Party, if you are going to introduce a carbon tax. Okay, hands up if you're not going to introduce a carbon tax! We have substance; the Labor Party wouldn't have a clue about what they're going to do.</para>
<para>All they know is that they have a policy that their leader has defined as Frankenstein. Hello, Labor Party! Are you serious? The best you have for an energy policy is something your own leader defines as Frankenstein? And they want a carbon tax. But, hang on, there's something else. They want a 45 per cent reduction in emissions, a policy that promises to smash the Australian economy, promises to ensure that heavy industry closes down and promises to ensure that prices go up. Again, it comes back to the difference between Labor and the coalition. They haven't got a clue about the economy. They are very prepared to introduce an energy policy that will cripple the Australian economy. They don't understand that the economy is not the endgame. The economy is the means by which we can deliver vital public services. It's due to a strong economy that we can build hospitals. It's due to a strong economy that we can build schools. We can ensure that teachers, nurses, doctors and the fire brigade can all be employed. It's due to a strong economy that people can have jobs and put food on the table. And yet they are more than happy to introduce tax after tax. And now they want an energy policy which they describe as Frankenstein. It includes a carbon tax and they're going to smash the economy with a 45 per cent emissions reduction target.</para>
<para>Those opposite love the words. They love the motherhood statements. But, if you want a sneak preview into what a Labor government would do to national energy policy, look at Queensland, where Labor runs the state. In Queensland a quarterly bill is how much the average Queenslander is being ripped off on an annual basis. So Queenslanders, if you want to know how much the Queensland Labor Party are ripping you off through energy, look at your bill. Whatever your last quarterly bill was, that's how much you're getting ripped off every single year. There is a $7.3 billion overinvestment in poles and wires. There is this crazy debt-to-dividend rip-off where—listen to this—the Labor state government says to the utilities they own, 'You must take on debt.' They take on debt. Then they turn around and say, 'Now give me that debt back and call it a special dividend.' So it goes into their consolidated revenue. Then, to top it off, they charge those utilities a 4.8 per cent interest charge. They recover it through taxing Queenslanders. That's what the Labor Party offers in energy: more tax, nothing more.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to join this debate on a topic of such vital importance not only for the nation but for the world. The contrast between the coalition government and the Labor opposition on energy policy could not be starker. Yes, the coalition government's policy is in paralysis, but it is also stagnant, it is stultified and it's incapacitated. In short, it's a shambles. Four policies were destroyed, shredded in the Liberal party room: the emissions trading scheme, the emissions intensity scheme, the clean energy target and the National Energy Guarantee. It's an utter failure. It's a momentous failure. It's a horrible failure for the Australian people who are suffering high energy prices and for future generations of Australians, who expect us to address climate change.</para>
<para>The coalition's failure to adopt and implement any energy policy has not only torn their own party room to shreds; it has hurt Australian business with an uncertain investment outlook. It has hurt consumers through skyrocketing energy prices. It has hurt the environment through a complete disregard for emissions reduction targets. It's a disgrace that the Liberal Party's division and chaos means Australians will go into this summer fighting heightened risk of blackouts.</para>
<para>The Prime Minister junks the NEG and destroys any chance of having an energy policy in place before summer. Instead he appoints a new antirenewables energy minister, who in his first speech as minister said he would not even try to deliver energy policy certainty. The minister is just one of many in the coalition who are utterly out of touch on energy policy. They call themselves the Monash Forum. What an insult to the Monash family. They are more <inline font-style="italic">Dad's Army</inline> than they are successors of General Monash. They are the climate change deniers. They are dinosaurs who want to walk backwards to the fossil fuel past, oblivious or, worse, conscious of the threat of climate change but ultimately unwilling to face it for the sake of their own children and grandchildren.</para>
<para>The member for New England, who is not in the House, said he would prefer to prioritise coal-fired power stations over the Snowy 2.0. The member for Warringah has called on the government to 'address the political risk that's stopping power companies from investing in new coal-fired power stations. There's no market failure here, just government failure.' The member for Hughes is strident in his support for building more coal-fired power plants. He's acknowledged that the private sector investment in coal might not be forthcoming, so he says, 'The government may need to step in and assist in building a new coal-fired power station.' I challenged him this morning to rule out support for a taxpayer funded coal-fired power plant. He refused. I ask him, and his compatriots in the climate-denying Dad's Army, again: do you want to spend $4 billion of taxpayer money on a coal-fired power plant?</para>
<para>Labor has articulated an energy policy that is progressing and progressive, that tackles climate change and reduces energy costs—a 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030; a commitment to 50 per cent renewables by 2030; and a 10-year, billion dollar renewable energy investment framework that delivers certainty for industry, lower power prices and more reliability. We'll also help ordinary Australians slash their power bills with a new national target of one million household battery installations by 2025 and a $2,000 rebate for 100,000 households on an income of less than $180,000 a year to purchase and install battery systems. The policy of federal Labor measures perfectly without of my own state of Victoria, and the re-elected Andrews Labor government, while also helping Victorian households cut their electricity bills through the solar homes package, which offers rebates of up to $2,225 on the cost of a solar PV system and up to $1,000 on the installation of solar hot water system.</para>
<para>My constituents tell me that they want effective action on climate change. Victorians want effective action on climate change. Australians want effective action on climate change. I've heard this time and time again in the many meetings I've had in my own electorate with stakeholders such as Climate Action Moreland and Moreland Energy Foundation and also with organisations like the Earthworker Cooperative, who are building solar batteries. They all know, as do thousands of my constituents and millions of Australians, the Labor government can deliver that action, not the Greens political party, who talk a big game but never deliver—or can't deliver—and not this coalition government, who brazenly hide from their responsibilities to future generations. Australians know that a Labor Party in government, if elected, will deliver on climate change policy for the benefit of all Australians and future generations.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAMING</name>
    <name.id>E0H</name.id>
    <electorate>Bowman</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The clear message from this afternoon's debate is that Australians want reliable energy, that they want it to be affordable and, obviously, that they see responsibility as being an important part of that, but not at the expense of the first two. The coalition is really the only one that has a definitive plan to take on the major energy retailers. I think that's something we really should be able to agree on right across this debating chamber. We need a price safety net in place as soon as possible, and many would like to see that even before 1 July next year, but certainly a downpayment on 1 January.</para>
<para>Of course, we're backing investment in reliable energy generation, and there is a short list of projects to ensure that occurs. We're requiring energy companies by 1 July to be investing in genuine, reliable electricity generation years ahead so we don't find ourselves caught the way we were in South Australia. Most importantly, we're just going to try and stop the rip-offs. I'm not going to traduce the Labor Party's policy of battery subsidies. That's not an unreasonable policy to add to the mix. The question really is just how expensive it is for the benefit it achieves. What's probably more important to the average Australian householder is just getting energy prices down. This side of the chamber won't take the risk that prices keep going up. You've got to remember that it's not just about getting prices down but about stopping them continuing to go up, as they did over the Rudd-Gillard era almost without control—in fact, power prices almost doubled. You don't have to go back very far—it was only 15 years ago—to when Australia, apart from the major hydro economies like Iceland and parts of Scandinavia, had some of the lowest household prices in the world, thanks to our backbone of coal-powered generation. We have now slipped right up, for no reason, moving through the pack to be one of the most expensive household power economies in the world. The best example of that is South Australia, which is the third-most-expensive household power in the world.</para>
<para>What Australians are going to be asking when the next election comes along is which of the two parties is going to stop the rip-offs and which of the two parties can get prices down? We've got time to make sure that we have an environmentally responsible power policy, but we've only got months to sort out the rip-offs that low-income families and pensioners, particularly in Queensland, are being subjected to. The Australian Energy Market Commission found that customers on standing offers might well find themselves paying huge amounts more money than they really should be. We need to stand up for small businesses, which, according to the AEMC, could be paying even more—$3,000 a year—then they need to, particularly in Queensland, as I'll explain later.</para>
<para>This is outrageous. We should have done something about this years ago. Labor could have done something about this nearly a decade ago but didn't. They didn't move on it. In the last 12 months, we have a record of securing more gas for Australians, getting spot prices down, reining in the power of the networks and getting better deals for households. Now, because of our pressure—we're not wielding a big club—we are making sure that energy retailers are acting on behalf of customers for a change, because up until now they've simply shrugged their shoulders and said that they act in the interests of their shareholders. We saw AGL protecting customers on standing offers by implementing a price safety net from 1 January next year. That's going to make a huge difference. More than 150,000 families and 27,000 small businesses will benefit.</para>
<para>In contrast, Labor's approach means that you're going to be paying more for your power for longer. While they can go on about super high renewable energy targets and emissions reduction targets, they've yet to explain to the Australian people how they'll achieve it. I can say that it's going to be noble to have some of the largest emissions cuts in the world, but Labor must articulate how they're going to do it, without shutting down industry, without impeding transport and without hurting some of our largest employers. One thing for sure is that, when we looked at the issue five years ago, the initial energy reduction proposals for Paris were based on how much GDP drag they would create. We knew that, if it went to a 26 per cent reduction by 2030, it would have minimal, if any, drag. We knew that, if it went to 28 per cent, it would start to have a GDP drag each and every year. When Labor are proposing 40, 45 or 50 per cent, they'll need to look Australians in the eye and talk about how they will achieve it.</para>
<para>That big fat tax is coming. Australians know that. They've got a gut feel that it will be five times the size of the previous Labor carbon tax. They've got a gut feel, because they listen to the member for Isaacs, the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Shortland all equivocating around the fact that there is a carbon tax coming. We know that in Queensland they've profited for too long on the misery of households, where we've had 65 per cent of our baseload, government owned, transferring huge amounts of profits, $2 billion a year, into gold-plating, and them faking the size of their actual deficits each year. That kind of damage should stop. Queensland are the most irresponsible jurisdiction, and they need to give Queenslanders a break.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>218019</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The discussion has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DELEGATION REPORTS</title>
        <page.no>87</page.no>
        <type>DELEGATION REPORTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 39th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly</title>
          <page.no>87</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:12</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
    <electorate>Hindmarsh</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 39th AIPA General Assembly held in Singapore in September 2018. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.</para>
<para>Leave granted.</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEORGANAS</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm pleased to speak to the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 39th AIPA General Assembly. I was the deputy leader of the Australian delegation to this year's general assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly, which was held in Singapore in September. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the leader of the Australian observer delegation, whom I travelled with, the President of the Senate, for his contribution to the visit. The interest of the President, Mr Ryan, in the region proved to be very valuable during our formal and informal discussions and meetings.</para>
<para>The 39th general assembly was an important occasion for AIPA and for Singapore and an opportunity for meaningful engagement and discussion between the Australian observer delegation and the countries of ASEAN. It was a pleasure to participate in the general assembly, representing Australia as an observer country, and to discuss the interests and concerns that are shared with all the countries in our region. The delegation enabled us to reaffirm the very valuable relationships and cooperation which Australia has with ASEAN, to establish friendships with other parliamentarians in the region and to learn more about individual nations and cultures et cetera.</para>
<para>The theme of the 39th AIPA General Assembly was 'Towards a resilient and innovative community'. It was noted during the assembly that the success of ASEAN over the past 50 years can be largely attributed to its ability to continually evolve, and this includes the establishment of an ASEAN Economic Community in 2015. It was agreed that this year's theme of the general assembly enhanced the community building efforts, and it's clear that AIPA member countries are committed to reaching the goals of the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint 2025.</para>
<para>The dialogue session with us, Australia, was well attended by parliamentarians from the ASEAN nations and provided an opportunity to hold constructive discussions on climate change and active ageing. At this forum, it was agreed that climate change is a major threat to the region and beyond, and that combatting it must begin at the highest levels. It was noted that an ageing population is also a significant issue throughout the region; however, it was agreed that living longer should not be viewed as a problem but rather as a blessing. We will be judged by future generations on how we treat the environment and our elderly.</para>
<para>The leader of the delegation was given the opportunity to officially meet not only the Speaker of Singapore but also the President of Singapore, which I am sure were highlights of the trip. The delegation also welcomed the opportunity to meet privately with the Secretary General of AIPA and attend side meetings, which were kindly arranged by the Australian High Commission in Singapore. In addition to the formal meetings and dialogues, the social functions of the assembly were quite enjoyable opportunities to engage with our neighbouring parliamentarians. Additionally, appreciation was expressed for Australia hosting in March 2018 the first ASEAN-Australia Special Summit in Sydney.</para>
<para>Australia is clearly held in very high regard by the countries in our region. Many parliamentarians from ASEAN nations have a strong connection to Australia. They either have family living here in Australia, have themselves lived here in Australia or have family members studying here in Australia. Throughout the general assembly the delegation was very warmly received. On behalf of the delegation, I'd like to record thanks to host nation Singapore for its friendly hospitality and the professional organisation of the 39th AIPA General Assembly. I believe the 39th AIPA General Assembly presented a valuable forum for the further strengthening of bonds between the parliaments of ASEAN, encouraging cooperation and understanding on the many issues that face us all in the region.</para>
<para>I'd also like to say a special thank you to Sarah Fielder, our secretary, who ensured that we were on time and did all the logistics for the conference. Without her help and support I'm sure it would have been much harder for us, so a big thank you to Sarah Fielder. I commend the report to the House.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>BILLS</title>
        <page.no>88</page.no>
        <type>BILLS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018, Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018, Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <p>
              <a href="r6032" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6035" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6036" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6033" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6034" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6084" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Amendment (Indigenous Land Corporation) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6077" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
              <a href="r6067" type="Bill">
                <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                  <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018</span>
                </p>
              </a>
            </p>
            <a href="r6209" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Returned from Senate</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>88</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6197" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>88</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms RYAN</name>
    <name.id>249224</name.id>
    <electorate>Lalor</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I have said previously, Labor is supporting the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 and has offered an amendment to the House. We all distinctly remember the rorts and rip-offs when shonks in this sector were knocking on doors to get people to sign up to courses that they possibly had no interest in doing and possibly didn't have the capacity to complete. They were getting them to sign onto courses that led to a loan being provided by the Commonwealth. We now know the rate at which that was occurring. We also now know that many people didn't even realise that they had signed up to a course until they got their tax return and saw a debt raised by the Commonwealth to repay that VET FEE-HELP loan. This happened to people in my electorate. One woman contacted my office when she found that she owed the Australian tax office $14,000. She said that she distinctly remembered people knocking on her door but she has no memory of signing up to a course. She never heard anything again about said course until she found that she had had a debt raised. This happened all over the country.</para>
<para>This bill provides a remedy for students who have incurred debts from unscrupulous providers under the previous VET FEE-HELP loan scheme. It does this by amending schedule 1A of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to introduce a broad remedy for students who incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by a VET provider or their agent—and we know that there were many. This bill provides discretionary powers to recredit a person's VET FEE-HELP debt if the inappropriate conduct occurred at a time before the closure of VET FEE-HELP. In order for FEE-HELP to be recredited, it must be established that the student did not complete the requirements of the relevant VET unit of study and that it is reasonably likely that the VET provider or their agent engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the person in relation to the unit or the course.</para>
<para>This is action taken by the government that is welcomed, as late as it is, by those of us on this side of the House, because none of us want to see these people continuing to be asked to pay for a loan for which they got no product, received no service, certainly received no certificate and certainly received no education. There are 6,000 people who have lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they did not undertake. Even more alarming, only a small number of the students who have lodged a complaint have actually received relief from these unfair debts. Debt racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers that went rogue under the coalition government's watch should never have been expected to be paid back by students who were, in fact, ripped off. The fact is that the coalition government is absolutely responsible here, and it is reprehensible that it has taken this long for the legislation to come into the House.</para>
<para>The government knew how much money was rolling out to for-profit vocational education providers, just as it knew the numbers of students that were not graduating from these courses. This happened under their watch, and they need to take responsibility for it. Then education minister, Christopher Pyne, was warned of the gloomy completion rates under the scheme, but the government chose to turn a blind eye as many students were being exploited at the hands of these rip-off merchants. This rip-off demonstrates the importance of investing in a strong public vocational training sector. On this side of the House we clearly understand that and have taken that into our policy directions that we'll be taking to the next election. What's important to note is that, despite reports by the media and despite the government knowing what the completion rates looked like under their watch, this situation continued unabated for at least three years of this government and this government had been in power for five years—nearly six years—before this bill to make sure that students were not lumbered with this debt came into this House.</para>
<para>I think of the days that Labor has filled the speaking lists in this place while those opposite have fiddled. And they have form in this space. 'Why has it taken the government so long to act in this space?' you could ask. I ask: why has it taken them so long to act in many similar situations where vulnerable Australians are being exploited? We only have to look a short distance to see the inaction from this government on its own review and its own recommendation and its own draft legislation in the payday lending space. So they have form here. As we saw this week, they're a work-shy, part-time government going into the future. But it's not new because, even though they may have shown up in this place, they haven't really been doing the work behind the scenes to protect vulnerable Australians, and this is just another example of that. They haven't shut down the rorts. They haven't stopped the scammers who exploit vulnerable Australians. They tarry. They shuffle papers, they shuffle ministers and they fail to act.</para>
<para>We can track when this shonky industry exploded. We don't have to remember the media reports that showed people loading cars and vans with laptops to go and knock on doors in regional Australia, approaching vulnerable people and getting them to sign up with the promise of a laptop. We don't even have to remember that; this government knew. We could see the industry exploding. In five years under Labor, $1.4 billion worth of VET FEE-HELP loans were issued. This government came to power, and in 2014 alone there was $1.8 billion worth of loans. This then jumped to a total of $6 billion in two years. The writing was on the wall, if only this government was showing up to work to check the figures. This money was going overwhelmingly to private providers while public TAFE was languishing.</para>
<para>The coalition has failed in this space, slashing funding from vocational education, leaving prospective students and providers with uncertainty. While they saw the cost of these loans skyrocketing, what did they do in response? Did they do anything to shut this down as soon as they identified the issue? They did not. What they've done is cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships since being elected. So, instead of going after the shonks, they got pen and paper out to ensure that our public TAFEs were underfunded. This coalition government and their cuts demonstrate that they do not value vocational education and skills. The legislation that is before us today shows that finally they will wake up when they approach their sixth year in government.</para>
<para>In many states, this has seen the absolute destruction of public TAFE. I think about my colleagues in New South Wales and what they've been seeing in their state. I think about the state government in Victoria working very hard to turn that around in Victoria and ensure that we've got a healthy public TAFE sector. Meanwhile, the rorters have taken their millions and ridden off into the sunset, leaving the Commonwealth with the debt or the students with the debt. Now the Commonwealth is having to find ways to ensure that innocent Australians aren't paying for something that was never delivered by an industry that was allowed to flourish—in fact, it tripled—under this government's watch. In response to the gouging and rorting clearly identifiable by the increasing loans, did this government close the loopholes? No. In short, they cut funding for public TAFE, for skills and for apprenticeships, while the rorts continued.</para>
<para>This week, having seen the sitting calendar for next year, we know that this government has given up on governing. We know that they would rather sit in their office and twirl a pen than get to work and fix some of the issues facing this country. This legislation and the time it has taken for these issues to be addressed are evidence of that. In contrast, Labor has always championed quality apprenticeships and vocational training because we understand that a skilled and educated workforce is a national economic priority. In my home state of Victoria, we are ramping up apprenticeships by using major projects to ensure that we are getting the skill training we need on the ground for our young people and for our adult apprentices.</para>
<para>We know that we have a skills shortage in areas of this country. We know how important it is to have public TAFE on board to make sure that we get a skilled workforce into the future. Labor will restore public TAFE as the major provider in the vocational education and training system, if elected. I'm proud to be a member of the Shorten team that, if elected, will deliver money and funds back to public TAFE to ensure that we have young people being trained in appropriate courses; that people are able to re-engage with education, no matter where they are in their lifelong learning journey; and that people are going to get quality—that no-one's going to knock on their door and sign them up to a class that won't give them an opportunity for work, or, worse, a course that they may have absolutely no interest in attending or a course that is not necessarily linked to a job at the end of it.</para>
<para>It's an important piece of legislation today. It's important that those 6,000 complainants are given an opportunity to demonstrate that they were ripped off. It's important that those people have an avenue to have their debts wiped. But what is more important is that people in this place learn from this experience that when you're governing you need to pay close attention to the detail, to the portfolio. We need ministers who have an eye on the detail in their portfolios so that the rorters and shonks like we had in this space don't get to ride off into the sunset with millions of Commonwealth dollars, and, more importantly, so that industries aren't allowed to flourish in a space where ministers are looking sideways or out the window, not doing their day job.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Surprise, surprise. We have contributions from honourable members on this side of the House but not a squeak, not a skerrick, from the other side. They are too embarrassed or too lazy to turn up to justify and support their own legislation. I rise today to speak on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 that is currently before the House. This bill provides a remedy for students who have incurred debts from unscrupulous providers under the previous VET FEE-HELP loan scheme. The bill will introduce a broad remedy for students who have incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt as a result of inappropriate conduct by VET providers or their agents.</para>
<para>Labor welcomes the recrediting of the debts of thousands of students who were ripped off by dodgy for-profit training providers. More than 6,000 students have complained to the ombudsman after being charged VET FEE-HELP for courses they did not undertake. Only a small number have received relief from those unfair debts. Students should never have been expected to pay debts racked up by dodgy for-profit training providers that went rogue under this government's watch. Many students have been saddled with these unfair VET FEE-HELP debts for years. This is another example of this dysfunctional government doing very little to help ordinary Australians who are trying to become valued, skilled members of our society.</para>
<para>The vocational education system has fallen into crisis on the Liberal Party's watch. With five ministers in three years and a blowout in the cost of the VET FEE-HELP scheme, it is clear that this government simply doesn't care about education, much less vocational education, nor do they care about TAFE. The government knew or should have known how much money was rolling out to the providers. They knew that the great majority of students weren't graduating. They knew or ought to have known how much money the shonky operators were making.</para>
<para>What is the extent of the problem? We hear that students have been tricked by unscrupulous providers into racking up massive debts. We hear also that thousands of qualifications in Victoria and elsewhere have been cancelled because, seemingly, they were not worth the paper they were written on, despite the significant debts incurred. Where was the government when all of this was happening? This occurred on a lazy government's watch. How can they possibly justify to taxpayers their failure to do anything about it? Well, the answer to that is clear: they have not fronted up to explain that. This would be an embarrassment to a competent government, but this dysfunctional government has failed to act for more than five years. It now finally acts. Labor welcomes the students getting some relief, finally.</para>
<para>In 2014, the then education minister, Christopher Pyne, was warned of the dismal completion rates under the scheme. However, the government just sat on their hands. Meanwhile, providers continued to exploit vulnerable people and to rip off students. Despite concerns about appalling recruitment practices, in particular, at Careers Australia—these concerns were raised publicly in 2015—the coalition continued to provide and fund loans until Careers Australia eventually collapsed in May 2017. That collapse left thousands of students stranded and thousands of workers without jobs, and that was after milking this coalition government of 600 million of taxpayers' dollars. It is instructive to review the scale of the escalation of malpractice in this area. From 2009, Labor provided VET FEE-HELP scheme loans of $1.4 billion over five years, which was about $280 million in loans per year. Under the coalition, those loans skyrocketed to $1.8 billion in 2014 and a staggering $3 billion in 2015. That totalled to $6 billion from 2014 to 2016. That was overwhelmingly to private providers.</para>
<para>In addition to this, the Liberals have provided no leadership on VET. Ignoring the underlying flaws in the vocational education system, they have instead continued to cut funding and support to skills formation. The Productivity Commission has called the system 'a mess'. The OECD has reported that Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively with global value chains. What an embarrassment this government is. A recent independent report authored by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national system, says it is fragmented and devalued, there is no effective governance, the funding arrangements are chaotic and there is no overarching national strategy.</para>
<para>It is clear that TAFE has been the poor cousin even within that devalued sector, with the increased reliance upon private providers over the last 20 years. We can't have the situation where the public sector is responsible for the really capital-intensive areas or difficult delivery areas. We can't have a situation where investment in the private sector is supported the dodgy providers, who in turn have been picking the high-value but low-quality areas in our vocational training whilst offering iPads to people interested in signing up to courses without regard to any sort of outcome.</para>
<para>I do emphasise that there are some very good operators, particularly in Northern Tasmania within my constituency, that have been doing some fantastic things, working closely with industry and being very industry responsive. I have met with those good quality providers in person to understand what they see as the drivers of high-quality outcomes in vocational education. But, for all that, I strongly believe our public TAFE needs to be recognised again and supported, not just with fond memories for past days when TAFE ruled vocational training, but with real support and real capital funding. Money needs to be spent on refurbishment and replacement of facilities that are no longer up to standard anymore. There needs to be focus upon technical and further education as being a legitimate alternative to our perfectly appropriate attention to university training.</para>
<para>Our manufacturing sector in Northern Tasmania is particularly used to having thousands of highly skilled and well-paid people. It relied upon the fact they either had a TAFE education or trained on the job, many in the apprenticeship system. There is a bright future based around advanced manufacturing, building things very smartly, rather than volume production. Australian manufacturers can't compete with mass produced goods from overseas but can focus on highly skilled or discrete trades, where we have demonstrated expertise.</para>
<para>I bring to the House's attention a company called Definium Technologies, a local Launceston business that is successfully winning business to build low-volume complex circuit boards, single boards, computers and sensors. This is a highly specialised area of manufacturing, exploiting the internet of things. With computer boards, sensors, communications devices and new technology being manufactured in Northern Tasmania, I see the potential, for example, for substantial employment within defence-related contracting in Tasmania, employment that doesn't necessarily demand a university degree but does demand people that are highly skilled in trades like electronic engineering. These skills may ultimately lead towards a university degree, but the starting point for a future that encompasses well-paid jobs in advanced manufacturing has to, in my submission, be the reinvestment by government in trade and vocational education.</para>
<para>Since they were elected, the Liberals have cut more than $3 billion from TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. In his last budget as Treasurer, now Prime Minister Scott Morrison cut a further $270 million from apprenticeship funding over the next four years. For more than a year, this coalition has failed to spend a cent out of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship. All Australian should have access throughout their working lives to the education, skills and training that they need for decent jobs that allow them to live good, productive and fulfilling lives and, above all, to be active members of our communities. Labor believes that no-one should be excluded from access to vocational education and training because of financial disadvantage. They shouldn't be excluded due to course costs, fear of taking on debt or regional disadvantage.</para>
<para>VET, TAFE and apprenticeships are absolutely crucial to jobs and crucial to Australia's economy. A skilled and educated workforce is a national economic priority, and TAFE is the lifeblood of our vocational education and training system. Labor knows that TAFE is the backbone of our apprenticeship and technical skills education system, which is why we took a TAFE funding guarantee to the last election. There are some 28,000 people in Tasmania currently enrolled in TAFE—individuals, all of them who know firsthand the first-class skills and opportunities that going to TAFE can provide to them. Indeed, generations of Australians can attest to the importance of TAFE for our economy and for delivering the skills and knowledge necessary to ensure that Australia remains competitive on the global market.</para>
<para>How obvious this is to those on this side of the House! But it's clear that those on the other side—the Liberals and Nationals—just do not get it. At both the state and federal levels they appear to have an ideological problem with TAFE. This is exemplified by the fact that apprenticeship numbers have been in freefall under this government—down 30 per cent since the government came to power, or 130,000 fewer apprenticeships under the Liberals. Labor will restore public TAFE as the major provider in the vocational education and training system. Labor has always championed quality apprenticeships and will continue to ensure that more Australians can follow that trusted path into decent work.</para>
<para>The Labor inquiry into post-secondary education will also build on the best of Australia's vocational education and training systems, and repair the damage done by unscrupulous, for-profit providers and the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government neglect. This government has clearly failed the VET sector in that they've not done what is best for students, they've not done what is best for industry and they've not done what is best for employers. What they now offer up in this bill is to be welcomed, but it is much delayed.</para>
<para>It's time for an election, so that Labor can restore TAFE. Labor knows that education, in all of its forms—whether it's higher education through university degrees or whether it's technical and further education in the public sector or the private sector—is the key to happy, healthy and vibrant communities. It's the key to the sort of flexibility that will put a young person on a lifelong road towards employment and being able to be re-skilled as opportunities come along. The provision of technical, vocational, creative and semiprofessional skills through VET, TAFE and apprenticeships is absolutely vital to the growth of our economy and to the wellbeing of our local communities.</para>
<para>If we look at the priorities that this government offers, up until recently all it was talking about was a one-point economic plan which consisted of tax cuts—tax cuts which were supposed to trickle down magically and provide greater income or greater economic activity. We on this side of the House know that real investment in education at all levels, starting with the very youngest Australians right through to primary school, secondary school and then to education at a tertiary level in universities and TAFE, will truly drive the transformation of the Australian economy. We cannot have the OECD giving us a black mark for the fact that we have a system which is not fit for purpose. We can do better, we need a government that cares about technical and further education and that's a Labor government, if elected.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>16:45</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
    <electorate>Canberra</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I want to commend the member for Bass on that speech. I want to commend him for the fact he actually underscored the fact that TAFE is there for various parts of your career. It is the journey of life, in many ways, in terms of education. I know this from my father, who was an electrician. He studied at TAFE in the 1950s, and then he decided he wanted to go back and get a further qualification and so moved from being an electrician into becoming an accountant. It was TAFE, or technical colleges as they were called then, that trained him as an electrician and it was TAFE technical colleges that trained him as an accountant. That's the beauty of TAFE: it can provide you with an entry point into a career and then it can provide you with a pathway into a new career. It can provide you with an update on your current skills. It can provide an endless range of opportunities throughout the course of your life. As the member for Bass said, it provides lifelong learning opportunities, which is why I am a huge fan. It's not just because of that story of my father but because I did go through the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology myself. I did my second degree there. I was also union president there. I also tutored out at the University of Canberra before I went into politics. Again, I'm a huge fan of vocational education.</para>
<para>Just yesterday, I met a group of 18 amazing young women from regional, rural and remote Australia. They were in Canberra as part of the Country to Canberra 'power trip'. These women had come from all over Australia, from Nhulunbuy, Tasmania, Victoria, remote parts of New South Wales, remote parts of WA and Queensland. I met two young women whose stories really stuck with me. The first was Chloe. Chloe is really excited about taking part in this program. Chloe has been going through her own personal journey in trying to work out what she wants to do. She's in year 11 in north-western Tasmania. She has finally settled on studying hairdressing, and so she's going off to study that. She's choosing to use it as an opportunity to move from her home town and to forge a new path in a new town. I commend her for that. Also, I met Hannah, who works on a fourth-generation dairy farm and naturally wants to go into dairy farming. So, next year, she's also heading off. They are both of them in year 11 and yet they're going on a new pathway next year. Hannah is going off to study a cert and then ultimately a diploma in farming and agriculture, and she's really excited about that. That's the beauty of TAFE: it opens up so much opportunity for people right across Australia.</para>
<para>That is why the Nationals should get behind TAFE and the endless possibilities it provides for those two Country to Canberra women—Chloe from Tasmania and Hannah from down in Camperdown, Victoria. The Nationals should be behind the endless possibilities and range of learning opportunities that TAFE provides. If anyone in this country is going to be behind it, it should be the Nationals.</para>
<para>Labor welcome any opportunity to strengthen the integrity of the vocational education and training sector because we are great fans of VET and apprenticeships. The original intention of the VET FEE-HELP loan scheme was to enable a pathway to higher education for eligible students. We have since learned that lifting restrictions on what type of provider could arrange credit transfers with universities essentially opened the system to the market and made the system vulnerable and, worse, made thousands of VET students vulnerable.</para>
<para>According to the Department of Education and Training, between 2009 and 2015 the number of students accessing VET FEE-HELP jumped from 5,262 to a whopping 272,000. This is a 5,000 per cent increase. In the same period, the average course cost tripled from around $4,000 to $14,000. This resulted in debts to students. It has Commonwealth borrowings blowing out from $26 million to $2.9 billion. They're extraordinary jumps in figures—a 5,000 per cent increase. Because of these impacts, a number of changes were implemented to the system in 2015, including banning the use of inducements to encourage students to enrol in a course—and who could forget the enticement of iPads?—limiting allowable marketing and recruitment practices, clarifying students' rights and obligations, and introducing stricter provider eligibility and charging requirements and a civil penalty regime. In 2016, the VET FEE-HELP scheme was replaced with VET Student Loans, again tightening provider eligibility requirements and lending controls. The new VET Student Loans scheme has shown an improvement in course completion rates of 16 per cent not because of a program name change and not because of whatever government was in charge at the time but because we're starting to get the regulatory settings right.</para>
<para>We still have some way to go, unfortunately. The OECD Survey of Adult Skills examines the strengths and challenges facing the skills system and what can be done to enhance basic skills through education, training or other workplace measures. It's relied on by governments, academics and advocates for research and to inform policy development on skill formation. The outcome from the 2017 survey identified a number of policy recommendations for Australia, and these included increasing women's participation in STEM fields—I know from my own experience in the cybersecurity area that only 11 per cent of the cybersecurity profession are women—addressing underperformance of postsecondary VET students and preventing dropout, improving pre-apprenticeships, enhancing mathematics provision within secondary education and tackling poor access to childcare facilities for young mothers. These recommendations were made using internationally recognised, quantifiable data analysing the literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills of Australians.</para>
<para>But, just last week, Labor shadow minister for skills, TAFE and apprenticeships stated he had received advice that the Morrison government has withdrawn Australia from this Survey of Adult Skills. Why? It's absolutely staggering. If Australia withdraws, there will be no way of benchmarking Australia's skills internationally or assessing whether we are actually meeting national targets. Why would we want to avoid scrutiny on how our skill base is developing, particularly when we have a skill shortage in this nation in nearly every profession? There's a skill shortage, particularly in the trades. I can tell you right now we have a skill shortage of 19,000 in the cybersecurity industry, and that's just for next year.</para>
<para>Why would you want to avoid scrutiny of this skill shortage? We should be getting a greater understanding of how skill bases are developing and identifying areas where target assistance may be required. It should beggar belief but it is so typical of those opposite. Those opposite—and I count the Nationals in on this—have cut more than $3 billion from vocational education and skills, which is just staggering. Those opposite have cut a further $270 million over the forward estimates in funding for apprenticeships. Those opposite, including the Nationals, are now 140,000 apprentices fewer than when they took over government. And those opposite, including the Nationals, have cut 75 per cent from the infrastructure budgets for TAFE. Those opposite closed down the Workplace English Language and Literacy program. They've cut funding to the Skills for Education and Employment program.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Broad</name>
    <name.id>30379</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I get your brochures in the mail.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BRODTMANN</name>
    <name.id>30540</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Thanks very much for that; I'm talking about VET. Those opposite wasted $24 million on a bungled apprenticeship IT system and failed to meet their apprenticeship targets. For more than one year, those opposite failed to spend one cent of its flawed Skilling Australians Fund on an apprenticeship. Those opposite have provided no leadership on vocational education and training. Those opposite have ignored the underlying flaws in the system and instead continued to cut funding and continued to cut support to skills formation.</para>
<para>Contrast that to Labor—and this isn't just Labor's opinion either—in terms of what those opposite have done, in terms of the decimation of the VET system in this country. The Productivity Commission called the system 'a mess', the OECD has found Australia doesn't have the skills to engage effectively in global value chains, and an independent report by Terry Moran, one of the original architects of the national scheme, says that it's fragmented and devalued, that there is no effective governance, that the funding arrangements are chaotic and that there is no national strategy.</para>
<para>VET plays a vital role in our skill formation system. It is essential—absolutely vital—to Australia's future prospects and to our domestic and international competitiveness. We have an obligation to ensure that VET is excellent. We used to be world leaders on VET. We were one of the few countries that had a really sophisticated VET system going. There was the polytechnic system in the UK, the Germans and us—we were the world leaders. And now this is a world-leading system that has been starved in every way thanks to those opposite, including The Nationals. We have an obligation to ensure that VET provides an environment where students flourish, where they achieve things they've never imagined and where they reach goals they may never have felt possible given their personal circumstances and experiences. This cannot be achieved if, when it comes to cost cutting, VET continues to be treated as the poor cousin of the university sector and the scapegoat of governments.</para>
<para>We need a VET system that equips people more appropriately for a rapidly changing world and encourages people to take part in that world and continue that process of lifelong learning. The way forward will be complex and challenging intellectually and practically. And a clear example of the need to equip people for a rapidly changing world is evident in the area of cybersecurity. As I've mentioned, the cybersecurity industry is only 11 per cent women, and we are screaming out for skills. We will need 19,000 cybersecurity experts for next year alone. There is an international and national cybersecurity skills shortage: six million jobs in cybersecurity globally and only 4½ million people with the skills to fill those jobs next year. We need cybersecurity experts yesterday and we need them in a broad range of fields, from coders to policymakers.</para>
<para>So how do we get them quick smart? We need to think creatively and we need to think laterally. We need to learn from other nations. We need to think about compressing undergraduate degrees into two years, including industry experience. We need to think about intensive degrees, where the student studies throughout the year with no break, completing the degree in 12 months. We need to think about pathway degrees, diplomas and certificates, which can be completed in a summer school. We need to think about pathways through primary school and secondary school to cybersecurity careers, identifying that talent early and fostering and nurturing it through the education process. We need to think about managing the security risk of newcomers awaiting their positive vet: getting them into the workforce but keeping them on less sensitive work until they're cleared, or graduating them up the scale as their positive vet progresses. We need to think about starting the positive vetting process during high school, TAFE or university so graduates aren't stringing a living together through a series of part-time jobs for two years while they're waiting for their clearance. And we need to think creatively and laterally about how we accredit these courses, certificates, diplomas and degrees. Cybersecurity is the new black. It is the Y2K of the 2000s, and there is not a day that goes by where an institution doesn't come up with a new cybersecurity course. But at the moment we only have an assurance mechanism to accredit some of these courses, not all of them, which means we have quite a large blind spot over the skills, quality and readiness of many of our cybersecurity graduates—and I say 'not all' these courses because, while I understand the Australian Computer Society accredits undergraduate and postgraduate ICT courses, the push now is for cybersecurity graduates from multidisciplinary backgrounds, across a range of disciplines—that is, those with a combination of ICT and international law, risk management and coding, or psychology and ethics.</para>
<para>We now have a national curriculum in TAFE on cyber, and that is being rolled out, and I applaud that. That said, we need more of this and we need it now. We also need to be assured that the courses that are rolling out across TAFEs and across institutions right throughout the nation are actually accredited. Labor believes no-one should be excluded from access to vocational education and training as a result of financial disadvantage, course cost, fear of debt or regional disadvantage. The inquiry into postsecondary education will build on the best of Australia's vocational education and training system and repair the damage done by shonky providers and the neglect of those opposite, including the Nationals. Labor has always championed quality apprenticeships and will continue to ensure more Australians can follow that trusted path into decent work.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROAD</name>
    <name.id>30379</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank those members who spoke on the Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Student Protection) Bill 2018 and those who came to hear my riveting wrap-up speech! The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to establish a remedy for students who incurred a VET FEE-HELP debt due to the inappropriate conduct of their VET provider or their VET provider's agent. The bill also amends the Ombudsman Act 1976 to allow the VET Student Loans Ombudsman to make recommendations to the secretary of the Department of Education and Training regarding remitting the VET FEE-HELP debts of individual students.</para>
<para>This bill demonstrates a concerted attempt by the government to remove VET FEE-HELP debt incurred by many students through the inappropriate behaviour and rorting of the VET FEE-HELP scheme by some VET providers. The bill allows the secretary to remit the student's debt upon application by the student and at their own initiative. The secretary's power to recredit a student's VET FEE-HELP debt includes debt incurred at any point over the VET FEE-HELP scheme.</para>
<para>In deciding whether to recredit a student's FEE-HELP balance, the secretary must be satisfied that the person did not complete the requirements for the relevant VET unit of study and that it is reasonably likely the VET provider or its agent engaged in inappropriate conduct towards the student, in relation to the unit or course of which the unit formed a part. In response to a request from the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I now present an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. It provides further information about why it is appropriate for delegated legislation rather than primary legislation to provide for what constitutes inappropriate conduct by providers.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
<para>Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Third Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:04</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BROAD</name>
    <name.id>30379</name.id>
    <electorate>Mallee</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That this bill be now read a third time.</para></quote>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a third time.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="s1112" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>First Reading</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo></subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016</title>
          <page.no>95</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r5688" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration of Senate Message</title>
            <page.no>95</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms LEY</name>
    <name.id>00AMN</name.id>
    <electorate>Farrer</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That the amendments be agreed to.</para></quote>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:06</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Labor does not support these amendments. The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 has been on the books for quite some time. Labor supported the original bill, which was dealt with about two years ago in this place. The original bill creates a framework which is legally enforceable in relation to family reunion visa applications, which were previously undertakings. On the amendments that are before the House, the government claims the new sponsorship framework requirements were originally intended to apply to the partner visa program would later extend to the family sponsored visa, including parent visa.</para>
<para>The government made a commitment, following on from the Labor Party, to introduce a new sponsored temporary visa to allow parents to stay in Australia for a period of up to five years. The government's amendments assign financial responsibility for health costs and go beyond the stated objective of applying to parent visas. These amendments make changes to the sponsored family visa program, which allows the government to collect debts for medical, hospital, aged-care or health related expenses from sponsored family visa holders. Although the government claims this is to enact an election promise of creating a new sponsored parent visa, there are no guarantees in the amendments that this debt recovery function won't apply or be extended to other sponsored family visa classes.</para>
<para>The government's own explanatory memorandum states that these debt recovery functions are currently only intended to apply to sponsored parent visa holders and are unlikely to extend to sponsors of partner- or child-visa holders. The ability of a visa-holder child to access medical assistance shouldn't be dependent on the sponsor's capacity to pay for the treatment. Before the election, the coalition promised one thing and have done something different after. Given the lack of protections for children and the continual broken promises to migrant communities in relation to this matter—and I've travelled around the country to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth listening to migrant communities—Labor opposes this amendment today.</para>
<para>Question agreed to.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018</title>
          <page.no>96</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.text>
          <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" xmlns:wx="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
            <a href="r6213" type="Bill">
              <p class="HPS-SubDebate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
                <span class="HPS-SubDebate">Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018</span>
              </p>
            </a>
          </body>
        </subdebate.text><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Second Reading</title>
            <page.no>96</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a real privilege today to be able to make a contribution, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018. We are supportive of this bill. We are pleased to see the government finally making a move towards strengthening penalties for corporate crime, which has been a need for quite a long time in federal law. And I move a second reading amendment that will enable the House to continue a discussion about the government's failure to address some other areas of corporate crime that Labor believes are very critical. I move:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the continued failure of the Government to address corporate misconduct".</para></quote>
<para>First, I'll talk about the bill and what it does, for the benefit of people in the gallery and those listening at home. It's been widely recognised for a very long time in this country that the penalties that are attached to white-collar crime are insufficient. We see that when I do my roundtables. When I talk to people—even people in business—the refrain that always gets the most nods of heads is when I talk about the fact that people are sent to jail for long periods of time and get big fines when they're an individual committing a crime, but, for some reason, our law seems to suggest and seems to reflect a view that we don't take white-collar crime and corporate crime as seriously in this chamber. That is wrong, and that is something that we need to actively refute as a parliament to send a really clear message to the community and to the people for whom these laws are most relevant that white-collar crime is crime. It doesn't matter if you're wearing a suit when the crime is conducted and it doesn't matter if you're clever at hiding what you're doing in spreadsheets and in different sorts of files. If you commit a crime, you need to pay for that crime, and some of the measures that are in the bill before us are going to make sure that that's instituted by this federal parliament.</para>
<para>I mentioned that there's a general consensus that white-collar crime penalties have been insufficient and inadequate. A review into enforcement conducted a couple of years ago produced a final report in 2017 that outlined some changes that need to be made to federal law, and the bill before us will see some of those changes being enacted. The enforcement review, which is the discussion that I referred to, arose out of the financial systems inquiry. That inquiry identified very clearly that the maximum penalties in financial sector law are unlikely to deter misconduct by large firms and made a recommendation that we substantially increase civil and criminal penalties. The review also considered the enforcement options that are available to ASIC. So what we see in this bill is, in part, an increase to penalties across a range of different offences, but it also provides ASIC and the courts more flexibility in how they account for people's wrongdoing.</para>
<para>All in all, the ASIC review task force produced a set of recommendations that we are generally supportive of. We're generally supportive of strengthening penalties in the way that's being done in this bill, and I want to go through some of the specific changes. The bill deals with criminal and civil penalty provisions in the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act. It makes several changes to offences that exist within those acts. It increases penalties for individuals and corporations for both criminal offences and breaches of civil penalty provisions. It makes some changes to the penalties that sit with strict and absolute liability offences. It creates several new ordinary criminal offences—that is, offences that require some type of mental element or criminal intent to be proven. It introduces a disgorgement remedy for ASIC to use in civil penalty proceedings. That, in plain English, means that this law will allow a court to force someone who has benefited from a crime to essentially return the funds that have come from that crime. It creates a new infringement notice provision, which will give ASIC more options in punishing misconduct.</para>
<para>I think the aspect of this bill that is going to have the most resonance in the community is the part of the bill that sees increases to penalties across a wide range of offences. There are increases to maximum financial penalties across both civil and criminal offences, and we are supportive of those increases.</para>
<para>I want to refer to other penalty increases. One of those is where the benefit the corporation gained from the contravention, or the loss avoided, can be calculated and the court can impose a monetary penalty of three times that amount. This is a very important reform. We might be speaking in sentencing gobbledygook a little bit in this discussion but, to put it simply, there probably have been instances which people at home will have read about in the newspaper where a very serious corporate crime is committed and the penalty that's attached to the crime is a tiny share of the benefit that was generated by the crime. These penalties are talked about as the cost of doing business. That's not we want penalties to be in federal criminal law. We need penalties to actively deter misconduct, and that means we need penalties that are of a significant size. The bill before us gives courts the power to award penalties that are three times the size of the wrongdoing.</para>
<para>Individuals will also be subject to this maximum penalty of three times the benefit for criminal offences or breaches of civil penalty provisions. The bill would give courts an additional option in determining a penalty, which is that courts can calculate monetary penalties using the turnover size of the corporation. The bill specifies that a monetary penalty of 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation can be put in place. The government has proposed a restriction to that, which is that civil penalties that use the 10 per cent turnover calculation are restricted to a maximum of one million penalty units or $210 million.</para>
<para>Labor is generally supportive of using increased deterrence. As a parliament we need to send a stronger message to banks and financial service providers that the community expects better. The community expects that as parliamentarians we will use the democratic process to determine which actions are against the law. Importantly, the courts use the maximum penalties that we set to gauge how seriously the parliament regards conduct. That's why the maximum penalty for these types of crimes is crucial. It doesn't mean that people are always sentenced at the maximum; it means that a judge has in mind that the parliament is sending a signal about the seriousness of this type of wrongdoing.</para>
<para>The banks and financial institutions that have failed to obey the law on many occasions are in a sense turning up their noses up at the parliament. We in this room embody the views of the people we represent on what have been some flagrant examples of the breaking of the law. We simply can't allow a legal regime in our country that says that big corporations can get away with, for example, the sorts of wrongdoing that have come out of the banking royal commission.</para>
<para>Before I turn to some other matters I mention the removal of custodial sentences from strict and absolute liability offences. The bill makes some changes to strict and absolute liability offences. Currently in the laws that I talked about there are several strict and absolute liability offences that carry potential custodial sentences. Again I want to put that in plain English: we're saying that a strict or absolute liability offence doesn't require the proof of a mental element and, despite not having that requirement, a person can go to jail when those offences have been committed. The way that those laws are framed is a little bit unusual. We try not to attach prison sentences to offences that don't have a mental element to them. The reason we don't is that going to prison is such a grave thing to happen and it's such a big thing to take away someone's liberty that we want to make sure we're doing it in only the most extreme of circumstances.</para>
<para>I just want to note that there has been quite substantial debate about the government's bill, which would seek to remove the custodial option from the absolute and strict liability offences. One of the most concerned parties about this aspect of the bill is ASIC, who is meant to be enforcing these remedies. ASIC raised concerns, through the ASIC Enforcement Review, about what is proposed by the government in this bill. It opposes the measures that are in the bill, and I want to just share, in a couple of quotes, what ASIC has said about its opposition. It said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">We consider that imprisonment should not be removed as a possible sanction for strict and absolute liability offences where it is currently in place, as this would send a confusing regulatory message.</para></quote>
<para>It also said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">… Parliament clearly intended that various corporate strict liability offences were of such importance as to warrant a potential custodial sentence.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">This same legislative intention is evident in numerous other Commonwealth statutes that also contain strict liability offences punishable by terms of imprisonment.</para></quote>
<para>I just want it noted for the debate and discussion that will occur about this bill that we have here our corporate regulator actively opposing the solution that the government has put forward. I think that's going to warrant some further conversation in the Senate.</para>
<para>One of the important justifications that we do need to put into this discussion is that there are some specific aspects of white-collar crime that would mean that we wouldn't normally attach custodial sentences to strict and absolute liability offences. One of them is that white-collar crime is incredibly difficult to investigate. It's very difficult, therefore, to prosecute to the point of proving a criminal element in the mind of the wrongdoer. The reason for that is that, unlike a normal assault offence, for example, where there are witnesses who see one person punch another—and then the evidentiary process is quite straightforward—with white-collar crime we have a different type of criminal usually. People who are engaging in white-collar crime are often very good at hiding what they do. Indeed, the nature of white-collar crime makes it easier for them to hide what they're doing. It is quite difficult to take, for example, a big bank that might have 20,000 employees and find the person who is responsible for some type of wrongdoing and then find evidence of that wrongdoing when you're not actually inside the bank. So I think there is an argument to be made here about the strict and absolute liability offences, and ASIC has made that argument quite strongly in its discussion about this bill.</para>
<para>The bill creates several new infringement notice provisions. Infringement notices are lower level penalties that ASIC can impose without the need to go to court or prove wrongdoing. As we might get a parking ticket, this is ASIC's way of giving people a fine without having to go through an expensive and lengthy process using a court. However, if the infringement notice is not complied with, ASIC needs to be able to go to court and prove the offence. Infringement notices provide ASIC with more options, and we want to give our regulator all the tools that it needs to be able to bring these people to justice. But I think there does remain an open question here about whether, in some cases, creating infringement notice provisions sends the wrong signal about the seriousness of the conduct. For some of the offences in the bill before us, there's a criminal offence that exists within the law and, essentially, we're layering less serious ways of penalising that conduct beneath the criminal offence. It's easier to fine wrongdoing, but it's also less of a penalty, and I think that, as per ASIC's argument about the strict and absolute liability offences, there's a discussion to be had here about the kind of message we're sending as a parliament when, in an effort to strengthen the penalties attached to corporate wrongdoing, we actually end up providing a whole lot of easier-to-prove penalties which, I would assume, will be used more frequently than the criminal penalties are today. That is a discussion that I think will take place.</para>
<para>I want to note that, in the royal commission, Commissioner Hayne has identified some potential issues with the use of relatively small infringement notices to penalise serious misconduct where the benefits to the company and the damage to consumers are far in excess of the value of infringement notices. In discussing two cases where ASIC issued infringement notices for breaches of responsible lending obligations under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, Commissioner Hayne observed that in both cases the ASIC media release about the infringement notice featured the disclaimer that 'the payment of an infringement notice is not an admission of guilt in respect of the alleged contravention.' It is difficult to identify any correspondence between the scale or severity of the conduct and the penalty imposed in either of these cases. If penalties are intended to have a deterrent effect, as suggested by the words of the ASIC media release, then it must be plainly said that the amounts imposed in these cases do not. We'll continue to consider that matter through the Senate process to make sure that we're taking into account these competing views about the benefits of providing additional options to ASIC in this regard.</para>
<para>The bill contains some new powers to ASIC. I mentioned before some new methodologies that a court can use to determine the size of penalties. There are other measures in the bill that create a new remedy that ASIC can seek from courts through civil penalty proceedings through requiring the disgorgement or forfeiture of benefits gained as result of misconduct. Labor supports the introduction of the new disgorgement remedy; that's a very positive development.</para>
<para>I want to speak a little bit now about the second reading amendment, which I'm moving as part of my speech today, because it is important for us to remember the context of the conversation that has brought us to this point and that inexorably leads us to the banking royal commission, which I haven't referred to in too much detail in my speech so far but must be a part of the conversation that we have about the deep failure of our current penalties regime to deter criminal conduct. That's just the frank reality that has come out of the royal commission.</para>
<para>It's important to note that the ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce reported in December 2017, before the first royal commission hearings had been held. In fact its deliberations occurred before the royal commission had even been announced. I'm sure all of us in this chamber have had the same experience. We knew that there was some level of wrongdoing occurring in corporate Australia and particularly within banking, but the scale, the size and the damage that has been done that has been revealed through the royal commission has shocked almost every Australian. In fact, even the bank CEOs that I talk to, knowing as they do their own organisations, are shocked at what they see when all of the wrongdoing and misconduct is put together. We need to note that the conclusions that the ASIC enforcement review made, and the conclusions that this bill is based on, don't take into account the widespread misconduct and systemic failures of compliance that were laid bare through the royal commission.</para>
<para>The failure of banks to live up to community standards is something that I feel extremely strongly about. One of the reasons for that is that I have spent a considerable amount of time over the last couple of months in particular meeting and speaking with people who are victims of bank misconduct. The unbelievable damage that has been done by these institutions is not possible to put into words. I firmly believe that the only way that anyone can really understand what has happened here is by sitting down with someone who has been affected by banking misconduct and speaking to them about the damage that has caused to them. I have met with people frequently who have had marriage breakdowns, who have had lifelong mental illness—illnesses they will battle with the rest of their life. Their lives have been ruined for financial reasons, but that has often led to a cascade of events that have taken them to a place that they could never have envisaged themselves in.</para>
<para>There have got to be people held to account for the type of conduct that's been seen. We do feel a genuine and huge sense of frustration on this side of the chamber that it has taken so long for us to get to this point. To speak with these bank victims and then to think back to the level to which the government was willing to go to try to prevent the royal commission from ever taking place tells me everything I need to know about the people who sit opposite me in this chamber. Instead of defending the people who have been affected by this misconduct—and I meet some of the worst, but there are millions of Australians who have in one way or another been victims of some type of conduct that has not met community standards—and trying to investigate the people who did this wrong to them, the government defended the big banks and did it for almost two years. We could have had the royal commission done and dusted. We could be implementing reforms right now, but instead we have this royal commission still underway and people still being hurt.</para>
<para>I'm enormously frustrated that I am still today looking at the royal commission. We've had the bank CEOs through the royal commission this week and last week, and I have to say that in many instances I haven't been overwhelmed by or impressed with their conduct. One of the things that is most frustrating about watching those bank CEOs on the stand is what I see as a lack of effort to properly compensate people who have been wronged by the banks. It's a great thing for the bank CEOs to come before the royal commission and say that they did the wrong thing, but it's cold comfort to the many millions of people who were hurt by that.</para>
<para>I see that the banks are going about huge compensation schemes for instances where they've had some type of systemic misconduct. They are going about trying to identify those people. But what about all of those other people who were victims of much more serious misconduct? We have examples where people have been victims of fraud by the banks, and instead of dealing with them properly in an upfront way the banks have sometimes sued them so that they can tie them up in years-long legal battles and prevent that person from ever accessing justice.</para>
<para>So I'm frustrated. I'm frustrated with the government, because we could have been so much further along in this debate. There are so many people who were hurt by the conduct of the big banks while the government ran protection for them and while the government tried to give them billions of dollars in tax cuts. And I'm frustrated because we're here talking about this bill instead of implementing some of those pretty significant reforms that I think will be the consequences of the royal commission.</para>
<para>I just want to put this on record one more time. We have a different person occupying the big chair in this room now—the member for Cook, the Prime Minister. This is the person who called the royal commission a 'populist whinge'. The Prime Minister called the royal commission a 'QC complaints desk' and he voted against it 26 times. He can go around Australia in his empty bus and he can use all the Australian vernacular he wants—he can call things 'dinky-di' and 'fair dinkum' until the cows come home—but the truth is that it doesn't mean anything if he doesn't come into this chamber and do the right thing. And he didn't do the right thing: 26 times he voted against a royal commission.</para>
<para>So I'm frustrated with the current Prime Minister, because I do see him as responsible for where we are today, and that is a community of people who have lost trust in our big financial institutions. That's actually a bad thing. It's a bad thing for the economy and it's a bad thing for Australians. Increasingly, when I talk to people about this they feel that the royal commission represents for them a view of society that they didn't really believe was Australia. That is to say that they thought Australia was a fair country, where if people broke the law they were held to account and if they went to work every day and did the right thing then bad things wouldn't happen to them. I have seen people and talked to them—literally, grown men—and every time I've had a banking round table a grown man will well up with tears or cry in front of me as he talks about the fact that he never thought this could happen in Australia, but it did. And part of that responsibility has to sit with the government of the day.</para>
<para>So we're pleased with aspects of this bill, but frustrated that this is where the debate is. I'll leave my comments there and allow those on the other side of the chamber to make their contributions.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Is the amendment seconded?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Dreyfus</name>
    <name.id>HWG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>DZY</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mrs MARINO</name>
    <name.id>HWP</name.id>
    <electorate>Forrest</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the government's Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018.</para>
<para>I've spoken before in this chamber about the need for all of us, as banking consumers, to have access to really good-quality services from the banking sector. Our needs are very diverse, and they are diverse for each different person in Australia. We need to have enormous confidence in those who we seek advice from. That's why the government's bill is actually putting consumers first. That's the important part of the bill before the chamber today. Not only is it putting consumers first it is giving a very clear message to financial institutions and individuals that complying with the law is actually not negotiable—it is the law. If the law is breached, the courts will actually have a broader range of penalties to impose. Not only will these act as a significant deterrent; there will be real consequences for the types of behaviour that we've seen at the royal commission. The damage has been extraordinary. It's entirely appropriate that people, companies or groups that have contravened the law are actually punished, and that's what this bill is about. The government is absolutely committed to ensuring that our financial services regulators have the various powers they need to protect consumers and to deter and prosecute corporate and financial sector misconduct.</para>
<para>We saw a number of the comments by Commissioner Hayne in his interim report, and some of them bear repeating here today. The conduct that the Commissioner identified and criticised was described in his report as that of 'taking a customer's money when not entitled to take it'. That was on fee for no service. It also included:</para>
<list>preferring personal financial interest over the customer's interest when obliged to act in the customer's best interests;</list>
<list>misleading or deceiving the customer; and</list>
<list>breaking some specific requirement of the law including, but not limited to, provisions intended to protect the customer …</list>
<para>Then, when I look further into the interim report, one of the things that Commissioner Hayne said was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Each financial services entity is responsible for its own conduct. It, and it alone, is responsible for every act that is identified in this report as conduct that might constitute misconduct or is conduct that falls short of community standards and expectations. The criticisms that are made of the ways that regulators have responded to this conduct must not be understood as diminishing in any way the culpability of the entities that engaged in the relevant conduct.</para></quote>
<para>They are very strong statements. He went on to say:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Important deterrents to misconduct are, therefore, missing from the banking industry. Competitive pressures are slight.</para></quote>
<para>He said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The banks have gone to the edge of what is permitted, and too often beyond that limit, in pursuit of profit. And they have gone beyond the limit:</para></quote>
<list>because they can; and</list>
<list>because they profit from the misconduct that is described in this report.</list>
<para>What we see here today is a range of measures to help cover off some of those instances that the interim report of the Commissioner alluded to. The message here is very clear from the government: complying with the law is not negotiable. If the law is breached, the courts will have a broader range of penalties to impose, which will act as a very significant deterrent. The bill more than doubles the maximum imprisonment penalties for some of the most serious white-collar crimes that I have just described and brings Australia's penalties in closer alignment with leading international jurisdictions. It will also increase several penalties for individuals by more than fivefold and increase civil penalties for corporations by more than tenfold. The government is also giving courts the power to consider even greater penalties where the profits from misconduct are high or where the company's annual turnover exceeds $105 million.</para>
<para>As I referred to with the royal commission, the proceeds of misconduct have been shocking and massive. This bill will ensure that courts can act in these situations. At the moment there is no penalty, apart from taking licensing action and perhaps even taking away the licence, should a financial institution breach its licence to provide financial services that are efficient, honest and fair. However, under these new laws, individuals could face a maximum civil penalty of three times the benefit gained or over $1 million; and companies could face a maximum of $10.5 million or three times the benefit gained or 10 per cent of annual turnover capped at $210 million.</para>
<para>In addition to strengthening the penalty framework, the law will be amended to ensure that courts prioritise compensating victims over collecting penalties from offenders. This is important so that customers who have been affected by the decisions of individuals or institutions can be confident that they won't be left out of pocket. We have consulted with the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations in relation to the bill, and it has approved the bill as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.</para>
<para>As I said at the beginning of my speech, people have lost faith, as we have heard in this House previously. That is extremely serious. They are angry and frustrated, and they are unbelievably hurt not only by what has happened to them but by the weight and amount of evidence they've heard at the royal commission. There are a lot of people who are very shocked. They are particularly angry that the people whom they trusted at those institutions did the wrong thing and didn't act in their, the consumer's, best interest. They are angry about the person, often sitting across the desk from them, who has given them advice that they were trusting to be the right advice. Having done that regularly with a bank manager, I can understand how frustrating it is and how angry people are when they get their advice. We need absolute faith in our financial institutions and the advice they give us. People like me and many others in small business rely on that information to make sound commercial decisions. The decisions you make and the decisions you are in a position to make can make or break your business and can have a major impact on your family.</para>
<para>This bill is yet another part of the government's comprehensive, aggressive reform agenda for the financial sector. We've created a framework to hold banking executives accountable for their actions under the government's Banking Executive Accountability Regime. We've boosted banking and financial services competition to benefit consumers. I note also that we announced recently greater backing for small business by lowering the cost of funding for smaller banks and nonbanks with a $2 million fund, which will mean cheaper loans for small and family businesses, something that's critical to small businesses in Australia. We have provided ASIC with an additional $70 million of funding and significant new powers, and appointed an additional deputy chair, Mr Daniel Crennan QC, with a key focus on enforcement action. These reforms have come from our government and our government's determination to ensure that our financial sector is as strong and customer focused as possible.</para>
<para>There are other inquiries that we have conducted into the financial sector which have provided a number of recommendations. A stronger penalty framework is just the next step for us as a government. It's a step not only about holding those accountable for what they've done but also about making sure that customers can have far more confidence in the advice that they get. In making some of the biggest decisions that you make in life—whether you're an individual deciding about a loan that you want for a home or a vehicle or you're a small business; whatever decision you're making—you frequently rely on very sound advice. One of the toughest things for you as a small-business person to accept is that advice you were given was not in your best interests. Okay, we have to look at every deal we're offered and consider it from our own perspective: is this the best deal that I can get? Is this the right deal for what I'm trying to do in my business or in my life? However, you do expect that the quality of the advice that you get across the counter is the best it can be for your particular circumstances. Financial institutions have a long way to go to regain the confidence of consumers, and with the government, through this bill, putting consumers first, I hope people in small businesses start to get much more confidence in the advice they get.</para>
<para>I have spoken previously in this place about some of the issues that small businesses like our own were facing in those early years. When you consider that in those particular years interest rates went from 17 to 23 per cent, our interest and payments were $1,300 a month and we were generating $2,000 a month, every dollar counted. Every decision counted in our business. Every bit of advice that we got mattered as to whether we would sink or swim as a business. Yes, there were times with our dairy farm business when it was quite tough for us to actually earn that $2,000 a month. If we got to February, we didn't earn $2,000 a month, because it was a short month and we were paid on a daily basis for the milk that we were supplying. We were having to build and develop a business at the same time. We relied so strongly on the advice that we got from our local bank manager. Let me tell you how important local bank managers are. You can go and have a chat with them and they often understand not only how your business works but how your industry works, the decisions that you need to make as a business and how important that information and advice is.</para>
<para>I am very pleased to support the legislation. I have no doubt that the measures in this bill will provide significant deterrents. These are the actions required. They are the sorts of deterrents that, unfortunately, are necessary for us to apply, along with a suite of other measures that the government has taken and will continue to take.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 today. I want to follow on from where the member for Forrest, in her contribution, said that it's 'her government' or 'our government' who has always wanted a banking sector which is as strong and as customer-focused as possible. What an absolute load of rubbish! This is from a government member who voted against a banking royal commission 26 times. The member for Farrer and the member for Calare, who are in the chamber, didn't want a banking sector focused on customers. If they had, they would have not stalled and stopped a banking royal commission.</para>
<para>It has been 12 months since the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry was established and, in that time, we have heard the most astonishing stories of deceit and behaviour by the corporate sector that simply makes your skin crawl. This is one of the many reasons that Labor is supportive of the bill to strengthen corporate and financial sector penalties. The measures in this bill implement the recommendations the ASIC Enforcement Review, and that is a good thing.</para>
<para>The ASIC Enforcement Review arose out of the Financial System Inquiry, which identified that the current maximum penalties in the financial sector laws are unlikely to deter misconduct by large firms and recommended sustainability and increased civil and criminal penalties. In its report the task force made 50 recommendations in relation to self-reporting of contraventions by financial services and credit licences, the harmonisation and enhancement of search warrant powers, ASIC's access to telecommunications intercept material, industry codes in the financial sector, strengthening ASIC's licensing powers and ASIC's powers to ban individuals in the financial sector, strengthening penalties for corporate and financial sector misconduct, and ASIC's directions powers. The task force report was released in April 2018, in conjunction with the government's response to the report. I am pleased to say that in the response the government has agreed or has agreed in principle to all of the recommendations of the task force. As we have learnt through every single day of the banking royal commission, current penalties for corporate misconduct, whether jail sentences or monetary penalties, have been shown, quite frankly, to be hopelessly insufficient to deter misconduct.</para>
<para>Might I add that this is a royal commission that every single member of this government voted against 26 times. We all know what the Prime Minister said about the royal commission. He described it, as we heard from the shadow minister, as 'nothing more than a populist whinge'. That was what the current Prime Minister of Australia said. One thing that hasn't happened since he said those words to the people of Australia is an apology—an apology to say 'we weren't listening', an apology to the victims of banks who have suffered. The government have somehow come in today and want to be congratulated for their actions. I mean, what sort of alternative universe are we in when members of the government come into this chamber? It was nearly as strange as when the Prime Minister said about a month ago that he was responsible, that he should take all of the credit, that he was the hero of the day. Well, the victims do not think that he is the victor in this story. I would like him to tell that to the families that have lost millions at the hands of big banks. And, whilst we await the final report of the royal commission, we don't want to sit by and idly do nothing in the meantime. This bill will seek to raise the bar of penalties so that banks, the financial sector and corporate organisations don't flout the system by taking advantage of small penalties as a small price to pay against the massive profits they reap from doing the wrong thing.</para>
<para>This is a necessary reform. This will help to prevent the outrageous situation that we currently have where companies can make hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, through breaking the law and then pay minuscule penalties. This current system is unjust and goes against community expectations of how our corporate sector operates. It is why so many victims—over 10,000, in fact—have come forward and provided submissions to the banking royal commission, telling their stories about how they have been ripped off. With this bill, we seek to put in place deterrents that will in future avoid, potentially, these awful stories. We know that this bill will increase penalties for individuals and corporations for both criminal offences and breaches of civil penalty provisions. It makes several changes to restrict absolute liability offences, create several new ordinary criminal offences—that is, those requiring a mental element to be proven—introduce a remedy for ASIC to use in civil penalty proceedings to force the surrender of benefits gained from wrong-doing and create new infringement notice provisions, giving ASIC more options in punishing misconduct.</para>
<para>Labor is supportive of increasing deterrents and of sending a strong message to our banks and financial service providers that the community expects better. For far too long, we know that they have got away with ripping off Australian consumers just as a way of doing business. It was only this week that we heard from NAB chief executive Andrew Thorburn, who told the banking royal commission that the bank's bonus schemes encouraged bad behaviour, saying that 'we put the bait right there for the people'. He went further and admitted that the NAB became distracted by failing systems in non-core businesses and had 'drifted' towards short-termism at the expense of customers.</para>
<para>I stand in this parliament to say that this type of business behaviour must end, as we parliamentarians can see it, by ensuring that the strong deterrents are put into place. In the past, it has been clear that our banks and financial institutions have failed to obey the law on so many occasions because, as they have shown, they do not take the laws seriously. Today that changes. We need to send a message to companies, directors and senior executives that compliance is not optional and that, if they put in place structures and cultures that facilitate illegal conduct, there will be very, very serious consequences. We know that this must happen because we have seen from the banking royal commission that the corporate sector ignores the deterrents that are already in place. As we know and as we have heard time and time again, over 10,000 submissions from the public were made to the royal commission. I want to put into the record it is actually 10,140 in fact. That is over 10,000 Australians who took the time to let the royal commission know about their experiences of banks and financial services misconduct. But, because of the time line imposed by the commission and this government, only 27 victims had the chance to tell their story in person. That is just 27 victims out of 10,000 who made written submissions.</para>
<para>Today I want to congratulate and thank the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and shadow minister Clare O'Neil. They are doing the hard work that this government failed to do. When we see a problem, Labor listens and Labor acts. When we hear that people are being ripped off, Labor listens and Labor acts. That is exactly what the shadow minister has done—listened to Australians, giving them the decency to have their story told, giving them the honour of listening to what they want and giving them a voice. Shamefully, the government has completely outsourced this role. They have just completely abandoned victims once again. So I thank the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister, the member for Hotham, for their outstanding leadership and for the work they have done in ensuring that people are given a voice.</para>
<para>I hosted one of these victim forums in my own community. I invited people who were frustrated, who were angry and who were devastated at being ripped off by big banks. I heard from individuals who had been treated appallingly. I heard from people who were taken advantage of, whose lives were destroyed and they were left to simply pick up the pieces. I want to read into the record today, into the parliament of Australia, the feedback that I heard on behalf of these victims, so that they have a voice, and so that their story is heard. I heard about a 'sell and win at all costs' culture, costly and drawn-out legal costs to fight injustice, credit given by banks to financially disadvantaged citizens who should never have qualified for the loan in the first place, falsified documents and fraud, internal dispute resolutions that restricted access to documents, unauthorised transactions and missing signatures.</para>
<para>More importantly, I heard about the major impact victims experienced—I heard this from the victims that I have spoken to directly, face-to-face, in person. I heard about the impact on women who were 'embarrassed to come forward' and about people who have been forced to turn to charities as a result of the financial situation they have been left in. But, most importantly, I heard from people with tears in their eyes about a simple lack of compassion. So, today, we can take a stand and move forward for these victims, but we need to do more. In conclusion, Labor is supportive of this bill. But, as I said, we can and we must do more to ensure that we never again have to hear horrific stories like the ones we heard about in the royal commission.</para>
<para>These measures go some way to doing that, but we must remain vigilant and we must ensure that the appropriate and necessary deterrents are put in place. That is what Labor is committed to, and every single member of this side of the chamber will continue to fight for justice for these victims. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow minister and members of the Labor team have been travelling the country, criss-crossing the country, listening to the stories, because those people aren't just numbers on a piece of paper; those stories aren't simply statistics. They are real people with real stories, whose lives have been impacted by these decisions, whose lives, in some cases, sadly and horrifically, have been destroyed.</para>
<para>We want to ensure that more families aren't ripped off, to ensure that more small businesses aren't ripped off. We want to make sure that those people get the justice that they deserve and that those people who do the wrong thing are punished in time. So, whilst we support these measures, I place on record that Labor will continue to fight for these victims and continue to make sure they get justice as well.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>17:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr CHRISTENSEN</name>
    <name.id>230485</name.id>
    <electorate>Dawson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018. This legislation will enable tougher penalties for misconduct in the corporate and financial sector by amending the Corporations Act, the ASIC Act, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and the Insurance Contracts Act. The legislation is responding to a recommendation from a task force that was itself created from a Financial System Inquiry recommendation.</para>
<para>The intention is to deter misconduct and, by doing so, improve community confidence in the corporate and financial sector. There has long been a lack of community confidence in that sector, especially in the banks. That is why the community called for a royal commission into the banks, and that is why I supported a royal commission and fought to convince the government that a banking royal commission was the only option. I'm pleased to say that fight was successful, with the establishment of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, or what is better known simply as the banking royal commission.</para>
<para>The royal commission submitted an interim report in September, with the final report due to be submitted by 1 February. The community expects bankers to act in respect of customers financial affairs with the utmost integrity. Importantly, the community expects banks and bankers who engage in illegal and criminal conduct to be held to account, facing significant penalties and jail terms where appropriate. As has been highlighted by the royal commission, the entire industry has been plagued by extensive, serious misconduct which is extremely harmful to the affected customers. The royal commission highlighted how regulators have failed to effectively identify and prosecute breaches of the law under the Corporations Act and the Criminal Code.</para>
<para>The community has told me overwhelmingly that they are sick and tired of bankers getting away with white-collar crime without consequences. For most victims, achieving redress against a bank that has acted improperly towards them is impossible. People lose their businesses and they lose their homes. Marriages are torn apart and families are torn apart. Some people have taken their own lives, and most are left in a situation where they are bankrupt and can never start again. I welcome any efforts that provide a genuine improvement to legislation and that provide a strong deterrence against bankers breaking the law in the future.</para>
<para>However, I do hold a concern—and, I've got to say, a bit of disappointment—about the outcome of the royal commission in respect of small and medium enterprises and farmers. Small businesses are vital to our local economy, and they're a significant source—the biggest source—of jobs in this country. Many businesses rely on borrowing to sustain and grow their operations. A bank is supposed to be a trusted business partner that supports business borrowers. However, since the GFC there has been a dramatic increase in complaints about mistreatment of these business owners by the banks.</para>
<para>One of the most serious complaints has resulted from the practice of banks foreclosing upon large volumes of customer loans where customers were meeting their repayment obligations and were not in any financial trouble. The bank simply changed its mind about its lending strategy and forced these businesses into extreme financial hardship, and, almost inevitably, insolvency because the bank wanted to get out of lending to those customers as quickly as possible. Inquiries to date have revealed complex, one-sided business-lending contracts that allowed the banks to act unilaterally against a customer without recourse. Businesses do not have the same legal protections as retail consumers, and most cannot afford to litigate against a bank even when they have a strong case. The resulting social harm is immeasurable.</para>
<para>Unfortunately, I have to say that the royal commission has failed to adequately investigate systemic foreclosures of small and medium enterprise businesses and farmers, which was the ultimate catalyst for that royal commission. After reviewing volumes of evidence supporting the ballooning allegations of systemic misconduct, in 2017 my National Party colleagues and I—most notably, Senator Barry O'Sullivan and Llew O'Brien, the member for Wide Bay—drafted these terms of reference for an inquiry into the practices of banks foreclosing on regional small businesses, farmers and city based businesses who were meeting all of their contracted repayment obligations. The stories we heard were shocking. Evidence was reviewed of receivers engaging in selling properties drastically below fair market value; not correctly accounting for asset sales; cattle duffing—cutting tags out of livestock to hide the true ownership of cattle—and falsely signing that cattle were chemical- and disease-free. Evidence was also received of banks altering loan documents and other relevant customer file documents used in court, forging signatures on documents used in court and withholding relevant documents from courts during the discovery process.</para>
<para>The terms of reference for the National Party's inquiry—the one that we were going to put forward—included investigating the use of unfair non-monetary default covenants in loan contracts; the role of receivers in systemic misconduct; serious biosecurity breaches resulting from receivers' misconduct; the role of valuers in overvaluing or undervaluing a property to meet the bank's desired objectives; and serious misconduct by banks in court, including the use of forged documents in court cases. Unfortunately the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected the National Party's thorough, detailed terms of reference, instead adopting a broadbrush approach, leaving it fully open to the royal commission to determine how to address misconduct in the entire banking sector in just 12 months. This is simply an inadequate time frame to investigate the extent of misconduct across the banking and financial services sector.</para>
<para>The royal commission received more than 10,000 submissions, yet only heard from 27 witnesses who were victims of the banks. Less than 10 small-to-medium business performing loan foreclosure case studies were examined in the small-to-medium enterprises round of hearings. Submissions offering to provide documentary evidence of serious misconduct were not followed up by the commission. Bank victim witnesses were heavily influenced by counsel assisting the royal commission to forego their right to cross-examine bank witnesses—I have that testimony that's been given to me. This further compromised the inquiry, I believe. This was in stark contrast to the sexual abuse royal commission, where more than 8,000 private sessions were held with victims and more than 2½ thousand referrals were made to authorities, including police. Victims and their legal counsel were also allowed to cross-examine churches and other relevant institution witnesses.</para>
<para>In the case of Bankwest, counsel assisting the royal commission did not test any proposition of systemic misconduct. This is despite the commission having received a brief prior to the small business round of hearings detailing that a credible ulterior motive existed that drove deliberate dodgy behaviour. In 2009 McKinsey & Company published a bad-bank strategy template, which detailed the rationale, benefits and processes for the banks to simply dump unwanted performing business loans. The benefits included: maintaining investor confidence; optimising economic capital; and reducing management time taken up managing large or complex loans.</para>
<para>The Commonwealth Bank clearly adopted such a strategy in respect of Bankwest, with a very senior executive stating, when updating the market:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The Bankwest story is very much an intentional one. We have quite deliberately got out of low credit quality lending in this space and on an annualised basis in fact our reduction in the target, low credit quality space is well over 20%.</para></quote>
<para>That's a quote from a senior executive at CBA about Bankwest.</para>
<para>Counsel assisting the royal commission failed to put this to the CBA or explore whether ulterior commercial incentives drove the systemic foreclosure of performing loans that were at play. Documents cited by the CBA during the royal commission confirm that the CBA considered the merits of, and ultimately adopted, a bad-bank strategy. Expert analysis highlighting areas requiring further investigation was provided to the royal commission by the CBA after the small business round of hearings. How can the royal commission rule out systemic misconduct if it does not consider credible, independent expert research and advice which was strongly supported by primary documents from within the CBA? In those circumstances, the findings of no misconduct by the royal commission cannot stand and need to be revisited urgently. Compounding the problem, the royal commission did not look at receivers, valuers or misconduct by banks before the courts. The small business round of hearings was the only round not to find serious, systemic conduct despite extensive complaints and evidence supporting the proposition that banks had engaged in systemic misconduct.</para>
<para>Although a 12-month time frame is extremely tight, the government has repeatedly stated that the royal commission will be extended if Commissioner Hayne feels it necessary to request more time. When I learned that the commission had not adequately investigated the small business and farming issues, I wrote to Commissioner Hayne, advising that he had my full support and urging him to request more time to allow the royal commission to investigate the relevant issues more thoroughly. I note that the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, who has conducted an extensive review of these issues, also urged Commissioner Hayne to request more time to allow a more thorough investigation of the matter. It appears that Commissioner Hayne did not heed this request. Around that time I also wrote to the Treasurer, seeking an extension of time for small business, as well as additional terms of reference, to allow misconduct by relevant parties such as valuers, receivers and lawyers to be reviewed.</para>
<para>This leaves both the government and small business borrowers in the unfortunate position that misconduct of the past will still not be addressed. It also leaves all small business and farming borrowers exposed to the very real risk in the future that a bank will change its view of lending risk to an entire sector of loans and aggressively move to foreclose on those loans, even when the borrowers are meeting all of their repayments and aren't in financial difficulty.</para>
<para>A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to properly review and move to redress past conduct has been wasted, as has the opportunity to effect change to protect borrowers in the future. The risks are real. The risks remain. Small business around the country should be outraged. Farmers and all those communities that rely on farming should be up in arms. Generations to come are likely to be more harmed by unethical bankers than by economic downturns or drought. No matter how much positive work was completed by the royal commission, we cannot allow the failure of the small business round of hearings to go unnoticed or unchallenged. The findings of no misconduct resulted from a rushed, flawed inquiry that did not consider all evidence available to it and did not afford procedural fairness to at least some victims. This does not mean misconduct did not occur. We must continue with a better process to properly investigate the matter that ultimately triggered the royal commission.</para>
<para>We rely on small business to contribute to the local economy and employment in North Queensland and right around the country. As a result of the disappointing failings of the royal commission to adequately investigate this area of misconduct, we owe it to small business and farmers to address this conduct satisfactorily. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman has the power, resources, budget and motivation to conduct an investigation into the actions of third party agents of the banks, like valuers and receivers. Whilst the ombudsman can commence an own-motion investigation, the most thorough and effective investigation possible would result from a proactive direction from the Treasurer to conduct such an investigation. When the Treasurer directs the ombudsman to conduct an investigation, the action actually triggers the ombudsman's notice-to-produce power, an important and necessary power not available in an own-motion investigation. I have written to the Treasurer and spoken with him, imploring him to instruct Kate Carnell and the office of the ombudsman to conduct this important investigation into the role of third parties, such as valuers and receivers, foreclosing on performing business loans.</para>
<para>As a practical measure, I also call on the government to ban banks from acting upon non-financial covenants to trigger penalty interest and foreclosure proceedings on small business and farmers who are meeting their repayment obligations and are not in financial difficulty. I understand significant work has been undertaken by government to achieve this outcome, but banks are strongly resisting. The key question is: why are the banks resisting this initiative so strongly? The obvious answer is that the banks want to retain the unfair contract conditions and the ability to exit a loan at any time, no matter what cost this action has on the customers who are meeting their repayment obligations. How many more hardworking small-business men and women who punch above their weight every day must suffer life-changing, catastrophic losses because of unethical bankers and their deliberate dodgy behaviour? How many farmers must face that?</para>
<para>While I commend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, it does seem somewhat a redundant move if the unethical practices of the banks are not properly investigated in the first place. How are the strengthened and increased penalties to be applied if misconduct is not properly investigated? The real fear is that nothing will change and the bankers will remain untouchable, immune from prosecution for their illegal and criminal conduct, and honest, hardworking Australians will keep getting ripped off by those big banks who continue to put record profits before people. In closing, I really do call on the royal commission, while there's still time, to look deeply and thoroughly into this area.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:13</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Before I get to my substantive remarks on this, I need to call the attention of the House to what ostensibly amount, in some regard, to crocodile tears from the member for Dawson as to the conduct of this inquiry. There is no doubt that he has been a longstanding member of this House who has called for a royal commission. But it is also in no doubt that he is a member of this government that called that royal commission and of this government—indeed, it was the now Prime Minister, who was then the Treasurer—who restricted that royal commission to being for only 12 months, effectively thereby ensuring that the royal commission would not be able to call oral evidence from many victims of banking misconduct, limiting it to fewer than 30, despite the over 9,000 submissions that were made to that royal commission. Even with that, we have seen so many terrible issues come to light and be highlighted through this royal commission, but I think it is remiss of the member for Dawson to not acknowledge the shortcomings of and time constraints that have been placed on this royal commission, which have meant some of these issues that he and many on this side of the parliament, including myself, have highlighted are a function of the limited time that was made available to the royal commission to do its work—a decision that was made by this government, by the now Prime Minister when he was Treasurer—but, when we look at the issues that have come out of this royal commission in the time that it has gone on, we can see that they are astounding. With that, I conclude my remarks.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:15</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr COLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>241067</name.id>
    <electorate>Banks</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I thank those members who have contributed to this important debate. The government is committed to strengthening the enforcement regime available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, making sure that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has the powers it needs to take strong enforcement action to protect consumers from corporate and financial misconduct and rebuilding the trust the community has in the financial services industry. The bill overhauls Australia's penalties for white-collar crime and brings them closer to those in other leading international jurisdictions. Introducing a stronger penalty framework will ensure consumers are protected from corporate and financial sector misconduct. Under this legislation the imprisonment penalties for some of the most serious criminal offences in the Corporations Act will be substantially increased, fourfold in some cases. Further, the bill expands the range of contraventions subject to civil penalties and increases the maximum civil penalty amounts that can be imposed by courts. Under these reforms the maximum civil penalty for individuals will increase from $200,000 to the greater of $1.05 million or three times the benefit gained. For corporations the maximum penalty will increase from $1 million to the greater of $10.5 million, three times the benefit gained or 10 per cent of annual turnover, capped at $210 million. This represents a more-than-fivefold increase for individual penalties and more-than-tenfold increase for corporation penalties. This bill also includes important reforms that put consumers first. In addition to the stronger penalty framework, the Corporations Act will be amended to ensure courts prioritise compensating victims over collecting penalties from offenders. Finally, this bill gives the courts the power to seek additional remedies to strip wrongdoers of profits illegally obtained or losses avoided from contraventions resulting in civil penalty proceedings.</para>
<para>I commend this bill to the House.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>260805</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The original question was that this bill be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Hotham has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Question negatived.</para>
<para>Original question agreed to.</para>
<para>Bill read a second time.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.2><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Consideration in Detail</title>
            <page.no>107</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:18</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (4) on sheet 1 as circulated in my name together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 117, page 54 (lines 17 to 24), omit paragraph 1317G(4) (c), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[removing cap on civil penalties]</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 2, item 8, page 97 (lines 19 to 26), omit paragraph 12GBCA(2) (c), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[removing cap on civil penalties]</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 3, item 7, page 128 (lines 22 to 29), omit paragraph 167B(2) (c), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[removing cap on civil penalties]</inline></para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 4, item 4, page 166 (lines 19 to 26), omit paragraph 75D(2) (c), substitute:</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(c) 10% of the annual turnover of the body corporate for the 12 month period ending at the end of the month in which the body corporate contravened, or began to contravene, the civil penalty provision.</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block"> <inline font-style="italic">[removing cap on civil penalties]</inline></para></quote>
<para>Labor is moving two amendments to this bill which will be moved and voted on separately, but for the purposes of having a constructive debate in the chamber I think some of the speakers will refer to both amendments as we discuss, so we can have two divisions at the end. For the convenience of the House I want to outline in broad terms what both of those amendments cover. Then other members can refer to both in their contributions.</para>
<para>The first amendment that Labor is moving for this bill is to remove the cap of one million penalty units from the 10 per cent of turnover limb in the new civil penalties regime created by the bill. The second amendment that I will move shortly will increase the maximum penalties for the most serious corporate crimes that are described in the bill from 10 years, as it has been drafted, to 15 years. The crimes that have been essentially defined as the most serious are those that involve dishonesty and fraud. The ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce has agreed, and adopted essentially, that these are of that description.</para>
<para>I will return to the first amendment, which is the removal of the one million penalty units cap in the 10 per cent of turnover limb in the new civil penalties regime. It's quite a mouthful but a very important part of what will become law very shortly. For reasons that aren't clear to Labor, the government has decided to effectively undermine the fairness of the cap on civil penalties of 10 per cent of turnover, by effectively reducing the exposure of larger institutions. I want to be really clear, firstly, that Labor supports the 10 per cent of turnover limit for penalties. We don't support the additional restriction of one million penalties cap in the bill. This amendment is so important to Labor because it's very out of step with other pecuniary penalties handed down in Australia and overseas. It is out of step with the contemporary reality of financial service providers and banks, and it creates a regime that's not effectively futureproofed as our financial institutions continue to grow in size.</para>
<para>I want to note that the Consumer Action Law Centre was very strong on this point when they made a submission to the ASIC enforcement reviews processes. I'm going to quote a little bit from their submission. They said, 'We are not convinced that theirs is a strong policy justification for introducing a maximum limit on civil penalties of one million penalty units, that's currently $210 million. Setting a maximum does not recognise that there are large differences in size of banks, insurers and superannuation funds and that a penalty in excess of this amount may be appropriate in the context of very large corporations.'</para>
<para>I'll finish the quote there, because I want to talk in really plain English about what the government is proposing and how that differs from Labor. This bill is really coming out of an enforcement review that was done prior to the royal commission. What the royal commission has shown us, if there's any one thing, is that the current framework for criminal law and civil law—indeed, for corporate malfeasance and its enforcement—is not working to deter the types of crimes that we're so concerned about in this chamber. Setting a limit of $210 million in fines, which is effectively what the government is doing here by imposing a cap, is really saying that an institution that could be many billions of dollars in turnover is going to have its fines restricted in a way that wouldn't happen to a smaller company. I think if you sat down with Australians and talked to them about this they would see that it's very consistent with the approach to penalising criminal wrongdoing that we've seen on the other side of the chamber. We know this is a government that voted 26 times against a royal commission. The Prime Minister, who sits opposite us in the chamber, voted 26 times. He called it a 'populist whinge'. Here we again have the government seeking to curtail the ability of courts to give appropriate sized penalties for incredibly serious wrongdoing.</para>
<para>We on this side of the chamber have a very different approach to corporate wrongdoing. I don't think it matters if you break the law and you're wearing a suit or you're not wearing a suit. When you break the law, you break the law, and you need to be punished appropriately. So the amendments Labor is moving will strengthen this bill, we believe, in important ways. They're thoughtful amendments that we have consulted on with a variety of bodies. I'll be pleased to see the House vote and support them.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:24</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me thank the shadow minister opposite for her goodwill in seeking to punish those who would do wrong. The bill we've put forward, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, seeks to raise penalties across a range of areas of the corporations law, covering a range of areas of offence: everything from AFSL through to misrepresentation and failure to put forward the best interests of consumers. We have consulted widely across all jurisdictions, states and territories to bring alignment of the penalties regime. In many instances, penalties have doubled. Some have increased three times. Some have increased five times. We're talking penalties that have increased to up to 10 years. We've looked at areas of recompense, including where recompense would have to happen up to three times in dollar terms.</para>
<para>The penalties we've put forward are strong, are significant and are designed to be a deterrent. This debate cannot be allowed to be a race to the bottom on who can be tougher, because that's not what this should be about. This shouldn't be about who is the strongest when it comes to penalty regimes. To take penalties 500 per cent forward, up to 10 years, sends a message that this government will not abide by those who seek to do wrong by their fellow Australians. Now, I will take it at face value that those opposite are coming at this with goodwill, that those opposite are seeking to back us in bringing penalties forward. But goodwill starts to get interesting when those opposite are saying that we need a 700 per cent increase in penalties because 500 per cent is not sufficient. That starts to look a bit like a stunt to say they're tougher than the government.</para>
<para>So let's be clear about what the government is seeking to do here. We are seeking a stronger penalty framework to ensure that consumers are protected from misconduct. Under this legislation, the imprisonment penalties for some of the most serious criminal offences under the Corporations Act are being increased substantially. Criminal penalties are being increased fourfold. Perhaps in a different environment those opposite would criticise us for being too harsh or too strong, but a fourfold increase apparently is not strong enough for those opposite. Let's be serious about what's happening here. These are significant penalties. This is not a race to see who can be the toughest or the hardest. This is about sensible regulation and harmonisation across laws, jurisdictions, states and territories.</para>
<para>Under these reforms, the maximum civil penalty for individuals will increase from $200,000 to be the greater of $1 million or five times or three times the benefit gained. I can't think of a single time in modern political history where a government has moved forward with a strengthening of a penalty regime anything like this. That those opposite think that a 500 per cent increase on civil penalties and a 400 per cent increase on criminal penalties somehow isn't enough—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'Neil</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not enough!</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>It's not enough, the shadow minister says, demonstrating that those opposite are now the big, tough cops on the beat. I would take those opposite a little more seriously if, in August 2013, the now Leader of the Opposition was not on the record saying how marvellous our financial services were—34 days before those opposite lost. That, apparently, our 400 per cent and 500 per cent increases for penalties aren't enough is simply a joke. It's a stunt, and frankly those opposite should be ashamed of themselves for seeking to make light of this and to score political points on this particular issue.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr BANDT</name>
    <name.id>M3C</name.id>
    <electorate>Melbourne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to support the amendments and to make a few brief comments. When the matter comes to the other place, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, who has had carriage of this for us for quite some time now, will be making some further comments. In rising to speak in support of the amendments and some of the measures taken in respect of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, I do want to note that a pattern emerges in this place. In many instances, the Greens put forward a proposal, it's initially ignored by the others, then it's ridiculed, then they fight against it and then they adopt it. That has been the case here as well. We took a very comprehensive policy to the last election, much of which we are now finding reflected in the bills and amendments before the House. We think it's no surprise that our election policy with respect to penalties and with respect to the criminal offences—we wanted penalties to be included with reference of three times the benefit gained, and all of a sudden we find a very similar measure included in the bill. We argued for increasing the range of administrative penalties that were available to regulators so that they could more easily penalise those who have done wrong, including having on-the-spot fines available for smaller offences. Lo and behold, that's also what we find in the bill. When going to the election, we also proposed making it easier for regulators to pursue the recovery of ill-gotten gains, through the introduction of a disgorgement power, and now we have relinquishment orders popping up in this bill.</para>
<para>So, the pattern here is very similar to what we saw with the banking royal commission, where we pushed and pushed in the teeth of opposition from Liberal and Labor. Eventually Labor came on board and others came on board and then finally the government had to relent. Now we find the government coming up with a bill that suggests that someone within the minister's office didn't necessarily have many great ideas of their own and decided to spend a lot of time reading Greens election policy and turning some of that into bits in the legislation.</para>
<para>This is a bill that can be improved and for that reason we support the amendments and we support the opposition in moving them. We will have more to say about this if the bill proceeds to the Senate.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:31</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr VAN MANEN</name>
    <name.id>188315</name.id>
    <electorate>Forde</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It is a pleasure to see that the member for Burt also wishes to speak on this very important bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018. As I look at the proposals put by those opposite, I acknowledge that the revelations of the royal commission are of enormous concern. As somebody who used to work in the banking industry, I find it very disappointing that we have a situation where those who are entrusted to look after other people's money have been found to fall short of the expectations of our community in that space. That is why I think the bill before us and the penalties proposed in the bill, as outlined by the government, have enormous merit.</para>
<para>Importantly, in increasing those penalties what we are seeking to do is ensure that there is adequate deterrent against people doing the wrong thing by the people who have trusted them to look after their financial resources, in whatever case it may be—whether it is their superannuation funds, their bank accounts, or provision of finance and lending facilities. We can all in this place elicit a number of stories from those in our electorate who have suffered as a result of the many things that have been brought to the fore in the royal commission. I don't for one minute defend the people who have done the wrong thing. But, as the minister has rightly pointed out, a race to the bottom—in terms of 'our stick is bigger than yours', to use a phrase that is rather popular in this place at the moment—is not going to resolve the matter. The penalties have to be of a sufficient level to deter people from doing the wrong thing. It is sad that we even need to have a discussion about having penalties in place to deter people from doing the wrong thing. I would much prefer to stand in this place not because people have done the wrong thing but because people are doing the right thing and we can reduce or remove regulation. But that, sadly, is not the case. Much of the time, we spend our time in this place strengthening regulations or putting in place new regulations, because people are doing the wrong thing.</para>
<para>But I think, if we look at the balance of what's proposed in the government's bill, with the more than fivefold increase in penalties from $200,000 to $1.03 million, or three times the benefit gained, it's an enormously significant increase in the penalties being proposed. In the civil financial penalty space for corporations, it's a more than tenfold increase, from $1 million to $10.5 million, or three times the benefit gained, or 10 per cent of annual turnover capped at $210 million, whichever is the greatest.</para>
<para>The bill provides a very significant increase in penalties in addition to other measures that we have already taken, such as the Banking Executive Accountability Regime. Those opposite want to go even further just to prove they're tougher. I don't think that serves any useful purpose in ensuring that the legislation and the penalties we enact do the job that needs to be done, which is to deter these people from doing the wrong thing by the people whose money they're entrusted to look after. Equally, I say to the executives in the banking and financial services sector: it is time for you to stand up and do the right thing by the people you are entrusted to look after. At the end of the day, the most important thing that can occur is that those people step up to the mark and do the things necessary to engender and rebuild trust with the Australian people.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:36</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KEOGH</name>
    <name.id>249147</name.id>
    <electorate>Burt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>As I was remarking during the second reading debate on this bill, so many of the issues that are addressed in this piece of legislation, which we are now seeking to improve through these amendments, are things that have come out of the banking royal commission. The banking royal commission has turned the attention of the country to these issues in a way that's never happened before.</para>
<para>The minister tried to impugn members on this side of the House by asserting that our hearts aren't in these amendments. He was in some way trying to suggest that these are politically motivated amendments. But what this is about—why we support this legislation but have moved amendments to it, and why I support these amendments—is that this is just part of a raft of things that need to be done to fix corporate and financial services regulation in this country and to address the misconduct that has come out time and time again through the royal commission and was known about before it.</para>
<para>It was only yesterday that we heard from the acting chief executive officer of AMP that apparently their financial advisers didn't have the education not to charge people for services that weren't provided. Not just is the royal commission exposing malpractice, misconduct and malice; it's actually showing up moronic behaviour. Who actually needs to be educated in that? Why do you need to be told that you shouldn't charge fees for something you're not doing? We've even had instances where someone has tried to mount a defence of the banks' practice of charging for advice provided to people who are already dead. That is despite the fact that, only weeks earlier, bank CEOs tried to tell us they didn't need a royal commission to tell them they shouldn't have been charging fees to dead people. Regardless, they were doing it, and then they tried to defend it. So it is important that this parliament and the government send a very strong message to the banking and financial services sector that enough is enough.</para>
<para>The real shame of this is that recommendations to increase the penalties, like we are seeing here, came out of a Senate report back in 2014. The minister tries to besmirch members of the previous Labor government, when the recommendations to do this came during the coalition's term in government. Following that report, the government, after taking months and months to finally respond to those recommendations, said they would consider them. Years later they conducted another review, which said yes, we should increase these penalties. A year later again, and the government finally gets around to introducing some legislation. And now, finally, we're starting to debate that legislation.</para>
<para>But, as we have seen from conduct that has come up before committee inquiries and the royal commission, the reality is that, if the government had pulled its finger out and got around to doing these things back when they were originally recommended, some of the conduct that we have seen come before the royal commission would have already had these penalties apply to them at the time and maybe, just maybe—in fact, it is highly likely—the people who were running those banks and financial institutions would have thought more strongly about what they were doing.</para>
<para>One of the fundamental issues that has come out here is that of culture. There are issues with the government's BARE regime, which members of the government have mentioned, and no doubt I will have an opportunity to address those in further remarks. But culture comes down to changing the behaviour of the senior individuals in those banks, and part of that is understanding what penalties may be imposed upon them individually but also on their bank. What we know is that the penalties that have been available to date have been woefully inadequate.</para>
<para>The minister speaks about the fact that the new penalties that they propose are many multipliers more than the penalties that were there before, but then they go and impose artificial caps in some of these amendments. What is the point of a one-million-penalty-unit cap when you think about that as a proportion of the money that the banks have been making out of their misconduct—not their total revenue, but the money they have made out of this misconduct? We need to ensure that the penalty does not effectively merely amount to a licence. Can I just point out: it is also just terribly drafted. In the penalty provision they have drafted, they have imposed 'the greater of a 50,000 penalty unit cap, or a multiplier of revenue, but no more than 1 million penalty units'. If that is the case, you don't need the 50,000 unit cap in the first place. This is terribly drafted legislation. Why would you do that? That goes to the point that the government has not thought this through properly and that is why we are here moving amendments to make sure— <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>For the benefit of the young Padawans opposite, the longevity of history is actually a little useful when it comes to this debate. I was here during the post-GFC reforms. I was here for the post-GFC banking inquiries, set up by those opposite in government. I was here for the post-GFC MIS inquiries set up by those in government. I was there for the FoFA inquiry by the parliamentary joint committee, and I was there negotiating with Bernie Ripoll on the 11 recommendations that were bipartisan recommendations out of the FoFA committee that brought on the FoFA reforms. Out of all of that, out of the $65 billion to $70 billion that was wiped out during the GFC, and out of all of the post-GFC banking inquiries and post-MIS inquiries, after going through TimberCorp and shining the light at the malfeasance and the poor behaviour by financial institutions, let me tell you—let me tell those opposite—exactly how much they increased the penalties against banks and financial institutions, after all of those reports, after all of those inquiries, after all of that work. The answer is: a big fat zero.</para>
<para>So do not come in here lecturing on a high horse in a degree of self-righteousness of biblical proportions, of pharisaical proportions, saying, 'Oh, it is terrible what the royal commission has shown. The government's 400 per cent increases are not sufficient,' and, 'It must be 15 years, not 10 years', when, after everything that came out of those parliamentary joint committees over two, three and four years, those opposite did nothing on penalty regimes. Well, the tide is out, and those opposite are not particularly wearing trousers right now. If there was any substance, any substance at all, to the arguments of those opposite—and, frankly, the shadow minister opposite should know better—then these amendments would have been done by those in government after all of the malfeasance that was shown after the GFC and after all of those parliamentary inquiries.</para>
<para>We are acting. The royal commission hasn't reported yet, but we are acting. The full result of what Hayne is looking at hasn't come down yet, but we are acting. Those opposite had years and years and years, report, report, report, and post-GFC inquiry after post-GFC inquiry. I spent a couple of years doing the post-GFC banking stuff and heard all of the dismal stuff and the malfeasance that came out, and those opposite did nothing. But now that we are acting for a 500 per cent increase on civil penalties, now that this government is acting for a 400 per cent increase in criminal penalties, apparently now, oh, no, these are not harsh enough, even though, for the six years they were in government, after all of the destruction of the post-GFC and after all of the reports of those committees that those opposite had majority on, there was no move at all on penalties, none at all. Apparently none were needed. But now that the government is acting with such severity not seen in modern political history, apparently it is not enough for those opposite. Well, forgive me if I think this is a rolled-gold stunt, because it is. Those opposite know it is. I know it is. The Australian people know it is. Those opposite did nothing in the post-GFC banking inquiries. We are now dealing with a royal commission, another banking inquiry as it is, and we are acting before the conclusion of it. Those opposite couldn't even bother to act at the conclusion of multiple inquiries that they chaired. Give us all a break.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:46</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr HART</name>
    <name.id>263070</name.id>
    <electorate>Bass</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We have received a sermon from the minister regarding a failure to act but, if any party in government has failed to act, it is the coalition. This is a government which, time and time again, talk a big game in regulation but absolutely fail in regulation. We saw them fail in regulation with respect to the empowerment of ASIC, the funding of ASIC and the enforcement powers of ASIC. They opposed a royal commission into banking misconduct. The now Prime Minister dismissed the calls for a royal commission and voted against a royal commission 26 times. The government speak of ASIC. At the time, they dismissed the call for the appointment of a royal commission as being a 'tough cop on the beat'. But it wasn't a tough cop on the beat at all. That much is perfectly clear in the revelations in the royal commission.</para>
<para>This government failed to properly fund its regulators. It is clear to me that it was captured and continues to be captured by big business. All of us have been shocked by the revelations of the royal commission, notwithstanding that we are aware of the substance of the misconduct alleged. It is important that we do consider the fact that we were all aware of the substance of what was being alleged. You would have to be sleeping under the proverbial rock to not be aware of it. What did this government do? It said it was giving additional powers to ASIC, powers that have never been exercised, powers that have never been used to prosecute any offenders with respect to malfeasance.</para>
<para>More can be done. This bill is a good start. More should be done, even if this government have done in this bill only what they thought they can get away with. What did they think they can get away with? The minimum. Perhaps not a light touch because they have increased the penalties, but certainly lighter than what the community demands as an appropriate and proportionate response. After all, this is a delayed response.</para>
<para>The bill increases penalties. It should do so. Those increased penalties, as my friend the shadow minister said, are inadequate. This bill, in implementation of the ASIC enforcement review task force, is delayed. The recommendations that this bill is based upon are now completely out of date. The bill implements the recommendations of that task force report which was released in December 2017, a time before the establishment of the royal commission and certainly before the royal commission received any of the evidence which has so shocked Australian families and has shocked everyone in this place.</para>
<para>The proposed amendments are to increase maximum jail terms for the most serious corporate crimes. It's completely inappropriate for this minister to get on his high horse and accuse Labor of using this for political purposes when what we are doing is completely proportionate. We are doing what the public expects when we introduce the regulation which, clearly, the public expects to see our legislators arguing for. We on this side of the House are certainly prepared to stand up to this government in arguing for increased penalties. Any talk of a race towards the bottom regarding these penalties is absolute nonsense. That is an attempt by those opposite to deflect their longstanding culpability in opposing for over 300 days the establishment of the royal commission and seeking to deflect the royal commission with the assertion that ASIC would be the tough cop on the beat.</para>
<para>We know that more needs to be done and that more can be done, and this side of the House is prepared to ensure that appropriate penalties are established in this legislation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:51</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KHALIL</name>
    <name.id>101351</name.id>
    <electorate>Wills</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>We are considering the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018. Looking at where it falls short, which we have heard much of from a number of speakers who have gone before me, we would think that this government, after all we've seen in the royal commission and all that's been revealed, still and deliberately doesn't have the interests of the Australian people in mind. Rather, it seems that deliberately it just has the interests of their corporate big bank buddies in mind.</para>
<para>We've seen the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments dragged kicking and screaming to agree to a banking royal commission after years of public pressure from whistleblowers, consumer groups, Labor and others, including some of the crossbench and even some National MPs. Mr Turnbull made the decision for the commission in the face of open revolt by some National MPs, including the member for Dawson, the member for Wide Bay and Senator Barry O'Sullivan. That's what it took for the government to actually relent—some of its own to break ranks. And still Mr Turnbull characterised the decision as 'regrettable but necessary'. What an insult to the Australian people! What an insult to the people who have suffered the indignity of the big banks taking their rights away.</para>
<para>Labor agrees that the royal commission was absolutely necessary. But regrettable? Hardly. It is actually regrettable that the banks discovered it was highly profitable to sell their customers financial advice that consisted of purchasing their financial products so that they would enjoy a profitable feedback loop—a business model called vertical integration. It looked at the quality of financial advice being offered by the two largest financial advice licensees owned or controlled by the Commonwealth Bank, ANZ, Westpac, National Australia Bank and the AMP.</para>
<para>It's regrettable that an ASIC report scrutinising the practice of vertically integrated institutions and conflicts of interest found that the financial advisers from those banks—Commonwealth Bank, ANZ Banking Group, Westpac National Australia Bank and AMP—had failed to comply with the best interests of customers in 75 per cent of advice files reviewed. The report concluded that there was an inherent conflict of interest arising from banks providing personal financial advice to retail clients while also selling them financial products.</para>
<para>It's regrettable that these banking and financial service providers were found to be charging dead customers for these services, in one case in the Commonwealth Bank for more than a decade. It's regrettable that, as Treasurer, the Prime Minister, the member for Cook, labelled Labor's push for a banking royal commission as nothing more than 'a populist whinge'. It is regrettable, indeed. In fact, it is more than just regrettable; it's shameful. Those on the opposite side have many things to be ashamed about, and their lack of will or wilful ignorance is right up there as one of the biggest reasons they should be ashamed. It is shameful that Australia had to witness the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government resisting consistent calls for a banking royal commission after a string of damaging reports and scandals right across the financial services industry. If anybody opposite over there on the government benches has any shred of integrity or sense of right and wrong they should know they owe Australia an apology for dragging their feet for so long. It's as simple as that.</para>
<para>While Labor are generally supportive of this bill, as we have heard, we want to see stronger penalties for corporate misconduct because the recommendations that this bill was based on are now out of date. We know that the bill would increase penalties for corporate and financial sector misconduct, diversify regulatory options for ASIC and introduce a new disgorgement remedy and a priority in the legislation for consumer remediation over penalties. That is all good. But it still falls short. The bill implements recommendations of the report of the ASIC enforcement review task force, released in December 2017. So why does it fall short? Since this report was released, the banking royal commission has uncovered widespread and systematic misconduct across the financial services industry. The interim report of the royal commission found that, when misconduct was revealed, either it went unpunished or the consequences did not meet the seriousness of what had been done. So, after what we have seen in the royal commission, Labor believe the parliament must make it crystal clear to banks and financial institutions that corporate misconduct will no longer be tolerated. That is why the shadow minister, the member for Hotham, has moved these amendments. Increase the jail terms and remove the $210 million penalty cap for big business.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>18:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DICK</name>
    <name.id>53517</name.id>
    <electorate>Oxley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I am proud to support these amendments moved by the member for Hotham, and we are yet to hear an excuse or reason from the government about why they are not supporting them. We have heard a lot of comments from the minister at the table that this is a stunt or that six years ago Labor didn't introduce penalties, but we haven't actually heard an argument as to why they don't think the penalties should be increased from 10 to 15 years. Or is it the case, by their silence, that they think it's enough? I can tell you who don't think it's enough: the tens of thousands of people who have been ripped off by the banks in this country.</para>
<para>I am sick and tired of members of the government talking in nice language today about 'not meeting community standards' or 'falling below where we should be'. If the government weren't so busy ripping themselves apart, worrying about who is defecting next or doing over each other, they would actually have a look at these amendments. The first is a sensible and, I think, prudent way to send a very clear message to the industry that what they are doing and what they want to do is simply unacceptable. I know increasing those penalties from 10 to 15 years sends the strongest possible signal. I don't understand why the minister thinks it's unreasonable to go from 10 to 15 years. What is the excuse? What is the reason why they think 10 years is somehow enough? It doesn't meet community standards. I say to the minister: it doesn't meet the community standards of the victims that I spoke to in my office with the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition. We gave those people a voice through our round table and they made it clear they want the harshest penalties given and not for the government to simply come into this parliament and make some ridiculous argument that six years ago Labor didn't take action. Those people want action and, today, we as a parliament can deliver that with one voice and send the strongest possible message. We get lots of lectures about being tough on crime from those opposite. We just had a Victorian election about jailing gangs which failed spectacularly. I will tell you what people want. They want banks to be held to account. That is exactly what they want.</para>
<para>The second amendment I want to focus on is removing the $210 million penalty cap, because what the government is doing is rejecting that today. I say very clearly to the government that the bill from the government falls well short with a cap of $210 million. I just want to quickly read this into the record. Yesterday we found that the AMP have profited from almost $1 billion in fees charged for no service. This just shows that a cap of $200 million is mere small fry. They haven't spoken about that amendment at all. They haven't—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—mentioned that one bit. For the minister, who perhaps needs a refresher, I can help him with some internet issues around this: I can tell you right now that that does not anywhere near meet community standards.</para>
<para>These are important amendments. These are critical amendments to make sure that victims get justice and see this parliament taking firm action, and we can do this tonight. We can finally draw a line in the sand to make sure that the victims are given justice.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:00</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
    <electorate>Kennedy</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm supporting Labor on these amendments. The honourable member who spoke before me was right in his contention about the $200 million. Companies turning over $4 billion or $5 billion a year would pay it over two or three years. It's hardly a line item in their annual report. On the banking inquiry: we had legislation drawn up, and Mr Turnbull gazumped us. Well, congratulations to him. He put out a pathetic inquiry which, quite frankly, is achieving virtually nothing.</para>
<para>That inquiry, as with these amendments, needs to talk about redress to the people who've been taken to the cleaners improperly by the banks. There should be redress. I'm not one for punishment. I've never advocated punishment. But those decision-makers who were responsible for making those decisions should be taken out of working in the financial field forever.</para>
<para>Look at the Goldman Sachs example in the United States. Here was a company that precipitated the GFC, and it was running the American economy straight afterwards. The immortal words of Barack Obama were that those people responsible for what happened had five of the 11 most powerful positions in the nation. He said, 'When I become President, that will change.' And it did. It wasn't five out of 11; it became eight out of 11! Not only were they not punished, but the person who was supposed to punish them rewarded them. They took over eight of the 11 positions.</para>
<para>So we are watching. The only reason we did not have a GFC collapse here was that the banks here have recourse lending, so if you can't make the repayments—</para>
<para>Opposition members interjecting—</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, it's hard for me to hear myself, and it's a very interesting speech I'm giving.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Yes, I'd ask members to just show some professional respect and courtesy to the member for Kennedy, thank you.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I was taught that it is rude to speak while someone else is speaking. There is obviously something lacking in their education.</para>
</continue>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Please proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr KATTER</name>
    <name.id>HX4</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll move on. The reason the GFC did not extend over here—and the history books will say this, but the work by Kevin Rudd and by Wayne Swan has never ever been acknowledged—was the very expeditious and aggressive action taken by those people. There was a second reason, and that is that Australian banks have recourse lending. If you can't make the repayments on your house—and I'd say probably 30 per cent or 40 per cent of Australians can't make the repayments on their house—the banks take the house from you and sell it up, and, because it falls short of the amount that they're owed, they can pursue you for the rest of your life. If you have a half-million-dollar home and you've got a debt of $300,000, if they sell it up for $200,000, you carry that debt until the day that you die. You are a debt slave to the banks forever.</para>
<para>We are virtually the only country on earth that has recourse lending. Every other country has non-recourse lending. In America they call it jingle mail: 'I can't make the repayments. Here's the key to the house. See you later, alligator.' And the banks share the loss. Yes, this bloke has lost the house. He's lost the repayments he's made on the house, but the banks also take a loss. Surely a young tradesman, a first-year-out apprentice or whatever he might be, who borrows a million dollars for a house—which is actually happening, as we all know—can't possibly make those repayments. The bank knows that he can't; he's only a young kid. He doesn't know that he can't, but the bank knows that he can't. So who should take the blame: the bank or him? In every other country on Earth, they have said, 'At the least, we'll share the blame,' but not in Australia. The enormous power of financial institutions in Australia has been reflected here with a piece of wet-lettuce legislation. It needs to be bolstered up. Whilst I'm very sympathetic to the government, I am backing the opposition on these amendments.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GORMAN</name>
    <name.id>74519</name.id>
    <electorate>Perth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to endorse the comments of the member for Kennedy, when it comes to the lessons to be learnt from Labor's very effective management during the global financial crisis. I think some of the member for Kennedy's words should be listened to very carefully by every member of this place.</para>
<para>Simply, Labor's amendments meet the expectations of the Australian people. They send a clear message to those engaged in misconduct, and they hold our standards amongst the highest in the world—something we should, of course, aspire to. They also support a fair business environment. If you're starting a business or if you're conducting an ethical, well-run business in the financial services sector, why should anyone be allowed to cheat the rules and just do a financial model that allows them to analyse and go, 'Oh, well, if we do this, but we've got this much cash in the bank, we're okay'? It's a disgrace.</para>
<para>Removing that cap is a very well-thought-through amendment from the shadow minister for financial services, and I commend her for it. I also commend her for spending 2½ hours with me at the Alexander Library in Perth, listening to victims of misconduct in the banking sector. The Alexander Library is named after Fred Alexander. He was a historian and someone who cared passionately about the roles of our institutions and the value of the Commonwealth as an institution itself. He wrote <inline font-style="italic">F</inline><inline font-style="italic">rom Curtin to Menzies and </inline><inline font-style="italic">A</inline><inline font-style="italic">fter</inline><inline font-style="italic">: C</inline><inline font-style="italic">ontinuity or </inline><inline font-style="italic">C</inline><inline font-style="italic">onfrontation</inline><inline font-style="italic">? </inline>He would be pleased with the debate we're having today not only about how do we appropriately punish but also about how do we appropriately make sure that we reward good conduct. Ultimately, punishment is also about saying: 'If you do not do good conduct, you should be punished. If you do well, you should be rewarded.'</para>
<para>I'm aware that some members are keen to get on with this. I won't give you the full rundown of the Ernst & Young report <inline font-style="italic">Corporate misconduct—</inline><inline font-style="italic">individual consequences</inline>, but it's well worth a read. I'll finish with some comments about the minister's reference to 'a big, fat zero'. He mentioned a big, fat zero. If you're thinking about a big, fat zero, let's also remember that there are a few other big, fat zeros flying around this building: a big, fat zero when it comes to payday lending action; a big, fat zero when it comes to funding for three-year-olds in preschool; a big, fat zero when it comes to legislation coming to this parliament to create an anticorruption commission; and a big, fat zero of sittings of this parliament in March 2019. One last big, fat zero that I think is inexcusable: there was a big, fat zero of hearings of the royal commission in Western Australia. That was unacceptable.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Let me provide some context for those opposite who question how we arrived at a regime of increasing civil penalties by 400 per cent and criminal penalties by 500 per cent. The current enforcement regime available to ASIC clearly needs to be strengthened. Everyone understands that, hence the government's move to substantially increase penalties.</para>
<para>The ASIC Enforcement Review Taskforce extensively reviewed this entire regime between October 2016 and December 2017. It was a substantial review across all jurisdictions, across states and territories and through different government departments. It made 50 recommendations to government to seek to address the substantial issues. On 18 April the government announced reforms to strengthen ASIC's penalty framework to combat misconduct and improve community confidence in the corporate and financial sector in response to the task force report. There is a substantial body of work that was done here to ensure that all of this was put together. This wasn't something that the government just pulled out of its hat and decided to pass amendments on. This was a considered piece of work.</para>
<para>That's why, in response to that task force, the government moved the substantial penalty regimes that it has. Civil penalty regimes increased fivefold—in fact, higher than fivefold, going from $200,000 to $1.05 million or three times the benefit gained, whichever is greater. And they increased for corporations by more than tenfold, with a 1,000 per cent increase from a million dollars to $10.5 million—an extraordinary increase in penalties—or, indeed, a 10 per cent turnover capped at $210 million.</para>
<para>At the same time, the government committed to expand the types of offences available to ASIC—for example, by expanding the number of provisions that were subject to the civil penalty—and two other reforms to modernise ASIC's enforcement regime, for example, by allowing the courts to strip contraveners of their ill-gotten gains.</para>
<para>There is no doubt that ASIC has been criticised publicly for not using the full extent of its powers and its penalties. There is no question about that at all. The Hayne royal commission has brought out some of the issues of the lack of enforcement power by our regulators, who sought to do a deal, as it were, rather than to prosecute and use the full power of the law. Well, the full power of the law is now being increased—substantially increased in a way not seen before, with a fivefold increase for civil penalties, a fourfold increase for criminal penalties, and, when it comes to penalties for corporations, by over tenfold. That is over 1,000 per cent—10 times the penalty.</para>
<para>Those opposite, whilst well-meaning, simply cannot say that the government is not acting with very strong force in increasing these penalties. We are ensuring that the penalty regime throughout the Corporations Act is extraordinary, that it's tight and that it's tough. Penalties for the most serious white-collar crimes are now bringing our penalties in strong alignment with leading global jurisdictions. That is the work that ASIC has done to get alignment across jurisdictions nationally and across jurisdictions globally.</para>
<para>Courts, in fact, will be empowered to consider even greater penalties where the profits from misconduct are high or where a company's annual turnover exceeds $105 million. That is a further step up again in the penalty regime. And, of course, courts will have the power to strip people of their ill-gotten gains to ensure that contraveners can no longer profit from their misconduct.</para>
<para>This bill includes important reforms that put consumers first. In addition to this extraordinarily strong penalty framework, the Corporations Act will be amended to ensure that courts prioritise compensating victims over collecting penalties from offenders. This is putting the compensation of victims front and centre. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted on this bill. Again, the consultations by ASIC over so many months with the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations were front and centre in putting these substantial reforms together.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All of that opinion say aye.</para>
<para>Opposition members: Aye!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>I think the noes have it. The member for Watson?</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Burke</name>
    <name.id>DYW</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To call it for the noes, someone needs to call out no. It's not complicated. Nobody called out no in that vote—not one. If you want to take the vote again, take it again. It is not within the right of the chair to invent noises that are not made.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>All right, I thank the member for Watson. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.</para>
<para>Opposition members: Aye!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>To the contrary, no.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Mr Robert</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>No!</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>A division is required.</para>
</interjection>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 1 be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [19:19]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>68</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Brodtmann, G</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Hart, RA</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husar, E</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kearney, GM</name>
                  <name>Keay, JT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, MJ</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Lamb, S</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Phelps, KL</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Swan, WM</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>73</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Banks, J</name>
                  <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Falinski, J</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:25</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'NEIL</name>
    <name.id>140590</name.id>
    <electorate>Hotham</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (19) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:</para>
<quote><para class="block">(1) Schedule 1, item 140, page 63 (table item dealing with subsection 184(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(2) Schedule 1, item 140, page 63 (table item dealing with subsection 184(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(3) Schedule 1, item 140, page 63 (table item dealing with subsection 184(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(4) Schedule 1, item 140, page 68 (table item dealing with subsection 344(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(5) Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (table item dealing with subsection 601FD(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(6) Schedule 1, item 140, page 70 (table item dealing with subsection 601FE(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(7) Schedule 1, item 140, page 72 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAA(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(8) Schedule 1, item 140, page 72 (table item dealing with subsection 601UAB(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(9) Schedule 1, item 140, page 74 (table item dealing with subsection 727(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(10) Schedule 1, item 140, page 74 (table item dealing with subsection 728(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(11) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(12) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(13) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(14) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(15) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952F(4), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(16) Schedule 1, item 140, page 80 (table item dealing with subsection 952L(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(17) Schedule 1, item 140, page 82 (table item dealing with subsection 993B(3), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(18) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(1), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">(19) Schedule 1, item 140, page 83 (table item dealing with subsection 1021D(2), column headed "Penalty"), omit "10", substitute "15".</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">[increasing term of imprisonment to 15 years]</para></quote>
<para>Very briefly, so members understand the effect of the amendments Labor is proposing: the government's bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, takes about a dozen offences that exist in the law today, that are the most serious offences, and applies a sentence to them of an increase of five to 10 years. The amendments that Labor are moving would increase the maximum sentence to 15 years. The offences we're talking about here are very serious and significant offences. They involve fraud, they involve abuse of position and they involve failure to comply with the most serious obligations that we put on people in positions of trust.</para>
<para>There is a very good and very simple reason why it's appropriate to increase penalties above and beyond what was advised in the ASIC Enforcement Review. The ASIC Enforcement Review occurred in 2017. It was before the banking royal commission. I don't think there's a person in this chamber who has not been disgusted and shocked by the things that have come out of that royal commission. It is abundantly obvious that the way that criminal law is framed at the moment at the federal level is not preventing people from engaging in what are breathtaking breaches of the law.</para>
<para>We need to make a statement as a parliament, and I think we should be speaking with one voice about how seriously we regard these offences. There's a real question here about what government members are going to do. Are they going to do what they did 26 times, when they came into the chamber and voted against a royal commission and, instead, sided with the big banks, or are they going to side with the Australian people this time?</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ROBERT</name>
    <name.id>HWT</name.id>
    <electorate>Fadden</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'll be brief. The government's bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018, increases criminal penalties by 400 per cent. We have moved substantially to deal with this issue. I believe the government has moved a substantial way forward on this. We've got a very decent balance. It's in line with global jurisdictions. The government's particularly satisfied with the harshness of the penalties it's putting forward.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Hotham be agreed to.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
<division>
            <division.header>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionPreamble">The House divided. [19:31]<br />(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)</p>
              </body>
            </division.header>
            <division.data>
              <ayes>
                <num.votes>68</num.votes>
                <title>AYES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Albanese, AN</name>
                  <name>Aly, A</name>
                  <name>Bandt, AP</name>
                  <name>Bird, SL</name>
                  <name>Bowen, CE</name>
                  <name>Brodtmann, G</name>
                  <name>Burke, AS</name>
                  <name>Burney, LJ</name>
                  <name>Butler, MC</name>
                  <name>Butler, TM</name>
                  <name>Byrne, AM</name>
                  <name>Chalmers, JE</name>
                  <name>Champion, ND</name>
                  <name>Chesters, LM</name>
                  <name>Clare, JD</name>
                  <name>Claydon, SC</name>
                  <name>Collins, JM</name>
                  <name>Conroy, PM</name>
                  <name>Danby, M</name>
                  <name>Dick, MD</name>
                  <name>Dreyfus, MA</name>
                  <name>Elliot, MJ</name>
                  <name>Fitzgibbon, JA</name>
                  <name>Freelander, MR</name>
                  <name>Georganas, S</name>
                  <name>Giles, AJ</name>
                  <name>Gorman, P</name>
                  <name>Gosling, LJ</name>
                  <name>Hart, RA</name>
                  <name>Hill, JC</name>
                  <name>Husar, E</name>
                  <name>Husic, EN</name>
                  <name>Jones, SP</name>
                  <name>Katter, RC</name>
                  <name>Kearney, GM</name>
                  <name>Keay, JT</name>
                  <name>Kelly, MJ</name>
                  <name>Keogh, MJ</name>
                  <name>Khalil, P</name>
                  <name>King, CF</name>
                  <name>King, MMH</name>
                  <name>Lamb, S</name>
                  <name>Leigh, AK</name>
                  <name>Marles, RD</name>
                  <name>McBride, EM</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, BK</name>
                  <name>Mitchell, RG</name>
                  <name>Neumann, SK</name>
                  <name>O'Connor, BPJ</name>
                  <name>O'Neil, CE</name>
                  <name>O'Toole, C</name>
                  <name>Owens, JA</name>
                  <name>Perrett, GD (teller)</name>
                  <name>Phelps, KL</name>
                  <name>Plibersek, TJ</name>
                  <name>Rishworth, AL</name>
                  <name>Rowland, MA</name>
                  <name>Ryan, JC (teller)</name>
                  <name>Shorten, WR</name>
                  <name>Snowdon, WE</name>
                  <name>Swan, WM</name>
                  <name>Swanson, MJ</name>
                  <name>Templeman, SR</name>
                  <name>Thistlethwaite, MJ</name>
                  <name>Vamvakinou, M</name>
                  <name>Watts, TG</name>
                  <name>Wilson, JH</name>
                  <name>Zappia, A</name>
                </names>
              </ayes>
              <noes>
                <num.votes>73</num.votes>
                <title>NOES</title>
                <names>
                  <name>Abbott, AJ</name>
                  <name>Alexander, JG</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KJ</name>
                  <name>Andrews, KL</name>
                  <name>Banks, J</name>
                  <name>Bishop, JI</name>
                  <name>Broad, AJ</name>
                  <name>Broadbent, RE</name>
                  <name>Buchholz, S</name>
                  <name>Chester, D</name>
                  <name>Christensen, GR</name>
                  <name>Ciobo, SM</name>
                  <name>Coleman, DB</name>
                  <name>Coulton, M</name>
                  <name>Crewther, CJ</name>
                  <name>Drum, DK (teller)</name>
                  <name>Entsch, WG</name>
                  <name>Evans, TM</name>
                  <name>Falinski, J</name>
                  <name>Fletcher, PW</name>
                  <name>Flint, NJ</name>
                  <name>Frydenberg, JA</name>
                  <name>Gee, AR</name>
                  <name>Gillespie, DA</name>
                  <name>Goodenough, IR</name>
                  <name>Hartsuyker, L</name>
                  <name>Hastie, AW</name>
                  <name>Hawke, AG</name>
                  <name>Henderson, SM</name>
                  <name>Hogan, KJ</name>
                  <name>Howarth, LR</name>
                  <name>Hunt, GA</name>
                  <name>Irons, SJ</name>
                  <name>Joyce, BT</name>
                  <name>Keenan, M</name>
                  <name>Kelly, C</name>
                  <name>Laming, A</name>
                  <name>Laundy, C</name>
                  <name>Leeser, J</name>
                  <name>Ley, SP</name>
                  <name>Littleproud, D</name>
                  <name>Marino, NB</name>
                  <name>McCormack, MF</name>
                  <name>McGowan, C</name>
                  <name>McVeigh, JJ</name>
                  <name>Morrison, SJ</name>
                  <name>Morton, B</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, LS</name>
                  <name>O'Brien, T</name>
                  <name>O'Dwyer, KM</name>
                  <name>Pasin, A</name>
                  <name>Pitt, KJ</name>
                  <name>Porter, CC</name>
                  <name>Prentice, J</name>
                  <name>Price, ML</name>
                  <name>Pyne, CM</name>
                  <name>Ramsey, RE (teller)</name>
                  <name>Robert, SR</name>
                  <name>Sharkie, RCC</name>
                  <name>Sukkar, MS</name>
                  <name>Taylor, AJ</name>
                  <name>Tehan, DT</name>
                  <name>Tudge, AE</name>
                  <name>Van Manen, AJ</name>
                  <name>Vasta, RX</name>
                  <name>Wallace, AB</name>
                  <name>Wicks, LE</name>
                  <name>Wilkie, AD</name>
                  <name>Wilson, RJ</name>
                  <name>Wilson, TR</name>
                  <name>Wood, JP</name>
                  <name>Wyatt, KG</name>
                  <name>Zimmerman, T</name>
                </names>
              </noes>
              <pairs>
                <num.votes>0</num.votes>
                <title>PAIRS</title>
                <names></names>
              </pairs>
            </division.data>
            <division.result>
              <body>
                <p class="HPS-DivisionFooter">Question negatived.<br />Debate interrupted.</p>
              </body>
            </division.result>
          </division></subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>ADJOURNMENT</title>
        <page.no>120</page.no>
        <type>ADJOURNMENT</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Domestic and Family Violence</title>
          <page.no>120</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms PLIBERSEK</name>
    <name.id>83M</name.id>
    <electorate>Sydney</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>( It's almost a decade to the day since I stood in this chamber and delivered a ministerial statement on White Ribbon Day in 2009 as the then Minister for the Status of Women. I'd recently received the <inline font-style="italic">Time for action</inline> report from the national council of experts I had asked to consider how we could reduce violence against women and their children in Australia. That report led to the groundbreaking National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children—a piece of work that I remain very proud of today.</para>
<para>In that speech in 2009, I said that one in three Australian women had been a victim of physical violence and almost one in five would be a victim of sexual violence. Almost 10 years later it troubles me deeply that those numbers are so stubbornly the same, but I think one thing has changed: around the world, many more women are speaking out and sharing their experiences of sexual harassment, of assault, of rape, of violence.</para>
<para>Rosie Batty, as Australian of the Year, did such an incredible job of raising this issue, sharing the painful story of her son's death by family violence. Her courage led to a royal commission in Victoria and a massive investment in change by the Andrews government. Tracey Spicer received hundreds of letters after asking Australian women about their experience of workplace harassment. One came from a woman in her 70s who revealed that 50 years earlier she had been sexually assaulted at work—she didn't want to pursue the complaint; she just wanted to tell someone half a century later for the first time in her life what had happened to her.</para>
<para>Labor's national plan made a huge difference in raising awareness about violence against women. Domestic violence is no longer seen as a private matter, and I believe we did raise the issue of domestic violence to become a national priority, tackled by the Commonwealth government and the states and territories together. We've seen, for example, Victorian police referrals to specialist services double since the new national plan was launched. The number of people seeking help from refuges, from legal centres and trauma counsellors has soared.</para>
<para>Back in 2009, we knew that there would be an increase in demand for services when we named this issue and said that there was help available, because women who had once been part of a silent majority gained confidence that our judicial policing and support systems had improved. Increased reporting, in this instance, was a good thing because we knew that so many of these assaults in the past had gone unreported.</para>
<para>The eighth year of the national plan—we are in the eighth year now—has been a particularly bad one: 63 women have lost their lives already this year, children have been killed as acts of revenge against their mothers who have fled abusive partners and reports of sexual harassment are increasing. We still have epidemic levels of violence against women and their children in this country.</para>
<para>Almost a decade ago I said that ending violence against women has to be treated like a public health issue, like reducing drink driving or smoking. It's going to need long-term and constant effort from government. It will need investment in education, in behaviour change. It will need laws to be strengthened and policed effectively. It means jailing perpetrators. It means offering better supports for victims.</para>
<para>Yesterday Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, committed Labor to a second 10-year national plan to reduce violence against women and their children. We have to work together with the states and territories, with non-government organisations across the country, to get this right. It won't happen overnight, but we have to remain committed for the long term. That is why we've committed $88 million to a new safe housing fund and another $18 million for keeping women safe at home so that they can stay in their own homes when ending an abusive relationship. We will also legislate 10 days paid leave, and it's about time. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Family Responsibilities Commission</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:39</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ABBOTT</name>
    <name.id>EZ5</name.id>
    <electorate>Warringah</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise tonight to lament the Queensland government's announced abolition of the Family Responsibilities Commission, an initiative originally of Jenny Macklin, the member for Jagajaga; Anna Bligh when she was premier of Queensland; and Noel Pearson, which has always enjoyed bipartisan support in this place and until very recently in the Queensland parliament, until what looks like an attempt from within the Queensland bureaucracy to sabotage it. The Family Responsibilities Commission has been associated with better school attendance, less alcohol-fuelled violence and stronger local leadership in all the communities where it has operated.</para>
<para>A fortnight ago I was in Aurukun to talk school attendance, but all the locals wanted to talk about was the imminent threat to the Family Responsibilities Commission and to ask me to do what I could to save their community from the booze-fuelled bloodshed that they feared would happen if the Family Responsibilities Commission was abolished. The leaders of the school, the leaders of the police, the elders of the community all wanted the Family Responsibilities Commission to stay—and why wouldn't they? The Family Responsibilities Commission was never imposed on them. It was never imposed on anyone. It only operated in communities where the local leadership had specifically requested it.</para>
<para>The Family Responsibilities Commission is not outsiders making decisions for Indigenous people. It is local elders, not white officials, talking to troubled families about how their welfare money might be better managed. And it is not taking anyone's money. The worst that can possibly happen under the FRC is that some of a person's welfare may be quarantined on the BasicsCard. So this is not a punishment agenda; it is quite clearly a responsibility agenda. It is actually empowering local people to take practical steps to improve their community. The Family Responsibilities Commission model should be extended to other communities that want it, certainly not abolished with no adequate substitute in the offing.</para>
<para>I know that the intellectual architect of the Family Responsibilities Commission, Noel Pearson, is not universally supported by Indigenous Australians, even though in my judgement he's been a modern-day prophet for our times. He has provided courageous and inspiring leadership on welfare reform and on educational reform not just for Aboriginal people but for the whole country. It would be a tragedy of the first order not just for Indigenous Australia but for Australia at large if petty jealousy were behind this decision to undo a decade of steady improvement in the wellbeing of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale, Mossman Gorge and, more recently, Doomadgee.</para>
<para>So, Mr Speaker, through you, I say to the Queensland government: please think again. Do not scrap something which is working, something which is working for the benefit of Indigenous people, something which Indigenous people themselves have devised, until you are confident that you have a replacement that works better. And please don't change something that works just because some people might be jealous of the achievements and the justified national stature of Mr Pearson. Please, Queensland government, don't ever use lack of federal funding as an excuse, because the federal government is prepared to continue its share of the funding of this program.</para>
<para>This is something good in a part of our country that really needs to be in charge of its own destiny, more in charge of its own destiny than it often is. How dare the Queensland government, in a fit of pique and misinformation, rip away from these good people something which has been doing so much for their wellbeing? They have a right to take responsibility. That is exactly what they have been doing. Let them keep it.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Prime Minister</title>
          <page.no>121</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:44</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>'Tis that time of year again, when I tell a Christmas tale, about the LNP's turmoils, desperations and endless fails. This year it wasn't hard which story to choose, because we have a Prime Minister who is Ebenezer Scrooge. Before every LNP budget former Treasurer Scott Morrison would sit in his ivory tower, counting his dollars with unyielding power. The Australian people would beg for some investment in jobs and health and action on energy and education, but Treasurer Morrison would always refuse and give nothing but cuts and privatisation. Scrooge Morrison has been the architect of every single cut, for he is what has put my home, Townsville, in its current rut. Just like Ebenezer Scrooge's worker, Fred, my town has been left begging; workers, families, veterans and pensioners doing nothing but fretting, about how, under the LNP, the local retail worker is receiving a pay cut, and how, due to no action on energy, local small businesses are shut. There are people choosing between medical visits and paying electricity bills, and our pensioners cannot afford to pay for their own pills. Scrooge Morrison has made massive cuts to education and health—</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>00APG</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The member for Herbert will refer to members by their correct titles. I've made this point incessantly. She's heard me. She's very fortunate that I don't just sit her down now and move to the next speaker. The member for Herbert may proceed.</para>
</interjection>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>whilst trying to privatise our Medicare by stealth. Under Treasurer Morrison and now Prime Minister Morrison Townsville is doing it incredibly tough, for Townsville simply has not received enough. Townsville's unemployment under Prime Minister Morrison has almost doubled, a fact that does not seem to make the LNP troubled, for Prime Minister Morrison has been giving taxpayer dollars to the top end of town at the expense of Townsville jobs, workers and families, keeping us all down.</para>
<para>Just like the plot of the Charles Dickens story, ghosts from LNP past are coming out of purgatory. The ghost of LNP past, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, has risen from the dead, and he's coming back to wreak havoc and create more dread. For we are seeing LNP ghosts put their own self-interest and jobs before the rest of us, and creating in this place a large amount of distrust.</para>
<para>Then there is former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who is the ghost of LNP present, for whose anger and disgust for the LNP I share the same sentiment. For the ghost of LNP present Turnbull is ringing bells loudly and true, that led to the landslide victory in Victoria leaving the LNP black and blue. And all of these ghosts are putting their own self-interest first; they are doing so at the expense of regional workers, only making things worse.</para>
<para>The ghost of yet-to-come has not yet arrived, but allow me to guess and make a hundred-dollar bet, that the ghost of yet-to-come won't be one ghost but millions, for Prime Minister Morrison's future will be decided by Australian civilians. And on election day these ghosts, who have received the brunt of the Prime Minister's cuts, who will have received nothing from the LNP government but peanuts, will ensure that they make every one of their votes count, by voting out Prime Minister Morrison and holding him to account. For Townsville will remember all of Prime Minister Morrison's cuts to jobs and health, and how he gave our taxpayers' dollars to those with incredible wealth.</para>
<para>At the next election Prime Minister Morrison will have hard lessons to learn, how he can't create Townsville's largest economic downturn. When you are the person responsible for huge job losses, then Townsville is going to give you the toss.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Boothby Electorate: Volunteers</title>
          <page.no>122</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:48</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms FLINT</name>
    <name.id>245550</name.id>
    <electorate>Boothby</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>My home state of South Australia and my electorate of Boothby are the location of many amazing Indigenous and natural and local heritage drawcards. We have Adelaide's best stretch of coastline, from Marino to Glenelg, and also the Adelaide foothills from Mitcham up to Belair and Blackwood. Within my local community hundreds of dedicated volunteers give their time each and every week to protect and preserve these resources. These wonderful volunteers dedicate their time to plant trees, organise fundraisers, educate people, take tours and make sure these spaces and features are maintained for our whole community to enjoy.</para>
<para>I'm proud to work closely with all of my state colleagues, but on the south coast and in the hills, in particular, with the member for Black and minister for the environment, David Speirs MP, and the member for Waite, Sam Duluk MP, to deliver for our local area. We want all South Australians, and, indeed, everyone visiting South Australia, to be able to share our amazing local attractions and learn about our Kaurna heritage and enjoy the work of our wonderful volunteers.</para>
<para>I've seen firsthand the results of the hard work of our wonderful local volunteers in the Marino Conservation Park. I recently joined friends Alan Wilson and Nigel Charman to walk the botanical trail and learn about their efforts to restore native vegetation on the site. I joined the Friends of Marino Conservation Park for a very successful community planting day to help restore native grasses and ground-cover plants in the area. The new shed that the friends will be building to store their tools, and the seats for visitors, which are already in, were supported by a federal Stronger Communities grant, which in turn supports these generous volunteers. The Marino Conservation Park is part of the Glenthorne National Park system, which incorporates areas within my current and previous electoral boundaries. Thanks to the vision and incredibly hard work of David Speirs MP, the Minister for the Environment and Water, and the state Liberal government, this natural space will be protected, preserved and activated for our community.</para>
<para>Glenthorne sits on the edge of the Mitcham Hills area, which begins at the Sturt Gorge, Shepherd's Hill Conservation Park and Blackwood Forrest, which themselves lead towards Belair National Park, Brownhill Creek, the Wirraparinga trail loop, Waite Arboretum and Urrbrae Wetland. I was incredibly proud to secure a $200,000 Green Army project for the Brownhill Creek-Wirraparinga trail loop area, and I continue to work closely with the Friends of Brownhill Creek, the Rotary club and local schools to support all of the wonderful work they're doing to restore the natural environment and work with Kaurna elders to respect and recognise our Indigenous heritage in the area.</para>
<para>Within the Mitcham Hills and plains area we also have very significant heritage buildings, like Urrbrae House, located on the University of Adelaide's grounds, where I enjoy visits to the Friends of Urrbrae House and the Friends of Waite Arboretum and attending their exhibitions and events. Just nearby, we have the magnificent Carrick Hill. With its historic house, beautiful gardens and internationally renowned art collection, it is a cultural icon in South Australia. Carrick Hill regularly hosts events and festivals, and there truly is something new to discover every time you visit.</para>
<para>A short walk away is the Mitcham Cultural Village, with the Edinburgh Hotel, Stamps restaurant, the Mitcham Institute and Gallery One, and the fabulous Mitcham Historical Society members. Not far up the hill are the Friends of Belair National Park, who, together with the Friends of Old Government House, do an incredible job to preserve and protect our natural environment and our historic housing heritage. The magnificent heritage building that is Old Government House is set in Belair National Park, which is the second oldest national park in the nation. Old Government House has been beautifully preserved and restored by the Friends, who conduct regular tours.</para>
<para>Just down the road is Wittunga House and botanic gardens. This is a unique and special place featuring diverse gardens and wildlife, including its African collection in the terraced beds, which I was lucky enough to tour recently with the member for Waite and the minister for the environment.</para>
<para>In addition to all of this, South Australia is home to amazing Indigenous heritage, and across the state we have world-famous festivals, historic buildings, gardens and art collections. We truly are the art state, with the best state gallery in the nation, I believe. We are home to the works of the iconic artist Hans Heysen, and soon we will have a brand new National Aboriginal Art and Culture Gallery, thanks to Premier Steven Marshall and the state Liberal government.</para>
<para>I want all South Australians, our state and territory neighbours, and international visitors and tourists to have as many reasons as possible to visit our state and all of the wonderful attractions we have to offer. I am so proud of our local attractions, particularly those in my local community in the electorate of Boothby, and I'm grateful to each and every volunteer, artist and visitor for all they do to support, promote and examine our natural heritage drawcards.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>State Emergency Service</title>
          <page.no>123</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GEE</name>
    <name.id>261393</name.id>
    <electorate>Calare</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Rain, hail or shine, we can always rely on our SES volunteers. The Orange City SES unit has over 40 members, and at a recent presentation night four members of the Orange City SES unit were deservingly recognised. Kim Stevens, the Orange City SES Unit Commander, was awarded life membership. Kim joined the SES as a 14-year-old, and he will soon be presented with his 50-year service pin—an extraordinary milestone. His son, Rob Stevens, is following in his father's footsteps. He is the Orange City SES Unit Rescue Officer. Chaplain Ron Murray was recognised on the night for five years service. Patrice Watson and Amanda Aitken have dedicated 10 years to the local SES unit and were also recognised for their years of volunteering. Kim, Rob, Ron, Patrice and Amanda are part of a hardworking and dedicated community-driven team.</para>
<para>I would like to recognise their fellow SES colleagues: Acting Deputy Unit Commander Liann Deyssing, Ashesh Dutta, Beau Carter, Brendan Lowe, Brett Kerruish, Callum Cope, Christophe Derrez, Courtney Green, Craig Wright, David Oakden, David Anderson, Brett McMahon, Dylan Took, Glenda Gavin, Grace Garretty, Grant Hill, Ivan Littlewood, Jessica Frost, Josh Dillon, Keiren McLeonard, Matthew Warner, Michael Hughes, Paul Beard, Paul Beshara, Peter Hodgins, Phillip Kirkwood, Rachael Stevens, Scarlett Bruem, Sharon Hesse, Shaun Mills, Shaun Simms, Shawn Goodrich, Steven Cox, Toni McDonald, Tracy Hoban, Trevor Lucas, Wendy Butterfield, William Rollo and Bill Walsh.</para>
<para>The Bathurst SES unit has been extremely busy in the past week, with strong winds and rain causing damage across the region. The Bathurst SES has responded to fallen trees on community roads and private properties, leaking roofs and minor flooding requiring sandbagging. Last week, four teams of two personnel were sent out and, while the rain is certainly welcome across the central west, it has seen another team sent out this morning to provide assistance. There are 78 members in the Bathurst unit, each and every one of them courageous and selfless. The Bathurst SES unit is also a general land rescue unit, with around 21 team members ready to respond 24 hours a day, seven days a week. These members have undergone specialised training in road crash rescues and other immediate life-threatening tasks. It is their job to work with the police and other emergency agencies any time of the day or night.</para>
<para>The Bathurst SES unit are also seen at a range of community events, most recently the Edgell Jog. This Friday, however, they will be at the Ben Chifley Dam with students from the Carenne School, demonstrating what's involved in a flood rescue. Dam safety and water safety in general is extremely valuable, especially as we head into summer. I would like to recognise each of the Bathurst SES unit members tonight, including: Ben Cox, deputy unit commander, Hywel Blake, deputy unit commander, Gavan Ellis, local SES commander, Jessie Davidson, SES unit commander, Abigail Sutton, Alexandra Mckay, Allison Couchman, Andrea Faggiotto, Andrew McDonough, Ashleigh Seabrook, Belinda Baker, Benjamin Keogh, Bethany Hunt, Bianca Russell, Carissa Geyer, Caroline Forest, Chris Abbott, Christopher Marel, Claire Jarjoura, Corey Dunlop, Dale Pennycuick, David Tomlinson, David Chemello, Elizabeth Tuckey, Ellen Browne, Grant Brunton, Hayden Beer, Jackson Livingstone, Jameson Edwards, Jane Sisley, Jared Grimmond, Jesse Rigney, Joshua Hunt, Joshua Besterwich, Kelly Douglas, Kerry Rigney, Kerryn Murray, Kurt Finnerty, Lauren Donlan, Leonie Hazell, Lisa Bray, Matthew Perry, Matthew Booth, Meaghan Darling, Miao Li, Michael McKay-Hines, Nikki Rodriguez, Parvinder Singh, Paul Rodenhuis, Philip Palangas, Raef Amin, Rezvan Abedi, Rhys Dive, Riley O'Keeffe, Rochelle Dawes, Roslyn Alexander, Ryan Bruin, Ryan McNarey, Samantha-Jo Harris, Samuel Smith, Scott Bray, Selina Cox, Selina Harlum, Serene Loudoun-Shand, Shannon Webber, Sieanna Wentworth Perry, Skye-Rhiannon Veech, Sophie Cousins, Steven Eldridge, Steven Cox, Susanne Dixon, Terence Smith, Terrance Christian, Thomas Mumford, Thomas Brunton, Tina Evans, Trevor Gunter and Wayne Bowden.</para>
<para>Our SES volunteers serve a cause greater than themselves to protect life and property in our country communities, and it is an honour to pay tribute to SES units everywhere this evening.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women</title>
          <page.no>124</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>19:58</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr NEUMANN</name>
    <name.id>HVO</name.id>
    <electorate>Blair</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>In my electorate of Blair we have many individuals and organisations working to eliminate violence against women. On Sunday, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I joined the Ipswich and West Moreton club of Zonta at the launch of their 16 days of activism against gender based violence which run up until the 10 December to coincide with Human Rights Day. I am pleased to have an 'orange lady' in my electorate office this year again. The theme of this year's 16 days is 'end gender based violence in the world of work', which promotes dignity for women in the workforce. This campaign is focused on highlighting the prejudice and discriminatory behaviours women in the workforce experience, with a view to eliminating this as a contributor to unequal power relations at the heart of gender based violence.</para>
<para>Another group is the Domestic Violence Action Centre, whose Ipswich community based project 'being heard' has won crime prevention and child protection awards for its focus on education and child safety. The program is an initiative of Sinead Nunan, with funding from the Queensland government and the Ipswich City Council. The program is part of DVAC's advocacy and prevention, engaging with young people across Ipswich high schools and Somerset Region high schools. Students undertake a semester of domestic and sexual violence education to recognise, experience and respond to controlling and abusive behaviours. This hands-on, pragmatic approach is worthy of support and helps young people aged 15 to 18 from diverse backgrounds, including LGBTIQA, Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders and culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Congratulations to all of them.</para>
<para>House adjourned at 20:00</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>NOTICES</title>
        <page.no>124</page.no>
        <type>NOTICES</type>
      </debateinfo></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>DOCUMENTS</title>
        <page.no>125</page.no>
        <type>DOCUMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Tabling</title>
          <page.no>125</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo></subdebate.1></debate>
  </chamber.xscript>
  <fedchamb.xscript>
    <business.start>
      <body xmlns:pic="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/picture" xmlns:WX="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/word/2003/auxHint" xmlns:wp="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/wordprocessingDrawing" xmlns:aml="http://schemas.microsoft.com/aml/2001/core" style="" xmlns:r="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/relationships" xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" xmlns:w="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/wordprocessingml/2006/main" xmlns:w10="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" background="">
        <p class="HPS-MCJobDate" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-MCJobDate">
            <a href="Federation Chamber" type="">Wednesday, 28 November 2018</a>
          </span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Normal" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Normal">
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hogan)</span>
            <span style="font-weight:bold;">
            </span>took the chair at 10:02.</span>
        </p>
        <p class="HPS-Line" style="direction:ltr;unicode-bidi:normal;">
          <span class="HPS-Line"> </span>
        </p>
      </body>
    </business.start>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</title>
        <page.no>126</page.no>
        <type>CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Kingsford Smith Electorate: Cruise Ship Terminal</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:02</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr THISTLETHWAITE</name>
    <name.id>182468</name.id>
    <electorate>Kingsford Smith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Prime Minister has a lot to say. He's a talker but he's not a very good listener. He has gone silent on the New South Wales Liberals' plan to build a cruise ship terminal at Yarra Bay in the seat of Kingsford Smith. He's ignoring the voice of the people. On 21 November a petition of over 10,000 signatures was tabled in the New South Wales parliament. The message was clear from the members of the community that I represent. The people of our area do not want a cruise ship terminal in Yarra Bay and Botany Bay. They've had enough of the Liberals in Canberra and in Macquarie Street not listening, and they want the member for Cook, the Prime Minister, to get off his backside and do something about this crazy proposal.</para>
<para>Once again, the Bidjigal people, whose ancestors inherited the waters of Botany Bay and lived on those shores for tens of thousands of years, have not been consulted at all by the New South Wales government about this proposal to build a cruise ship terminal in their area. They say that this will do massive damage to local fishing areas and to the local shores of Botany Bay. Once again, it shows the level of disrespect that the Liberal Party has for the traditional owners of land and for the Bidjigal people in the community that I represent.</para>
<para>This proposal will also do massive environmental damage. Botany Bay would have to be dredged on the northern side of the bay for the third time. For the third time, they would have to dredge Botany Bay. It's home to many protected marine species, and they would no doubt be wiped out if that occurred—let alone the traffic congestion that would come to local roads if a massive, half-a-billion-dollar cruise ship terminal was built in this area. It simply won't work. Anyone who has seen the big swell that gets into Botany Bay and the waves that get halfway up the breakwall, where the oil refinery is, would know that, if you put a cruise ship there, it would easily smash into that wall and do massive damage.</para>
<para>The Liberal Party has to listen to our community. This is a ridiculous proposal. It's time that Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister—as the member for Cook, whose electorate looks over Botany Bay; who understands the significance of Botany Bay, its heritage, its environment and its Indigenous culture; and who understands the importance of this to local communities—stopped this ridiculous proposal. I am calling on the Prime Minister. I have written to him and asked him to intervene and look at Garden Island as the preferred site for a cruise ship terminal in Sydney. That is what the people of Kingsford Smith want.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Newcastle Permanent Primary School Mathematics Competition, Lyne Electorate: Arts</title>
          <page.no>126</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:05</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to give a big shout-out to some of the Lyne electorate's emerging mathematics wizards. The Newcastle Permanent Primary School Mathematics Competition was held in August, and 18,847 year 5 and year 6 students sat for their 35 questions. I am pleased to announce to the House that there were several children from the Lyne electorate who shared first-class honours. I would like to give a big shout-out and congratulations to Sam Burke from Tinonee Public School, Quinlan Collins from Gloucester Public School, Leorah Newman from Old Bar Public School, Alexander Saville from Tinonee Public School—there must be something in the water or atmosphere of Tinonee Public School, as they are producing mathematics wizards—and Lucas Guiney from Forster Public School. We all know that science, technology, engineering and mathematics are at the core of so many opportunities in science, industry and the broader Australian economy. We need more of this support for STEM subjects. I would like to congratulate Newcastle Permanent for this great initiative.</para>
<para>During the break, I also had the opportunity to catch up with a lot of the arts world that's alive and happening in the Lyne electorate. I visited Peter and Christine Calabria's famous Artisans on the Hill at Mondrook. What a wonderful showcase of local artwork. It's an eclectic mix of woodwork, glasswork, jewellery and painting. It's really interesting to note that Artisans on the Hill also have workshops in woodwork and glassmaking. A lot of the arts that are now kept in the collections, particularly for woodwork and glasswork, are exhibited at Artisans on the Hill.</para>
<para>I also visited the Gloucester Gallery. Gloucester is a wonderful township, nestled in the Gloucester Valley. The art gallery there is working on the philosophy that art is for everyone. 'Art for All' is their motto. Since 1999, they have been having numerous exhibitions. I caught up with them and saw the recent <inline font-style="italic">Expressions of Interest</inline> artwork. There were six artists exhibiting and many great pastels and oils. There was also some amazing woodwork by Peter Erson-Smith that was on display. I would like to congratulate Kay McFarlane-Smith, Debra Ansell, Judith Hill, Clare Felton, Gwendolin Lewis and Peter Erson-Smith for their wonderful exhibits. It is really important that we support the arts. It's great for the enrichment of the artists and for people to get to enjoy the art. Well done, Gloucester Gallery.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Macquarie Electorate: Schools</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:08</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms TEMPLEMAN</name>
    <name.id>181810</name.id>
    <electorate>Macquarie</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The 2018 school year is coming to an end. I know that, as I get to more presentation days, I will continue to be blown away by the students in my local schools. With outstanding performances on the stage and the field, the HSC art and design works, and their involvement in involvement in the wider community with things like Remembrance Day and their visits to parliament, schools in the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury continually impress. But the Liberal Party's decision to withhold $14 billion from public schools puts at risk the future achievements of these students. A visit with my shadow minister for education last week showed the diversity of our schools from the Colo High School students, who so confidently talked to us about their social justice programs and their dams, to the Richmond North Public School students, Kimberly and Ella, who interviewed us on their school radio station, to the Hobartville Public School students, who showed their sensory learning space, which Labor has promised an additional $50,000 for, if we win the election.</para>
<para>More significant even than that is the commitment that Labor has to ensuring that public schools in Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury will be $16.5 million better off over the first three years of a Shorten Labor government. Each school will be able to spend this money in the way they see fit, because no-one knows a school better than their principal and their teachers. The principal of Blaxland High School, Nikki Tunica, said that she could use the extra $1.1 million Blaxland High is set to receive if Labor take office to employ an additional three teachers a year, giving teachers an extra hour a week to develop resources and differentiate lessons to cater for students with additional learning needs. She says that it might also be used on additional learning and support teachers and perhaps a social worker, noting the increasing anxiety young people are experiencing.</para>
<para>Every single school will receive additional funding to support kids with learning challenges, to extend kids who are already doing well and to ensure teachers have the skills and support that they need. For high schools like Katoomba and Winmalee, it's just under $1 million in additional funding over the first three years; for Colo High, it's just over $1 million. For the public schools of Glossodia, Wilberforce, Wentworth Falls, Hobartville and Hazelbrook, the additional funding estimates range from $250,000 to $410,000—an amount principals and teachers tell me really makes a difference.</para>
<para>In my electorate, education is highly valued. The Blue Mountains has more teachers per head of population than anywhere else in the country. These people are teachers and parents. They get what a transformative effect a high-quality education has on children's lives, especially when it's fairly funded. I know it. P&Cs know it. The Teachers Federation and the Australian Education Union know it. Labor know it, and we will make sure it happens, because this is the best investment in our society and our economy that anyone can make.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Federal Anti-Corruption Commission</title>
          <page.no>127</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:11</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LLEW O'BRIEN</name>
    <name.id>265991</name.id>
    <electorate>Wide Bay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>When a fisherman throws in a line and catches very few fish, they wonder: is it because there are hardly any fish or is it because they're fishing with the wrong tackle or the wrong line? The same applies when it comes to detecting, exposing and prosecuting corruption. Just because our institutions give the overall appearance that they are free from corruption, we need to ask: are they really? Or do we need better tools to expose it? This is why I called upon the government to establish a new comprehensive organisation to fight and prevent corruption at the federal level. Protecting and preserving the integrity of our institutions that are fundamental to our democracy must be our priority.</para>
<para>The public needs confidence that public money is not being misused and that decisions being made across government are free from unlawful influence. The public also needs certainty that government services and programs are delivered efficiently and effectively, without compromise and free of corruption. To ensure we achieve this, I believe government needs to apply the right tools, provide the right resources and build the right organisational structure to create an independent institution that is capable of scrutinising our institutions to detect and expose corruption.</para>
<para>At the moment there are over 11 fragmented agencies spread across government that are responsible for investigating allegations of corruption and misconduct by the Public Service, public officials, parliamentary and ministerial staff and political parties. I believe that we need a single, independent body, overseen by a bipartisan parliamentary committee, which has the power to investigate those suspected of acting corruptly.</para>
<para>As a former Queensland police officer, I've seen the environment created by the former Criminal Justice Commission, the Crime and Misconduct Commission and now the Crime and Corruption Commission. The Fitzgerald inquiry and the robust anticorruption legislation machinery and policies that were implemented in its wake have dramatically changed the culture, nature and landscape of public administration in Queensland for the better.</para>
<para>I welcome the government's commitment to develop legislation to establish a federal anticorruption body. It needs to be done thoroughly and without delay. If an appropriate bill is presented to the parliament, which will give the public full confidence that corruption will be exposed, I will vote for it. Unlike the states, as it stands today the bulk of our constituents have no idea who fights corruption at a federal level and whether they are doing an effective job. To restore confidence in our federal system, this must change.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Climate Change</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:14</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WILKIE</name>
    <name.id>C2T</name.id>
    <electorate>Denison</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>This Friday, thousands of schoolchildren across Australia will strike, demanding politicians take action on climate change. Moreover, last month we saw the people of Wentworth vote for action, and last weekend Victoria voted for action. Indeed, every day, people contact me wanting action on climate change. So when will the Prime Minister start listening to the people and stop kowtowing to the fossil fuel lobby? It simply defies belief that this government continues advocating for coal and supporting Adani's plans for the biggest coalmine in Australia's history, when we know the damage coal does to our climate, health and environment. It's a sad truth indeed that the money from the fossil fuel industry is more important to this government than the health and protection of our children and grandchildren.</para>
<para>In the absence of government action, at least our scientists and health professionals are showing the way. For instance, a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns that we have only have 12 years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. Half a degree more will significantly worsen risks of drought, flood and poverty for millions of people. This report provides a strategic plan for reforestation, a shift to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon-capture technology.</para>
<para>Furthermore, our medical professionals have cited climate change as the greatest threat to human health in the current century, with 30 Australian health and medical organisations collaborating to complete the Framework for a National Strategy on Climate, Health and Well-being for Australia, following a year-long consultation. This framework provides an excellent basis for all levels of government to protect Australians from the preventable impacts of climate change through more sustainable health care.</para>
<para>We need leadership and a national response to address climate change right now. Australia must be put on a speedy pathway to zero net carbon emissions, starting with the phasing out of carbon derived energy and a move to 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy. Every effort needs to be made to decentralise energy production, including by turning nearly every building into a micro power station, which would, among other things, create greater energy security for the country. Appropriate incentives are needed, like government grants to assist with installation costs and feed-in tariffs much closer to that charged for centrally produced electricity.</para>
<para>Nuclear weapons and climate change are probably the only man-made phenomena capable of destroying life as we know it on earth. The government needs to stop enjoying the cash flow from the fossil fuel lobbyists, and start listening to our leading scientists and health professionals and to the Australian community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Defence Equipment</title>
          <page.no>128</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr GOODENOUGH</name>
    <name.id>74046</name.id>
    <electorate>Moore</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The federal government has made a significant investment in upgrading Australia's border security through the acquisition of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft and the MQ-4C Triton Unmanned Aircraft Systems, which will replace the AP-3C Orions, which are due for withdrawal in 2018-19.</para>
<para>As part of my role on the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I have been involved in the capital works program to upgrade the aircraft maintenance facilities in preparation to accommodate the new wing. Based at Royal Australian Air Force Base Edinburgh, the program is an important part of Australia's future maritime patrol and response strategy. The coalition government has committed to acquiring 15 Poseidon aircraft, of which 12 aircraft have been approved for acquisition and three are the subject of normal government defence acquisition approval processes.</para>
<para>The first aircraft arrived in Canberra in 2016, and the remaining 11 will be delivered by March 2020. The P-8A Poseidon has advanced sensors and mission systems, including a state-of-the-art multi-role radar, high definition cameras, and an acoustic system with four times the processing capacity of the outgoing AP-3C Orions. This new advanced capability will enhance the ability of the Australian Defence Force to detect and combat the smuggling of illegal cargo, illicit drugs, narcotics, prohibited items such as weapons, and the smuggling of contraband and unauthorised persons across Australia's vast maritime borders. The incursion of unauthorised vessels into Australia's sovereign territory can be detected, providing early warning of security risks, and alerting authorities to threats to our national security and biosecurity.</para>
<para>The Poseidon is built specifically as a military aircraft. It is based on the proven commercial design of the Boeing 737-800 fuselage but has been substantially modified to include increased strengthening for low-level operations down to 200 feet and high-angle turns, as well as the capacity for armaments. The federal government takes our national security very seriously and has made a significant investment in upgrading Australia's border security through the acquisition of a new wing of 15 P-8A Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Exports, Broadband</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:20</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr SWAN</name>
    <name.id>2V5</name.id>
    <electorate>Lilley</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Sanofi Consumer Healthcare is a complementary medicine manufacturer located in Virginia in the electorate of Lilley. It employs more than 300 locals and annually produces around 360 million soft gels and 1.8 billion tablets. Currently its products are eligible for the Australian Made label, which acknowledges the high quality of Australian-made products. This label assists Sanofi to secure its lucrative $1.2 billion export market for complementary medicine. The Australian Made label has given Sanofi and other Australian based companies a competitive advantage in export markets, particularly in China.</para>
<para>The nature of the Sanofi supply chain means some raw ingredients need to be imported because certain ingredients are not able to be grown domestically due to the Australian climate. In March, changes to the Australian Made guidelines will mean Sanofi and others won't be able to use the Australian Made label from 1 June 2019. These changes to the guidelines don't recognise the work that is done to imported raw ingredients to create this uniquely Australian product. For over six months, Sanofi has met with the government, trying to reach a solution. However, the government has been dithering—simply paralysed—and has done absolutely nothing to fix this problem. So Sanofi will soon have to begin the process of removing the Australian Made label from its products, and this will damage its standing in critical export markets. This will mean production shutdowns and staff lay-offs can be expected, as the manufacturers adjust to anticipated reduction in demand.</para>
<para>There is a simple solution to this. It has been sitting on the desk of Minister Andrews for a long time. It's been with both prime ministers for a long time, but in 'Liberal-world'—now 'Morrison-world'—simply nothing ever happens, even when there are very simple solutions. There are some quick steps the government could take to avert these lay-offs, fix this problem and protect a vital export market. The export market for these products is a huge advantage for Australia, and it's been a stunning success for this country, but the government is simply paralysed and sitting on its hands as this car crash evolves.</para>
<para>Also, for local businesses, we've got the debacle of the NBN rollout. Fortunately, in my electorate of Lilley, there are around 20,000 households that received Labor's first-class NBN. There are another 20,000 households that got the 'fraudband', but the rollout of the NBN was then suspended over a year ago and there are another 20,000 households that are getting nothing. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Murray Electorate: Agriculture</title>
          <page.no>129</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr DRUM</name>
    <name.id>56430</name.id>
    <electorate>Murray</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I would like to take this opportunity to put the state of play of agriculture in the Murray electorate on the table. Agriculture is obviously the backbone of the region and the farmers of Murray produce a diverse range of commodities. Obviously, in the broadacre regions, those are beef, wheat and other cereals, oilseeds and lamb. But at the heart of the Murray region is the irrigation district. The Goulburn Valley is one of the largest growers of fruit and vegetables—but mainly fruit—in Australia, and one of our largest dairy industries is in the Goulburn Valley as well.</para>
<para>This is not directly associated with the drought at the moment, but it is obviously under a huge amount of stress due to the high price of water, which is a consequence of the drought, and also due to the very high prices for feed for our dairy cows. The temporary price of water at the moment is trading at above $400 a megalitre, which is making it cost-prohibitive for dairy farmers to buy water at that price. It's also very touch and go for our fruitgrowers to buy water at $400 a megalitre.</para>
<para>A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity of hosting David Littleproud, the Minister for Agriculture, at a farmers' forum in Shepparton where about 170 farmers were able to come along and ask the minister any question that they wanted to—in respect of the dairy industry mandatory code of conduct, where the fruit industry is at or free trade agreements that are hugely beneficial in my part of Australia. Minister Littleproud was able to talk to the farmers there about the challenges ahead, what's going well with the industry and how we are going to push ahead to be major contributors in this $100 billion economy by 2030, and that is the national goal for agriculture.</para>
<para>One of the other interesting and critical aspects in relation to the state of agriculture in the Murray region is the concept of water. There are 450 gigalitres of water associated with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that are to be recovered only if it can be proven that taking further water out of the region will do no socioeconomic damage to the communities. The test associated with social and economic neutrality—that any water taken out has to be beneficial or neutral to the community—will have to be defined and put to the MinCo later this week.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Paterson Electorate: Bushfires</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:26</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms SWANSON</name>
    <name.id>264170</name.id>
    <electorate>Paterson</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Bushfires are not uncommon in my community. Last weekend the residents of Campvale, Medowie and Salt Ash, which are towns in my electorate, were faced with another bushfire emergency. Within one hour of the fire starting, wind gusts reached over 100 kilometres per hour, forcing the advice level to emergency. Residents were told to implement their bushfire survival plans immediately. For 88 hours intense flames spread through over 1,900 hectares of land. That's over 207 football fields, to put it in relatable terms. When the fires were officially declared under control on Monday morning, it did feel like a miracle. But it was no miracle; this was the result of the tireless hard work of many organisations, businesses, locals and individuals who chipped in, and I recognise and thank them today.</para>
<para>Thank you to the more than 400 firefighters and crews from New South Wales Rural Fire Service brigades, Fire and Rescue New South Wales and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. Whether they were on the ground or in the control room, the coordination and response from our fireys was admirable and literally life-saving. Thank you to ABC Radio Newcastle for their constant and reliable updates. Due to several mobile carriers experiencing network failure, the community relied on ABC Radio to stay informed and up to date. Thank you to Port Stephens-Hunter Police District for their management of road closures and heavy traffic. Thank you to the Port Stephens Council staff who assisted with the closures. And thank you to every person who lives in Salt Ash, Campvale and Medowie for being bushfire ready. You were prepared, and that preparation paid off, and you backed each other up as well.</para>
<para>Thank you to the countless businesses, organisations and individuals who played a huge part, including the Samaritans, the Australian Red Cross, the New South Wales Department of Education, Irrawang and Raymond Terrace high schools, the Department of Family and Community Services, Live Traffic New South Wales, Hunter Valley Buses, Port Stephens Coaches, Tilligerry RSL and Paul's Corner—we all love Paul's Corner. Thank you, too, to former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, who attended with his Davidson crew to join the effort. I extended my hand of thanks to him in the corridors this week, and I mean that sincerely. Thank you doesn't seem like enough to express my gratitude to all of these people. To any whom I have missed, I do apologise. My community are so grateful for your hard work. We're heading into another busy bushfire season. Please take care, but know you are really valued in our community.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Centenary of Armistice</title>
          <page.no>130</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:29</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr LAUNDY</name>
    <name.id>247130</name.id>
    <electorate>Reid</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Remembrance Day—the 11th of the 11th—commemorates the day in 1918 when the guns fell silent on the Western Front. Obviously on that day there was rejoicing worldwide. Following that time, memorials were built Australia-wide. In my electorate of Reid the first one in Queen Elizabeth Park was opened in 1921. A couple of weeks ago in that very park we rededicated that very memorial.</para>
<para>Remembrance Day this year marked the end of the Centenary of Anzac commemorations over the last four years. All local federal members received program grants that we could invest in what we saw fit in the local community. This memorial was a classic example of what we could do with that money. This memorial had over time fallen into disrepair. I argue that it was the most spectacular memorial in my electorate. The local grants board decided to invest the money we had available to bringing this memorial back to its former glory. Why? The theory is that it will be there for the next 100 years and the local community can keep meeting, gathering, coming together and commemorating the great sacrifices of not just World War I but every theatre of war since that time in which there have been armed Australian service men and women.</para>
<para>I would like to thank Bob Turner and President Len from the Concord RSL sub-branch, and Concord Hospital, which was a repat hospital that treated World War I Western Front soldiers recovering from gas afflictions. Even though that hospital was handed back to the state government in 1992, the tie to that hospital has remained very strong. Alice Kang and her amazing team were there on the day to make sure that it all went off without a hitch. Also on the day Rosebank College provided the band and the choir for the hymns that we were singing. Principal Tom Galea always does an amazing job with that school.</para>
<para>We sat down and decided that we would redo this memorial because not only will it be there for the next 100 years but it will be somewhere families can come and reflect at different times. With great pride, on that day there was a truckload of families. There were parents with their young kids. We commemorate this legend. It will live on. May we well do that into the future. Lest we forget.</para>
<interjection>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">The DEPUTY SPEAKER</name>
    <name.id>125865</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.</para>
</interjection>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>CONDOLENCES</title>
        <page.no>131</page.no>
        <type>CONDOLENCES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Mabo, Dr Bonita, AO</title>
          <page.no>131</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:33</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms CLAYDON</name>
    <name.id>248181</name.id>
    <electorate>Newcastle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's a great honour to stand in this chamber today to speak about Dr Bonita Mabo. Just days ago Dr Mabo was awarded an honorary Doctor of Letters from James Cook University in Townsville for her lifelong contribution to social justice and human rights. If the photographs of that graduation are anything to go by, Dr Mabo totally owned that graduation day. Her grace and presence commanded respect. That is indicative of the extraordinary contribution that she has made to our nation. Only days after that terrific celebration honouring Dr Mabo, we are here in this House paying tribute to her and giving thanks for her life, as she, sadly, died aged 75, surrounded by her family, in Townsville the day before yesterday.</para>
<para>Dr Mabo was a proud Malanbarra woman and a descendant of the Vanuatuan workers who were brought to Queensland to work on the sugar plantations. Her history was steeped in some of that shocking history that is part of our national story, which we will need to face squarely, and that was the horrific chapter of blackbirding, where people were taken—and usually against their will—from the South Sea Island nations to come and work in the sugar industry in Queensland.</para>
<para>Dr Mabo also co-founded Australia's first Indigenous community school. Her passion for education knew no boundaries, so she helped found the Black Community School in Townsville, which had a terrific history over many decades. Sadly, it no longer exists, and that is due to lack of funds and a whole range of reasons. She worked tirelessly as a teacher's aid in that school and oversaw all of the day-to-day operations, including insistence that there would be cultural training for all the students in that school. She is very aptly described as the mother of native title, and she is one of the greatest matriarchs of all time. Dr Mabo's passing is an enormous loss for our nation.</para>
<para>June Oscar, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, in learning of Dr Mabo's death, recently said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Bonita Mabo was a woman of great strength. She was gentle, stoic and loving. I will always remember her as the mother of native title. Her legacy lives on in our continuing fight for land and sea rights.</para></quote>
<para>It is indeed this lifelong commitment to social justice that sets Dr Mabo's work and that of her entire family in a very special place in our national story. It was her lifelong partnership with her husband, Eddie Mabo, that helped to quite radically reshape Australia's political, legal and cultural landscapes. Their fight to secure native title rights—and the High Court put paid to that legal fiction of 'terra nullius'—paved the way for the Native Title Act of 1993. That has had profound implications for our nation.</para>
<para>I was a very young anthropologist at the time of the Mabo decision. I knew very much through the work of Henry Reynolds of Mr Mabo, deceased, who never gave up. It is extraordinary that, against so many obstacles and odds, there was this incredible resilience and persistence that drew strength from knowing that you were right, that you had a very proud and honoured place as a First Nations people and that nothing was going to get in the way of getting some recognition of those rights. I was working at the time up in the Fitzroy Valley in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. WA was the only state in Australia to never have any form of land rights legislation, so the Mabo decision was a huge deal. It meant a lot to people in Western Australia—certainly to the Bunuba people who I was working with at the time, but also lots of people across the Kimberley region.</para>
<para>We know much of that history now, but Dr Mabo's role in enabling and helping that fight to happen is probably the lesser-known story in our nation. In recent years, Dr Mabo has certainly been fighting for South Sea Islanders to also be recognised in Australia as their own distinct ethnic group. In many ways, this remains some unfinished business for us in Australia.</para>
<para>I was very fortunate to be part of a parliamentary inquiry, through the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, back in 2015, where we were trying to pick up on an earlier report to this parliament around a call for recognition. That call for recognition came out of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's 1992 report. We learnt in that inquiry that, despite some of the formal recognition that had been given post-1992, the disadvantages that South Sea Islander groups were experiencing here in Australia in many ways mirrored that of First Nations communities. Perhaps there was no stronger advocate than Dr Mabo for the recognition of those South Sea Islander peoples, that lived experience and the need to access some specific services. It has always been a real struggle navigating across multiple jurisdictions and departments within the government as to how we deliver services to Australian South Sea Islanders.</para>
<para>I note that the government, back in 2015, did commit to progressing this. I wait, with great enthusiasm, I guess, to see what the government might bring before the parliament as a response to the fact that they are going to use the Senior Officials Settlement Outcomes Group, SOSOG, to try to progress some of the issues that we raised. They've committed to providing an update by the Minister for Families and Social Services to this parliament every three years, commencing in the middle of next year. I can think of no better way for this parliament to honour the lifelong work of Dr Mabo than to progress those issues that remain unfinished business for us in this nation, in relation to Australian South Sea Islanders.</para>
<para>I've just come from an Oxfam-hosted event here in Australia called Straight Talk, where a group of 70 remarkable First Nations women have gathered to come and learn how to play a much more active role in political processes here in Australia and the decision-making processes. There were also women from Vanuatu present. I was thinking of Dr Mabo as I sat listening to so many of these extraordinary women this morning. I'm looking forward to the meetings again tomorrow. I know just how proud Dr Mabo would be to see women from Meriam Mir nations there today, here in the centre of decision-making in this nation, and to see that there was such a strong presence of First Nations women and also Australian South Sea Islanders. I give my heartfelt condolences to her 10 children and a huge thanks to the Mabo family for sharing your mother and father with our nation.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:43</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WYATT</name>
    <name.id>M3A</name.id>
    <electorate>Hasluck</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the condolence motion on the death of Dr Mabo. Alan Duff, a Maori author, wrote a set of words, in a publication that I read, that said, 'Every society has its heroes. Those heroes are people who influence others around them, some more so in remarkable ways than others.' I think of the period which both Eddie and Dr Mabo grew up in and the history of Queensland at the time. The challenges of being recognised within the historical context of this nation was equally challenging. That was because often matters to do with the history of Indigenous Australians and those who were brought from the Pacific Islands to work within Australia was overlooked, both conveniently and in the sense of not wanting to acknowledge that history showed that the whole concept of terra nullius was not as acceptable as it had been for decades.</para>
<para>When you take a fight on an issue, the person who stands beside you gives you the courage and the energised motive to continue. All of us at times fight on issues. Certainly, in my 66 years of growing up in our country, I have gone through stages where I've fought on many issues. But what was important was that Dr Bonita Mabo was there at Eddie Mabo's side. There were times that he felt that the fight was too great, but, as she said, 'We're in this together.'</para>
<para>Her own journey in the work that she did as an educator influenced many children. People underestimate the power and strength of the matriarchs within our communities. Their approach to life, looking at the cultural context and how that sits within a broader society in which you are immersed, remains the strength of the teaching and the work that is done to impart knowledge and ensure continuity of a culture that is rich. She came from the South Sea Islands. I knew many who contributed to education in Queensland, and I had the privilege of working with them. I also had the privilege of meeting Bonita. There are times in life when you meet someone and, whilst the conversation may only be minuscule, in the full spectrum of your life, it nevertheless leaves an indelible mark in your thinking about some of the issues you too have to consider and confront and the way in which you go about it.</para>
<para>When she was awarded an honorary doctorate of letters, it was recognition of a vision and a passion that were important. I certainly join myself with the comments of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, because they went to the crux of the unique strength that Bonita Mabo had. Her vision, as shared with me by her children at times I've had the opportunity of talking with them, was a tower of strength. Her achievements, from a very humble background, and her own culture were the essence of the strength which she used to influence and make progress in making sure that the strength of our communities prevailed.</para>
<para>We've got to think about Australia at the time that Bonita Mabo was a young woman. When she and Eddie married, in 1959, Queensland and Australia were very strong in their policies on Indigenous peoples, on societies that were from other areas. The journey of trying to have recognition for her people has always been a struggle, because governments have not fully comprehended the importance of why the essence of somebody's culture is their being and is the strength that makes them the unique individual that they are.</para>
<para>When the High Court decision was handed down, she made the comment that it was a pity that Eddie didn't see the outcome of the challenge that he took to the Australian government of the day. She went on to say that her pride in what her husband had achieved was a great moment. I remember reading in a media article that she was driving when she heard the news, and she got out of the car and celebrated. She celebrated the fact that all of their hard work together had realised a significant change. When you think about what it meant, it took away the myths of the past, as she equally did in fighting for her people to be recognised. I do hope, like the member for Newcastle, that this House recognises their contribution in this nation, because industries grew off the back of First Nations people and Bonita's people. But she was always unwavering in what she believed in. When you meet somebody who is strong, you then take that strength and apply it equally, because you see somebody who has a vision, who has thoughts about what the future should look like, not only for her family but for the children.</para>
<para>Teacher's aides—and I acknowledge all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education workers—are at the bottom of the order of structure within a school, yet their influence is immense in the way in which we have seen their influence shape the future of younger people. I see it in her children. When I heard of her passing, my thoughts and my heart went out to them, because I know how much of an influence she was on them and how much love they had for both their father and their mother. They knew that, as a family, they had changed the tide of the battles that we used to have on land rights, and the battles for recognition—that we didn't exist pre-Captain Cook.</para>
<para>That decision was monumental but it was equally supported by both. We are a sadder country for having lost both, because they are the iconic heroes whose selfless approach to making a better future resulted in one of the most significant changes that was monumental to this nation. When you lose somebody you lose a history book of knowledge—a book of love, a book of guidance—but you also lose a spiritual connection that, often, all of us have around us in the way in which we influence people.</para>
<para>In conclusion, I would like to say thank you, Eddie and Bonita, for what you've done. Thank you for the work that you did that influenced so many others. You've influenced all Australians in a way that neither of you would have imagined. To your children: remember those things that are important but remember you have two heroes who have left us.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>10:53</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms BUTLER</name>
    <name.id>248006</name.id>
    <electorate>Griffith</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to add my condolences to the family, friends and supporters of Dr Bonita Mabo AO—Norni to her family—someone who cast a very long shadow as an outstanding activist for land rights, for native title and for recognition for South Sea Islanders. Deputy Speaker McVeigh, as you know, Dr Mabo was born near Ingham in North Queensland, a Malanbarra woman and also a descendant of Vanuatuan workers, those workers who were previously known as Kanaks or Kanakas, who were forcibly required to come to North Queensland to work on the sugar plantations. One of the great shames of Australian history is what has happened to those workers who were brought to North Queensland to work on the sugar plantations. Of course, it is something that the nation even today hasn't fully come to terms with.</para>
<para>It is hard to really do justice to the influence that Bonita Mabo has had on our nation and on our identity—our thoughts about who we are as Australians. The Mabo decision in which she had supported her husband was so important to our nation. When we listened to what the High Court had to say about what sort of country we had been before what was then usually described as 'settlement', the fiction of terra nullius, the fiction that it had just been a vast, empty continent awaiting English settlers was overturned—and it was overturned in a public way and in a legal way—there was an admission, an Australian admission, that the land had been taken. And so, I think it was a challenge to everyone at the time to say, 'Let's think about who we really are as Australians and who we want to be in the future.'</para>
<para>That's another thing that we haven't really come to grips with as a nation. We will head into Australia Day in a couple of months and there'll be the usual arguments and counterarguments about the significance of the particular date. At its heart, that's an argument about who we are as a people and what we believe ourselves to be. And I think, I hope, most Australians want to see unity. They want to see a modern Australia, an Australia that acknowledges the past, that in the spirit of the rejection of the idea of terra nullius respects First Nations people and that also welcomes not just those of us whose family might have come six or seven generations ago but those whose family might have come one or two generations ago and those who are turning to Australia now.</para>
<para>Australia has grown up a lot since the work that Eddie and Bonita Mabo did, and there is a lot more growing up that we have to do together. But today is a day for condolence to her family. I think that condolence, necessarily, must include gratitude. It is the gratitude that the former speaker expressed to the Mabo family for the work that they did to stand up for land rights and to stand up for native title. It is gratitude to them for being activists at a time when it was not easy to be an activist, and it was particularly not easy to be an activist from an Aboriginal background or from a South Sea Islander background, and I suspect it was particularly not easy to be a female activist from that background.</para>
<para>Bonita Mabo did some incredible things in her life, growing up in Far North Queensland, having 10 children and then deciding that, because of the state of education for Aboriginal kids, the only thing she could really do was to establish an Aboriginal school herself. It is such a brave thing to do to actually establish Australia's first Aboriginal community school, because she could see a better future for her kids and for their kids. Of course, her husband was involved in that, just as she was involved in her husband's land rights work. What a partnership! Then later in life, after being widowed, after the loss of Eddie Koiki Mabo, she took on as her cause the recognition of South Sea Islanders as a distinct ethnic group, as a group of people deserving recognition, deserving respect and deserving support. It is quite breathtaking the work that she did.</para>
<para>I think we are lucky—all of us—to have had such a hero growing up in our midst and taking on the issues that made a practical difference to the lives of people that she knew and people that she would never know. She has left an amazing legacy in relation to the advocacy that she undertook. She was recognised for that legacy in 2013, when she was named as an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the Indigenous community and to human rights as an advocate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and South Sea Islander peoples.</para>
<para>As you also know, days before she died, James Cook University conferred an Honorary Doctorate of Letters upon her for her contribution to social justice and human rights. I went to James Cook University. I was a student there in the nineties. As a young student, there was respect for the Mabo family. The entire university was very respectful—reverent—towards the Mabo family for the work that they had been doing and for the work that had changed the country. I was very pleased that they named the library after Eddie Koiki Mabo and am equally pleased that they conferred a doctorate of letters on Dr Mabo during her lifetime. I congratulate the university on the work that they've done to recognise the contribution that the Mabo family has made to this nation.</para>
<para>I also wanted to express, as I said, my condolences to the entire family but I particularly wanted to give my condolences to Neta-Rie Mabo, who I know. She works in my electorate at Sisters Inside, a really wonderful organisation. I know that she'll be particularly feeling the loss of Bonita at the moment. I wanted to say to Neta-Rie, to all her friends at Sisters Inside and to her own beautiful little bubba, who I got to see at NAIDOC Week: the parliament of Australia is grieving with you, and all of us offer our sincere condolences to you for your loss. In conclusion, I wanted to say thank you to Dr Mabo. May she rest in peace.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:01</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in this place today with a deep sadness in my heart as I take this opportunity to speak about an incredibly remarkable woman. I pay my respects to the Manbarra people of Palm Island, because Dr Mabo AO was a Manbarra woman, a traditional owner, from Palm Island. Dr Mabo was also a South Sea Islander and a reconciliation activist. She was the widow of Torres Strait Islander land claimant Eddie Koiki Mabo. Dr Mabo was born in Halifax, Queensland, which is roughly just over an hour's drive from my electorate of Herbert. She was the descendant of Vanuatuan workers, formerly known as Kanakas, who were taken—or, more accurately, blackbirded—from their home to Queensland, some 2,000 kilometres west of their homeland, to work in absolutely substandard conditions on sugar plantations between 1816 and 1904. This practice, as I said, is known as blackbirding. These workers were in fact treated like slaves, and the cane industry in the north flourished on their blood, sweat and tears.</para>
<para>Dr Mabo married Eddie Koiki in Ingham in 1959, and they were to become the parents of 10 children. In 1972, disenchanted with the education that her children were receiving, Dr Mabo set up Australia's first Aboriginal community school. Eddie Koiki Mabo was also involved, but he soon came to focus on his own campaign. Dr Mabo supported him through his historic land claim, which was fought out at their home in Garbutt in Townsville. Dr Mabo said: 'I was his wife, but that's as far as it went. I've got nothing to do with the land.' Following his death, she increasingly sought recognition for her own ancestors. She was an advocate for reconciliation for all Australians, especially between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and South Sea Islander people, speaking frequently of the need to work together as one to fight for our rights.</para>
<para>Dr Mabo and the rest of her family longed to see 3 June, the anniversary of the successful Mabo decision, declared a national holiday, with the focus of the day on reconciliation for all Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians. On 17 November 2018, James Cook University conferred upon Mrs Mabo an honorary doctorate of letters in recognition of her outstanding contribution to social justice and human rights at a private ceremony that was held in Brisbane. This was just days before her passing.</para>
<para>On 31 May 2018, a star was named in her honour at the Sydney Observatory during the visit of the New South Wales judicial commission's Ngara Yura Program to the observatory. Her daughter, Gail Mabo, was present because Dr Mabo was very unwell. Another star, Koiki, had been named in memory of Eddie Koiki Mabo in 2015 on the 23rd anniversary of the Mabo decision, a very fitting tribute to two amazingly strong and resilient First Nations activists. Dr Mabo was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia on Australia Day 2013. She was an incredibly strong, resilient and dignified woman, who quietly conquered much adversity. Dr Mabo never showed fear. She was a woman who will be forever known as one of the greatest First Nation leaders of our time. Today I stand in this place to honour the memory of Dr Mabo and pay my respects to her 10 children and extended family. The people of Townsville have a very close connection with the Mabo family and we hold them with the greatest respect and honour. In my community Dr Mabo is known for her contribution to social justice and human rights and her activism on First Nations matters, and she also had the title of 'mother of land rights'. Dr Mabo was about 16 when she first met Eddie Koiki Mabo. Eddie said it was love at first sight. In 1959 the two married and they had 10 children.</para>
<para>Their strong commitment and belief in the power of education for their children and all First Nations children is well known. As I have already mentioned, they founded Australia's first Indigenous community school in Townsville. The school started with 10 students in an old Catholic school building in the heart of the city. There were only two teachers who assisted the children to connect to their cultural background, and Dr Mabo was a teacher aide at the school. It commenced with financial support from parents and some local trade unions. Eddie Koiki Mabo relied on his contacts at the Townsville Trades and Labour Council. The school also received initial support from the Australian Union of Students, the Australian Council of Churches and the Aboriginal Arts Board. It eventually received limited support from the Australian Schools Commission, a program of the Whitlam and Fraser governments, and the Queensland state education system. In 1976 the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs took responsibility for the overall funding; however, underfunding was always going to have an impact on the school's viability. At its peak in the late 1970s, 45 students were enrolled at the school. The Indigenous community school was able to sustain itself for 12 years and for its duration was a vital centre for the Torres Strait Islander community in Townsville. The school sadly closed in 1985 due to lack of funding and the inability to secure a lease on a permanent site.</para>
<para>Dr Mabo campaigned alongside her husband, Eddie Koiki Mabo, in the pursuit of land rights for Aboriginal people, as I have said. This land rights campaign started at JCU in my electorate as a result of a conversation between Eddie Koiki Mabo and two of the professors at JCU when they casually mentioned to Koiki in a conversation in the garden where he worked that the land that he thought was his was in fact not his land. Dr Mabo at that time worked at a prawn factory to support her family and her husband to earn the income to provide a home, feed, clothe and educate their 10 children. From there the campaign began at their home in Garbutt. Dr Mabo was there all through the journey, looking after the family and supporting her husband. I grew up not far from the Mabo home in Garbutt, a very working class suburb. I remember the buzz in the community, but I also remember that life was very tough in those days for our First Nations people. It must be remembered at this time that Townsville was one of only two cities in Queensland, and the country, that voted no in the 1967 referendum.</para>
<para>Tragically the historic High Court decision was announced just five months after Koiki Mabo's passing. This was a both joyous and incredibly sad day for his family. The historic Mabo decision led to the creation of the Native Title Act in 1993. Even though Dr Mabo had lost her dearly-loved husband she continued her activism. She was a genuinely gentle woman of incredible conviction and amazing strength. She was gentle, stoic and loving. Her legacy will live on not only in my community of Townsville but also across this great nation. I say thank you to Dr Mabo for your inspiration, your passion, your resilience, your strength and your endless dedication to the rights of First Nations peoples. You will be forever missed but never forgotten. Vale Dr Mabo.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.1></debate>
    <debate><debateinfo>
        <title>COMMITTEES</title>
        <page.no>135</page.no>
        <type>COMMITTEES</type>
      </debateinfo><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee</title>
          <page.no>135</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>135</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:10</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms O'TOOLE</name>
    <name.id>249908</name.id>
    <electorate>Herbert</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Ten years ago, on 13 February our then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a national apology to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in this nation. His recognition in particular focused on those who suffered as part of the stolen generations. The journey to the national apology began with the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home </inline>report in 1997. Recommendation 5a was:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all Australian Parliaments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">1. officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal …</para></quote>
<para>This particular recommendation is very relevant to the issue that we are discussing in this chamber today—that is, the government's proposal to open up adoptions for Indigenous children who are in out-of-home care. Ultimately, the government is proposing to see a return to Australia's reprehensible legacy of permanently removing First Nations children from their families. We know that this policy has a profoundly disproportionate impact on First Nations children, yet those opposite seem to choose to ignore that fact.</para>
<para>In March this year, the then Assistant Minister for Children and Families, the Hon. David Gillespie, spontaneously made a public call to open up adoptions for First Nations children living in out-of-home care, without appropriate consultation from those who would be affected—that is, of course, primarily families. I was certainly not at all surprised that his proposal was quickly condemned by experts and First Nations representatives. The Aboriginal Child and Community Care Chief Executive labelled the public call as incredibly offensive.</para>
<para>Not only did the then minister choose to make a spontaneous call without input from those in the sector but he also chose to ignore these very people when he decided to stick to his guns and refer the matter to a parliamentary committee. It is absolutely clear that the minister and his government were not interested in taking this matter seriously or even entertaining the idea of proper consultation, as they rejected attempts from Labor to work through a bipartisan position for a consensus report. Instead, the minister identified only two terms of reference for the framework. Only two terms of reference for a framework that would have a dire impact on this country and its people! Only two term terms of reference for a proposal that would effectively see forced removals of children from their homes! Only two terms of reference for a proposal that would essentially disconnect our First Nations children from their cultural heritage and connections! To add insult to injury, the terms of reference called for consideration of:</para>
<quote><para class="block">1. stability and permanency for children in out-of-home care with local adoption as a viable option.</para></quote>
<para>If the member for Lyne and former minister were serious about the stability of a child's life, he would never have made his spontaneous call in the first place. I agree with the report where it states:</para>
<quote><para class="block">All Australian children deserve to feel safe and loved and to have a strong sense of identity and belonging.</para></quote>
<para>However, I cannot agree that permanently separating a child from its family will deliver this outcome—particularly for our First Nations youth, whose sense of identity strongly relates to their cultural ties. I am also deeply concerned that not all organisational representatives and First Nations organisations had their voices heard on this critically important matter, particularly if their view was not in favour of the minister's assertions. The government's report not only ignores the weight of evidence from submitters but disregards human rights conventions and the recommendation of countless inquiries that show connection to kin, culture and country as being critical to the safety and wellbeing of First Nations children. Surely we need to be addressing the causes of out-of-home care as a priority. Right now we are spending more on out-of-home care than we are on early intervention and prevention measures. This disproportion of funding is clearly not delivering good outcomes for children.</para>
<para>The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged Australia to collect information on the reasons children are placed in out-of-home care, in order to work towards reducing the number of children being placed in out-of-home care. At present, there is no national approach to research on outcomes for Australian children in out-of-home care, including placement types, such as kinship care, guardianship and other permanency orders. If we are serious about protecting and delivering safe environments for our children, we need to be discussing early intervention and prevention actions.</para>
<para>The proposed plan in the government members' report rests solely on diverting children from out-of-home care into open adoption, which purports to be about providing an open exchange of information and contact between children and their birth parents and families. However, in reading the joint standing committee's report, many witnesses told the committee that their lived experience of so-called open adoption is very different. I have deep concerns that, by transferring children who are living in the out-of-home care system, the government is effectively turning its back on our most vulnerable youth. Severing children's links to families, culture and background—particularly our First Nations children—will only cause further harm. I strongly urge the government to reconsider its position.</para>
<para>I urge the government to listen to the organisations and the individuals who are pleading with you to not return our nation to the appalling policies of the past. You must reflect on the recommendations of 2018 and allow the parliament of today to uphold our responsibility to their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal. I call on the government to return to the drawing board and look at intervention and preventive measures, rather than policies that will simply separate families and cultural identities and, indeed, cause more detriment to our children's futures. Surely it is more humane and important to invest in keeping families together and functional, rather than creating another stolen generation, with all of the hurt, trauma and social and emotional disconnection that our First Nations children in particular have experienced as a result of the past.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:17</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ENTSCH</name>
    <name.id>7K6</name.id>
    <electorate>Leichhardt</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise in support of the <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers</inline> report that was tabled here earlier this week. It certainly wasn't lost on me that November is National Adoption Awareness Month. Currently there are more than 47,000 children living in out-of-home care in Australia. Unfortunately, almost 70 per cent of those children have been in out-of-home care for two years or more. Of those numbers, there are close to 20,000 kids who are Indigenous children living in out-of-home care. Unfortunately, there have only been something like 250 children adopted in the last year, and this is a staggering number.</para>
<para>While there are those who are out there opposing permanent adoption—and I respect their views on that—and calling on government, as the previous speaker did, to look at causes rather than focusing on permanent adoption, let me say to you that the time frame for a child's life is very, very short. If the majority or all of that time is spent effectively institutionalised or in out-of-home care without permanency, it has a very serious and negative impact on the child.</para>
<para>We should be looking at the causes of this, but the numbers continue to grow. In doing so, we should not, at the same time, ignore the fact that these numbers are growing. These 47,000 children who I'm talking about at the moment are also desperately looking for permanency. Sadly, Australia has one of the lowest adoption rates in the world, mainly due to very inconsistent, complex and cumbersome laws in our states and territories. One of the biggest challenges that children in out-of-home care face is, as I said earlier, that lack of permanency. They are likely to bounce around the system from carer to carer. We, as legislators, have an obligation to provide these kids with a better solution.</para>
<para>We also must learn from the sins of the past to ensure that they are not repeated in the future. Again, I heard reference to the stolen generation in the past. Of course, we are considering here the adoption of kids who come from very troubled backgrounds. For one reason or another the birth parents do not have the capacity to be able to care for these kids. These kids have gone through a process through the relevant departments and have been identified as being at risk. Surely to goodness, providing a permanent home for these children is a benefit for those children. That is something we need to focus on.</para>
<para>One thing that was extremely evident during the committee process was that Australian adoption laws are extremely complex. This report has made seven recommendations—all of which I support entirely—and provides a comprehensive blueprint to make adoption a more viable option for our children. The case and evidence for a national framework on open adoptions could not be more compelling. Let me be very clear: open adoptions are entirely different from the previous closed adoption concept. This is something that the detractors of this report have attempted to blur. In open adoptions children remain connected to their birth family, their culture and their identity—something I believe is extremely important. However, I found throughout this process that a small number of organisations were quick off the mark to dismiss this process but actually offered no real solutions.</para>
<para>My electorate of Leichhardt is extremely vast and is home to many different people and cultures. Recently the Queensland government announced new laws that will recognise traditional child-rearing practices across the Torres Strait. This is a historic step, not only for the Torres Strait and Queensland but for Australia. This is what they call island adoption, where children go from one family to another and are traditionally adopted into that family. While I disagree with many things that have been dished up by the Queensland government, you have to give credit where credit is due, especially in this instance where the interests of the children were put ahead of politicking. This is now recognised. It's very much in the interests of these children.</para>
<para>This brings me to recommendations 1 and 2 of the report, which I would like to focus on. I mentioned earlier that my electorate of Leichardt is home to many cultures and many Indigenous communities. Recommendation 2 states that:</para>
<list>family preservation and cultural considerations are important, but not more important than the safety and wellbeing of the child …</list>
<para>I would like to expand on this further and speak about adoptions in our Indigenous communities. We have a lot of issues up there. Look at this recommendation here. We have had some appalling tragedies where children had to be taken away from communities. These children in many cases went into care where there was no kinship. Wherever possible, of course you put the children where kinship is available, but in many cases kinship was not available for these children. There was no other family there that was able to take these children, so these children ended up in the system and in foster care.</para>
<para>I know that a lot of people argue that Indigenous children should be adopted only by an Indigenous family through the kinship arrangement. That is culturally appropriate. I've raised that concern. My colleague here was on this committee and has a very different view to me on this. I was at an event on Monday and I saw a number of children who had been adopted from Africa. I've seen quite a number of families bringing them in from India, Bangladesh and a number of other places. These children actually thrive when they come here and have a loving family that is totally supportive of these children. When you talk to the families of these children, they don't try and deny their culture. They in fact support it and do everything they can to maintain the children's connection with their culture. And what they provide that the children are not able to get in a foster care arrangement or an institutionalised arrangement, where they are moving from one to the other, is permanency. So these kids are thriving.</para>
<para>I have asked the question on a number of occasions: why is it culturally appropriate for children who come from all these different cultures around the world to be accepted into families in Australia and it is not acceptable for Indigenous children to have the same opportunity? I am aware of a number of families in my electorate that have been the foster carers and, on rare occasions, adopters of young Indigenous children. Those children have gone on to absolutely thrive—very much part of the family. But the families go to great lengths to ensure that the kids maintain that connection with their culture.</para>
<para>If there are family members there who are able to look after children and provide them with a safe environment, then by all means they need to be given priority in relation to the opportunity to take those children on a permanent basis. However, if family members are not available, and those kids are still going to remain at risk, I think that an adoptive family of another culture is far better than the long-term institutionalisation of those children or sending them from foster carer to foster carer. I've seen many examples of foster parents who really have very little control over the decisions that are being made for children. I think it's a tragedy that this happens. It's not in the best interests of the children.</para>
<para>I support the report absolutely. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank my fellow committee members—in particular, the member for Chisholm, Julia Banks, and my colleague across the chamber here, the member for Macarthur—and staff. I certainly commend the report. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:27</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
    <electorate>Macarthur</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise today to speak on the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children</inline>. In doing so, I seek to associate myself with the remarks made yesterday by my friend and colleague the member for Newcastle, and I will speak to Labor's dissenting report. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee secretariat throughout this process and thank the staff for their very valued contributions, hard work and organisational ability. I commend all the members of the committee, including the government members, because I know that the views that they formed were heartfelt and genuine and this is an area in which there are very complex social, legal and family issues involved.</para>
<para>The report is the culmination of a number of public hearings, private meetings, many submissions and many visits with different organisations. The inquiry was intended to enable the committee to report on approaches to a nationally consistent framework for local adoption across Australia. I wish to make it clear that I, along with my Labor colleagues in the committee, cannot support the government's report. Labor is of the view that the report and its recommendations pose the risk of children, particularly First Nations children, being permanently removed from their families. We are very concerned about this possible outcome.</para>
<para>The government's report, I think, fails to really understand the nature of child protection in this country. I had a long involvement with child protection in my career as a paediatrician and it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the great teaching and knowledge I had from two doctors at the children's hospital many years ago, Dr Ferry Grunseit and Dr Suzette Booth, who taught me the basic issues and the main issues about child protection, at the children's hospital, then at Camperdown and now at Westmead. They impressed on me the importance of developing policies that are right for families in this area, and the dangers of views that have not been well thought out and are not based on the evidence.</para>
<para>In my career as a paediatrician I have seen a number of child protection failures, some of which involve patients of mine, and I take some responsibility for that. I have seen children die from injuries and I have seen children starved to death by their parents. I have also seen families destroyed by children being removed and from a lack of support. It is important to understand that child protection is essentially an issue of risk management. There is no right or wrong answer. Multigenerational poverty often culminates in child protection issues. Many of the families I've seen involved with child protection services have very entrenched family histories of involvement with so-called welfare agencies. I've seen children removed from their families who I think shouldn't have been removed. I've seen some children kept with their families who I thought would have been better removed. I've seen some children who have had ongoing trauma because of multiple child foster-care placements. I've seen a lack of transparency in many of the child protection issues that I've been involved with and I've seen an abrogation of governmental responsibility developing in this area with the hiving-off of child protection issues and management to non-government organisations, often those with very poor governance. So, this is a major issue.</para>
<para>I know that there are some very entrenched views about this. In my office I have a transcript of the Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples. I'm very concerned about the possibility of having another stolen generation that we'll have to deal with. I looked over the apology before writing this speech and one line in particular stands out to me today:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia's history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.</para></quote>
<para>Whilst I acknowledge that, in the child protection sphere, there may be some children who are adopted and ultimately have good results, I'm very concerned about any move to expedite adoption and to remove some of the protections for families involved in this field. Child protection is a long-term issue. When children are referred to welfare agencies, it should be seen as a referral of the whole family. We know that any intervention is unlikely to improve the situation in the short term. So, it's an issue in which there must be long-term intervention, particularly intervention early in the process. Because we know it is a multigenerational issue, any intervention that's done needs to look at the whole family and needs to progress with support over a long period of time.</para>
<para>As stated in our dissenting report, we on the committee who are members of the opposition had serious concerns from the outset that it was becoming a tool to legitimise the agenda and the ideologies that had been suggested by the government originally. Community representatives and experts alike were quick to condemn the ad hoc proposal. A government that doesn't concern itself with the concerns of all its people is very likely to introduce policies that fail and that will have long-term consequences.</para>
<para>Our fear that this inquiry would be used as a political tool to legitimise early adoption was proven correct the moment the terms of reference were locked in. The very first term of reference states the committee should specifically consider:</para>
<para>1. stability and permanency for children in out-of-home care with local adoption as a viable option;</para>
<para>The government, through its report, would subsequently make recommendations that would open up adoption to children in out-of-home care, with very short periods of waiting time. I cannot stress enough the significance of this. We are dealing with families that have complex medical, social and other problems, including mental illness, drug and alcohol difficulties and also multigenerational poverty—</para>
<para class="italic"> <inline font-style="italic">A division having been called in the House of Representatives—</inline></para>
<para>Proceedings suspended from 11:35 to 11:54</para>
<continue>
  <talker>
    <name role="metadata">Dr FREELANDER</name>
    <name.id>265979</name.id>
  </talker>
  <para>The report as tabled disregards the evidence of other inquiries which have demonstrated that connection to culture, kin and country is critical to the safety and wellbeing of First Nations children. We know this to be an undeniable fact and of the utmost importance. It is a crying shame that those opposite can come to this place and make determinations which place such vital connections at risk. Through its inquiry the committee uncovered evidence which demonstrated faults in the practice of open adoption. The government members of this committee are recommending that children in out-of-home care be diverted into open adoption arrangements, which in theory would aim to allow open lines of communication and information exchange between the child and their birth parents and families. In practice this is very unlikely to happen, as many of those involved in the adoptions that have already occurred are opposed.</para>
<para>My fear is that what will happen is that families will themselves not want to contact welfare organisations and family and community services, because of the fear of their children being removed. I believe this government report will put more families at risk and that it has the potential to actually harm the care of children in out-of-home care because of their family's unwillingness to seek support from family and community services and like organisations. The report fails to understand the multigenerational aspects of child protection. It fails to understand the complex nature of child protection issues, which are not binary. They're complex and often need to be reviewed.</para>
<para>In summary, the government's report creates huge risks not just for Indigenous children but for all children who are involved in out-of-home-care situations and child protection. I think there needs to be far more investment in early intervention services and in family services that will provide support and protection for children, while, at the same time, trying to break the multigenerational nature of child protection.</para>
</continue>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>11:56</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr GILLESPIE</name>
    <name.id>72184</name.id>
    <electorate>Lyne</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak in support of this very extensive <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers: A national adoption framework for Australian children</inline> report. The issue of adoption is very emotional, and I would just like to make some comments to try to take the emotion out of the argument. There has never been an issue that has catalysed so much of the Australian psyche into action than the stolen generation issue. It was a result of bad policy in a different time and place that no-one would wish to happen again, but that is part of the problem when we start discussing improving the adoption system.</para>
<para>A very worrying phenomenon is that increasing numbers of children are going into child protection and out-of-home care. The numbers are steadily increasing. At the last audit there was a 13 per cent increase; 47,900 children were in out-of-home care and a proportion of those children, about 32,000, were there for at least two years. It is not a tenable situation that should continue in this country. Part of what this report highlights is that in an open adoption system, where the identity of the birth parents is maintained, there is no change in the birth certificate but you have a dual listing of birth parents and adoptive parents, the links to their culture or former family are kept and the responsibility and the permanency is addressed, with adoption in some cases being a viable solution to correct the recently observed intergenerational repetition of poor parenting that leads to child protection issues.</para>
<para>Further to those figures there was an analysis of the number of children in care in Victoria and in Western Australia back in 2011, and 40 per cent of those children had between two and five placements in out-of-home care; 14 per cent had between six and 10 placements; and 32 per cent had 11 placements. This revolving door of different placements is really damaging to young minds, emotions and psyches. Permanency is something needs to be our main focus.</para>
<para>I wish to make a few comments about this report and the broader issue of adoption. As has been outlined in this report, in the hierarchy of decision-making around the country, the best interests of that individual child should be paramount. Depending on which state or territory the child is in, there are different child protection and adoption laws, policies and procedures. The aspiration of this report to have a national law will simplify things in a legal sense, but I think the states, who run the child protection and adoption systems, are the appropriate legislative bodies to be deciding how they run it in their state. I think there should be a principle running through all this legislation, which is there but seems to get lost in the application of the laws, that what is best for that child has to be the focus of the decision-making. What we want to do is improve the situation so that, in the right circumstances, adoption is a viable and safe option for any one individual child.</para>
<para>As I mentioned at the outset, there is still a stigma associated with the word 'adoption' because of the stolen generations, the forgotten generation and all those children that were taken from the UK and brought out to Australia. It was in a different time and place. It was cloaked in secrecy. You lost your identity. Even the name on your birth certificate was changed so that your adoptive parents were your parents. The parents didn't know what happened to the child and the child didn't know what happened to their parents and family. No-one is advocating for that, but, as I said, because there is so much stigma associated with past adoption practices, anyone who advocates for a change in mindset and application of that one principle—that it has to be best for that individual child—is often met with resistance.</para>
<para>As I mentioned, the concept of open adoption is quite a different institution to what a lot of people assumed that people who presented to the committee inquiry would be advocating for. Birth certificates don't have to abolish the names of the birth parent. You can have co-listing of birth and adoptive parents if they are adopted. There can be prescribed levels of contact with the former family. Some of the current guardianship or parental custody orders, depending on which state you're in, allow contact with the former parents. No-one wants to change the system to make it any worse for the child, but there are some instances where the parents were violent, abusive or still have problems with drugs and alcohol. A slavish commitment to reunification and restoration is admirable, but you have to draw the line somewhere.</para>
<para>In my time at the ministry with responsibility at the federal level for children and families I heard many applications and horror stories where children were in this merry-go-round: they ended up with foster carers who wanted to adopt them, yet the barriers to adopt from fostering were insurmountable. There were other entreaties by people who had cared for children as foster carers and were willing and able to adopt a child but, because of this institutional, regulatory and legislative resistance to considering adoption, gave up all hope. Then, because of policies that aim for reunification or restoration, people who'd formed a bond with their foster child had the child, who'd formed a bond with them and in some instances were the only parents they knew, taken away from them, which retraumatised the child all over again. That's why I call now for people around the nation, depending on what state or territory they're in, to use the existing laws that do allow for adoption to be freed up so that, in the case where it isn't possible or safe for the child to be reunified or restored to their birth parents, adoption in an open fashion is considered and possible without waiting 10 or 12 years to achieve it.</para>
<para>Depending on what state you're in, there are either permanent care orders or parenting arrangements, which is de facto adoption. In Victoria, I think they had roughly between 3,000 and 4,000 children who were under permanent care orders. Depending on what state you're in, those care orders can be challenged. I also got representations from children who said that they wanted to know that, legally, they can't be given back. They're left with the uncertainty, let alone the people who were the permanent guardians rather than adoptive parents.</para>
<para>The issue is that adoption is not a bad thing, because, for some children in some families, it is the best option. It does give permanent relationships; it gives security. It means children aren't going through the revolving door of going from one foster family to the other to the other to the other. There are placement principles for Indigenous children which are embedded in lots of the legislation, but the overriding concern is it shouldn't exclude what is best for the child. Sure, everyone wants to be put with their kith or kin, and that is quite sensible, but in some situations in Australia it's actually not possible, particularly in very regional or remote small communities where there's a high level of dysfunction in the whole community, in which case placing them there is not the best for the child. <inline font-style="italic">(Time expired)</inline></para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:07</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Ms HUSAR</name>
    <name.id>263328</name.id>
    <electorate>Lindsay</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>It's always interesting to follow the minister who was responsible for this area when he talks about and acknowledges the problems in regional and remote parts of this country. I acknowledge his presence here now and also challenge the member for Lyne particularly on what he's actually doing, given his knowledge of how tricky the situation is in those remote and regional areas, in terms of funding and supporting those families that are subject to having their children removed.</para>
<para>I'd like to thank the member for Macarthur, who spoke before the member for Lyne, and the member for Newcastle, who I had the pleasure—if I can call it that—of sitting on this committee with, and the secretary and all of those who supported the work that we did. More than that, I'd also like to thank those people who gave evidence to our committee. These things and these issues are never easily spoken of. Such knowledge and expertise from those witnesses who were allowed to attend was beneficial to our committee.</para>
<para>I rise now to speak against this report, <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers: </inline><inline font-style="italic">a</inline><inline font-style="italic"> national adoption framework for Australian children</inline>, which is the national adoption framework for Australian children. Like my colleagues, I'm horrified by the recommendations by this government to return to the blight on our nation: the years of the stolen generation. Between 1910 and 1970, many Indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families as a result of various government policies and practices. The generations of children removed under these policies became known as the stolen generation. These policies of child removal left a legacy of trauma and loss that continues to this day to affect Indigenous communities, their families and individuals. What this government is proposing harks back to that time.</para>
<para>Earlier this year, in this very place, we commemorated the official acknowledgement. It'd been 10 years since the then Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said sorry on behalf of all Australians past and present. The journey to a national apology began with the 1997 <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report, with recommendation 5a of the report stating:</para>
<quote><para class="block">That all Australian Parliaments</para></quote>
<quote><para class="block">… officially acknowledge the responsibility of their predecessors for the laws, policies and practices of forcible removal …</para></quote>
<para>On 13 February 2008, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made a formal apology on behalf of the Australian parliament to the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This apology was particularly poignant to the stolen generations. Is this government's memory so short that they cannot recall this important moment in time? Have they forgotten the stories that were shared? Just one month after we hosted the sorry anniversary event, then Assistant Minister for Children and Families, the member for Lyne, David Gillespie, suggested that adoptions for more Indigenous children should be an option. I don't know about you, but this makes me incredibly angry. It makes me sick and hammers home the clear fact that this government does not learn from past mistakes.</para>
<para>The deplorable call of the recommendations in <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers </inline>report is to encourage open adoption for children in out-of-home care. This is a policy that will have a mammoth impact on First Nations communities, given that their children are 10 times more likely to be in out-of-home care. Indigenous children, throughout Australia, remain very significantly overrepresented in care and in contact with welfare authorities. Their overrepresentation increases as the intervention becomes more coercive, with the greatest overrepresentation being in out-of-home care.</para>
<para>This cannot go on, and it cannot be left as if there is not a direct correlation between the past malpractices and mistreatment of First Nations people and what is happening in current, modern-day Australia. Indigenous children are particularly overrepresented in long-term foster care arrangements, and a high percentage of Indigenous children in long-term foster care live with non-Indigenous carers. Indigenous children are more likely than non-Indigenous children to be removed on the ground of neglect, as opposed to abuse. This policy and this government are leading our national down a horrible, horrible path. They are suggesting that we recreate one of the worst parts of our national story. They are asking us to agree, as a nation, to have another stolen generation. There has been absolutely no regard for the evidence-based child placement principles. The government are instead opting for the harsh, interventionist policies proposed by this government in the <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers</inline> report.</para>
<para>I will not stand by and let this disregard, disrespect and disgusting determination of our First Nations children and their future continue to be proposed by this government. They are proposing open adoption as their policy. They are also suggesting that we jump over the guardianship process and go straight into an open adoption. Open adoption is only slightly less cruel than forced adoption. The child is supposed to be raised with an understanding of their past and a connection to their biological family. Research, though, has shown that, despite the best of intentions, open adoption does not work how it is planned. I have struggled to find a person on either side of the open adoption process who can actually confirm to me that it works.</para>
<para>So what would it look like? The adoptive parents and birth parents would have agreed that they will stay in touch, share the milestones of their child's life and provide access to the child so that a deep connection to self can occur. The part where it falls apart is in keeping the promise. Author Amy Seek published a book called<inline font-style="italic"> God and </inline><inline font-style="italic">Jetfire </inline>to tell stories of birth families. Majorly, the open adoptions have failed many of the birth mothers she has spoken with over the years. She writes:</para>
<quote><para class="block">The adoptive parents may have pulled out, reneged on stated or implied promises, often claiming that, as the child grew old enough to grasp the deep ambiguity of the arrangement, ongoing contact became confusing. Sometimes birthparents draw back. Sometimes adoptive parents appear to get jealous. In most states, the law offers no protection for what is usually a non-binding, voluntary agreement.</para></quote>
<para>I'm disgusted, but I'm unsurprised that the centre of this government's national child protection system would be open adoption. It is the heartless recommendation that they attempt to package as an empathetic solution to a very complex issue.</para>
<para>Leading practitioners, organisations and NGOs have come out against the <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers</inline> report. It is our responsibility—ours alone, as representatives of this nation and, importantly, at this very moment, as representatives of the First Nations people—to stand up against this revolving suggestion of a social policy. We know from history and from expert advice that this does not work. Indigenous people need to look after their own children. They need to sustain their culture, the oldest living, continuing culture in the world. This government is proposing yet another so-called social policy that would put a nail in that coffin.</para>
<para>We hear the word 'self-determination' as a core value of social policy and the agencies involved. Please allow me to read from a 20-year-old report, the same report that helped lead to the national apology taking place, the <inline font-style="italic">Bringing them home</inline> report. I had to point out to two of my colleagues on this inquiry that it actually even existed. The report said:</para>
<quote><para class="block">In spite of this, Indigenous children continue to be removed from their families at a disproportionate rate and continue to be placed into non-Indigenous environments including group homes and foster families.</para></quote>
<para>I have spoken about the impact on our First Nations people and on their parents, but what about the most important people in this complex situation—the children? The child is at risk of many negative impacts, including reduced ability to assimilate into family, a sense of rejection, poor peer communications, power struggles and identity confusion. This does not sound like we are acting in our children's best interests.</para>
<para>I am for child protection, I am for doing what is in the best interests of the children and I am always willing and able to stand up and fight for those people without a voice. This, however, does not go anywhere near what needs to happen. The United Nations Children's Fund also gives us some guiding principles around the rights of a child in its <inline font-style="italic">Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child</inline>, which states that:</para>
<quote><para class="block">Forced integration is a breach of—</para></quote>
<para>the child's—</para>
<quote><para class="block">rights and the Committee has recommended that States with significant indigenous populations adopt enforceable legislation to protect their rights.</para></quote>
<para>The recommendations contained in this report do the exact opposite. The solution is something that this government is continuing to skirt. The solution is to invest in addressing the issues of family breakdowns and to support our Indigenous families to raise their children in safe, appropriate manners. We must consult with our First Nations communities, though, and this was something that the committee was absolutely starved of. Many witnesses who wanted to appear were not able to, and there were a number of people who would have come along to give evidence to our committee, had they been allowed. We need genuine partnership with our First Nations, our First Nations communities and our First Nations leaders, not interventionist strategies version 2.0, or wherever we're up to—because I am sick of counting. There is a reason why we need to continue to close the gap.</para>
<para>This is not going to be helpful. We must comply with the principles for stability and permanency planning and we must only suggest permanent care once the family has been provided with culturally appropriate and intensive family support services, which is what is missing. I implore the minister to take up my first suggestion, which is to actually fund these communities, not continue to defund them. The guiding principles that we on this side have prepared should underpin any national adoption framework. No child should be left without a real connection to their birth family, now or into the future. I urge this government to stop, to collaborate with us on this, and to actually listen to our First Nations people on the best way forward and on their self-determination.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:16</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Dr PHELPS</name>
    <name.id>008Z0</name.id>
    <electorate>Wentworth</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>The Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs report <inline font-style="italic">Breaking barriers: a national adoption framework for Australian children</inline> provides valuable insights into and recommendations to improve Australia's adoption framework. At present there are nearly 48,000 children in out-of-home care in Australia, and that's an 18 per cent increase since 2013. While some of these children are living with relatives or kin, many are living in the insecurity of foster care. The report's findings highlight how the sense of permanency provided by adoption can transform this situation. Adoption can provide stability, family and legal certainty, and adoption can prevent children drifting in foster care. Children become a permanent part of their adoptive family, giving them a crucial sense of belonging.</para>
<para>I have witnessed how adoption can transform a child's life, and I personally understand the importance of improving Australia's adoption framework. My youngest daughter, Gabi, joined our family after my wife Jackie and I had provided initial emergency foster care for her. These initial months turned into a battle to adopt her, and Gabi was eventually adopted in 2012. She was one of only 143 children adopted in New South Wales, amongst 672 adopted across Australia, between 2011 and 2013. That knowledge of permanence and legal status enabled her to thrive—physically, emotionally and academically. The process of adoption is protracted and difficult to navigate, which means that many children in out-of-home care don't find families where they can thrive and reach their full potential. In the 2016-17 financial year, 246 adoptions of Australian children were finalised. The strikingly low rate of adoption was why Jackie, Gabi and I became strong advocates to streamline the legal adoption of Australian children in out-of-home care where there was no prospect of return to their birth family. The declining rate of adoption in Australia, combined with the increasing number of children in out-of-home care, suggests that overcoming barriers to adoption in Australia could reduce the number of children in impermanent foster care and improve the lives of many children.</para>
<para>A harmonised national approach to adoption is vital because, under current arrangements, there is no national law governing adoption of Australian children, and significant variation exists in relevant legislation and practice across Australia. The Commonwealth government must provide national leadership to improve the safety and wellbeing of Australia's children through the <inline font-style="italic">National </inline><inline font-style="italic">f</inline><inline font-style="italic">ramework for </inline><inline font-style="italic">p</inline><inline font-style="italic">rotecting Australia's </inline><inline font-style="italic">c</inline><inline font-style="italic">hildren 2009-2020</inline>. The national framework was agreed in 2009 and is underpinned by the principle that all children have a right to grow up in an environment free from neglect and abuse. Their best interests are paramount in all decisions affecting them.</para>
<para>The recommendations arising from the report emphasise the role that open adoption can play in improving the lives of neglected children. Historically, under closed adoption an adopted child's original birth certificate was sealed and an amended birth certificate issued that established the child's new identity and relationship with their adoptive family. This sometimes has negative impacts on adoptees. Open adoption, on the other hand, acknowledges the origins of children and allows information-sharing or contact between birth and adoptive parents. The report notes that open adoption is now facilitated in varying degrees in all states and territories in Australia.</para>
<para>While open adoption can benefit a number of children, there are circumstances where closed adoption is more appropriate. The report recommends that open adoption occur unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying closed adoption, but my experience suggests that decisions about closed or open adoption should be made based on the particular circumstances at hand and take into account what is best for the child and, depending on their age, the child's wishes. It is imperative that the safety and wellbeing of the child are prioritised, even though notions of family preservation and cultural considerations are important.</para>
<para>The report notes that, as part of the adoption process, states and territories issue new birth certificates in which the adoptive parents are named as parents of the child in lieu of the birth parents. The child's original birth certificate is kept in the relevant state's or territory's records and may be requested on application. This approach is gradually shifting to one of integrated birth certificates. These are birth certificates that include the names of both the birth parents and adoptive parents. South Australia is in the process of changing its adoption legislation to have integrated birth certificates. The ACT, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Queensland and Victorian governments are in various stages of considering integrated birth certificates.</para>
<para>As part of any law reform relating to integrated birth certificates and adoption more broadly the question of inherited citizenship should be taken into account. As recent experience in Australia's parliament has demonstrated, citizenship rights can be inherited passively. It is important that the legislature consider how such rights will be affected by integrated birth certificates.</para>
<para>Another of the committee's recommendations relates to the timing of a decision about whether a child may be able to safely return to their birth parents—that is, this decision must be made within a legislated time frame, such as six months for children under two years or within 12 months for older children. It is vital that a legislated time frame of around 24 months also be required in relation to decisions on adoption. I'm aware of families subjected to eight or more years of uncertainty as foster parents waded through the complex, protracted process of adoption. Such prolonged uncertainty compromises a child's wellbeing and is just not good enough for these young people's lives. The committee's recommendation for an evidence based approach to adoption is valuable, and I urge government to support research into issues, such as the effect on children of forced contact or lack of contact with birth parents during the adoption process, along with other potential impacts on children. In light of these considerations, I thank the committee for its work in completing this important report.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Joint Standing Committee on Treaties</title>
          <page.no>144</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>144</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:23</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr JOSH WILSON</name>
    <name.id>265970</name.id>
    <electorate>Fremantle</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I'm very pleased to make some remarks on the report on the second inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or PAFTA. I say at the outset that Australian Labor have long supported fair and free trade. From the time of the Hawke-Keating government we've looked to participate openly in the global market on the basis that fair and free trade is in our national interest, economically, socially and geopolitically, and because it is supportive of developing nations in our region.</para>
<para>At the same time there are costs and impacts associated with trade agreements, and they can be analysed and negotiated with more or less rigour and quality. For that reason Labor has been clear in insisting upon the best process and the right substantial outcomes from the consideration and settlement of trade and investment agreements. It is important to note that PAFTA was negotiated on a track that ran in parallel to the process that considered the Trans-Pacific Partnership. When the government recognised the possibility that the TPP might fall over with the withdrawal of the US, and considering the fact that a key argument of the CPTPP was the consistency of arrangements delivered by plurilateral agreements within our region and the corresponding benefit of reducing the noodle bowl effect of multiple overlapping bilateral trade agreements, it is legitimate to ask why PAFTA continued to be negotiated once the CPTPP was back afoot. It's not entirely clear that some of the tariff and market access benefits in PAFTA could not have been incorporated through mechanisms that exist in the CPTPP.</para>
<para>At the public hearing for the second inquiry into PAFTA the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry on that point expressed concern that the added complexity of having potentially three or four trade agreements between Australia and Peru could lead to perverse outcomes and that such arrangements should be rationalised and harmonised. That is a matter of common sense. The noodle bowl effect refers to the circumstances where you get a whole series of bilateral agreements between countries within a region or more broadly and it becomes very difficult to understand how all of these agreements work with one another. It certainly becomes difficult for companies that are seeking to export. That's why there is a move towards or an argument for plurilateral agreements. That was something the government put forward as a driver for our participation in the CPTPP.</para>
<para>One of the reasons we had the second inquiry into PAFTA was to further interrogate that issue: how is it that, while going into the CPTPP, which includes Peru, we were at the same time negotiating PAFTA? As it stands, that means there will be four agreements: a bilateral investment treaty, a bilateral agreement here in PAFTA and two regional agreements, the CPTPP and, in prospect, the Pacific Alliance Free Trade Agreement. Labor committee members are disappointed that the government continues to negotiate trade agreements like PAFTA through a process that has some pretty obvious shortcomings—namely, the inadequacy of stakeholder engagement in the negotiation phase. The negotiations occur behind closed doors at the government-to-government level to the extent that affected stakeholders, whether they are exporting companies or sectors or civil society, are not brought in or given the opportunity to participate in that negotiation phase either at all or on a consistent and even basis, notwithstanding the fact that that occurs in other jurisdictions, including the United States. That's one of the clear shortcomings in the current approach.</para>
<para>The second very significant shortcoming is the absence of independent economic analysis or modelling of trade agreements. We have seen in the past that, in the absence of that modelling, predictions are made about the benefits and impacts of trade agreements, and in many cases those benefits are not delivered or there are impacts or other secondary consequences that are not anticipated. I think the average person would expect that, if we're going to enter into a trade agreement, someone outside of the negotiating party, someone outside the department of trade, would undertake some analysis that would give us a clear sense of what can be expected from a trade agreement and then, on that basis, the ability to track over time what in fact occurs so that we can refine our ability to predict the benefits and other consequences of trade agreements.</para>
<para>In the course of this, the 45th parliament, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, in recognition of the shortcoming when it comes to independent modelling, has recommended on several occasions that the Australian government introduce the practice of commissioning such analysis or modelling and providing it to JSCOT, if not making it available more widely. I have to say, with some disappointment, that, on this occasion in relation to PAFTA, the committee has departed from what has been its consistent approach in the course of the 45th Parliament and has chosen not to make that recommendation. I don't really know why. It's worth noting that Labor has committed to legislating a requirement for an independent national interest assessment to be conducted in future on every new trade agreement to examine the economic, strategic and social impacts before it is signed. That's an improvement to our process that would occur if a future Labor government were elected.</para>
<para>We know that the CPTPP, the plurilateral agreement that covers our region and also covers Peru, will undermine Australia's temporary foreign labour visa system as it currently stands, because we negotiated it on the basis that labour market testing would not apply for contractual service suppliers in relation to six of the signatory countries. One of those was Peru. Again, on that question of consistency and multiple overlapping arrangements, what is interesting is that, with PAFTA, the government has included the requirement that labour market testing occur in relation to contractual service providers, but—and this goes to the heart of that issue of inconsistency—evidence to the JSCOT inquiry on the PAFTA was that Peruvian contractual service providers would be able to choose the more permissive option that's provided to Peruvian companies under the CPTPP.</para>
<para>So the Australian government and the Peruvian government have negotiated two trade agreements within roughly the same period. In one trade agreement, we have signed away what would ordinarily apply, which is labour market testing for temporary foreign labour—a perfectly sensible thing that allows us to have access to temporary foreign labour when it's required but makes sure first that Australian workers are not available for those jobs. We've signed that away under the CPTPP. Yet, when we negotiate PAFTA with the same government, we again require that labour market testing occur. But, because you've got these two provisions and because of the way that international trade law works, Peruvian companies can essentially choose which one they like, and I think it would come as no surprise that they are more than likely going to choose the one that doesn't require any labour market testing. It begs the question: why would the Australian government, in negotiating the CPTPP, make these lopsided labour market concessions? They're not concessions that were uniform across signatories to the CPTPP. We made those concessions unilaterally to six signatory countries. Why would we think that that's a good idea under the CPTPP but not under PAFTA? It's hard to understand. On that basis, obviously the labour market testing in PAFTA is meaningless; it's a hollow gesture. It really does beg the question as to what the government is thinking on that particular issue.</para>
<para>It is particularly concerning that the proposed PAFTA includes an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism—again, not least because it is different to the ISDS mechanism in the CPTPP. Yet again, we're giving foreign companies the opportunity to sue the Australian government in relation to laws that we in this place choose to make, if they feel that they have been hard done by. When they might otherwise have access to our judicial system, we're giving them the opportunity to go off to a questionable international tribunal and take the Australian government to court. Not only are we doing that, we're giving them two different, inconsistent mechanisms through which they can take that action. We say that no good explanation has been given as to why two such mechanisms should co-exist. Indeed, we say there is no good reason why ISDS mechanisms should exist at all.</para>
<para>In conclusion, there are some beneficial tariff reductions and some market improvements in the PAFTA—a treaty with a country with which we don't do very much trade—but it's disappointing that the negotiation occurred through a suboptimal process and included harmful labour market testing and ISDS provisions.</para>
</speech>
<speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:34</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr ALEXANDER</name>
    <name.id>M3M</name.id>
    <electorate>Bennelong</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>Free trade is good. This should not be a controversial statement. Free trade brings openness, trust and economic prosperity. The more nations we trade with, the more nations we can export to and the more goods and services we have access to. Free trade also fosters friendship between countries because, as history has taught us, countries that trade with each other don't fight with each other, yet parts of the world are retreating into protectionism and antagonism. 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.</para>
<para>This government has made free trade a priority, and Australia has grown as a result. Since the coalition took office in September 2013, our trade ministers have done what many previous trade ministers have tried but failed to achieve. We have signed free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China, not to mention Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam through the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Agreements with India and Indonesia are also, hopefully, to be agreed soon.</para>
<para>Trade has contributed one-quarter of Australia's economic growth over the past five years. The TPP will usher in a new era of economic growth and opportunity across our region. We are witnessing significant economic transformation across the Asia-Pacific, and these agreements will allow us to harness these enormous opportunities whilst also strengthening our economy to face future challenges.</para>
<para>The Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement has already delivered 84 per cent tariff reductions on Korea's imports and will eventually lead to 99.8 per cent of Australia's goods exported to Korea being duty free. The Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement will provide improved access to Japan's growing markets, with more than 97 per cent of Australia's exports receiving preferential or duty-free access when fully implemented.</para>
<para>The free trade agreement with China, our country's largest trading partner, will deliver economic growth and increased investment that will improve the life of every Australian, from the ports of Western Australia to my electorate of Bennelong. Many times in this place I've spoken of my very good fortune in representing a community with a large, vibrant and engaged community of Chinese Australians. At many local events, we have discussed the importance of building bridges between our two nations to allow even stronger linkages as partners in trade, business and culture. This free trade agreement cements those bridges and will create many business opportunities and employment opportunities for Bennelong residents.</para>
<para>With one in five jobs trade related—export and import—the government will continue to pursue its firm commitment towards a free trade environment that has helped to deliver an enviable record of economic prosperity and growth, job creation and higher standards of living. Our existing free trade agreements are helping our economy to be at its strongest since the mining boom. They have been excellent investments by this coalition government.</para>
<para>That brings me to the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement, or PAFTA. Peru has an economy similar in size to Vietnam's and larger than New Zealand's, and a growing middle class, and there is significant scope to quickly grow Australia's economic linkages with Peru. Under PAFTA, Peru will eliminate 99.4 per cent of its tariffs. In a time of drought, PAFTA upon entry will eliminate tariffs on beef within five years, to ensure that Australian beef farmers will have duty-free access to the Peruvian market. There will be more sugar market access for Australian sugar farmers than Peru has provided to any sugar-exporting country in the last 20 years. Dairy farmers will be able to compete with competitors, and outcomes on certain dairy products, such as butter, will exceed outcomes provided to the EU and New Zealand. There will be immediate duty-free access for Australian wine; sheepmeat; most horticultural products, including almonds; kangaroo meat; and wheat. There will be immediate duty-free access for pharmaceuticals, medical devices, paper and paperboard. There will be the best services commitments that Peru has offered to any country, which will create new opportunities for Australian mining service providers. And there will be recognition of Australian degrees in Peru.</para>
<para>I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT, and we saw PAFTA come before us just four months ago. At the time, the agreement was agreed by both the coalition and Labor. This was a bipartisan policy, as it should be, because it is also good policy. I like bipartisanship. We work best when we work together, and people turn off politics when we play political games. Together we looked at the evidence and together we agreed that this agreement is in the interests of the Australian people. It seems that the unions have got to the Labor Party and forced them to change their minds. This is sad.</para>
<para>Unions have a strong history of protectionism, going back over a century—a history which has hampered our growth from time to time. Everyone will remember the, frankly, xenophobic campaign by the CFMEU against the Chinese free trade agreement, which did enormous damage to our relations with China and even to the harmony in electorates like my electorate of Bennelong.</para>
<para>In fairness to our colleagues, the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Simon Birmingham, at the request of the Labor Party, referred PAFTA back to JSCOT for a second hearing, which we have just had in the last few weeks. It's disappointing to see that Labor now state that the implementing legislation should be postponed until the government renegotiates ISDS out of PAFTA. As evidence presented to the inquiry confirmed, PAFTA has a strong investment chapter with broad safeguards that preserve the right of the Australian government to continue regulation in the public interest, including in the areas of health and environment. This is a significant improvement over the existing ISDS arrangements which were signed by the Keating government in 1995.</para>
<para>Unsurprisingly, JSCOT recommended early ratification of PAFTA in its current form. Thankfully, this is where the committee's deliberations will end, and there is nothing now preventing this agreement being ratified by Australia. I look forward to this happening and to all the broader benefits that this agreement will give to thousands of Australian businesses and families.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1><subdebate.1><subdebateinfo>
          <title>Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee</title>
          <page.no>146</page.no>
        </subdebateinfo><subdebate.2><subdebateinfo>
            <title>Report</title>
            <page.no>146</page.no>
          </subdebateinfo><speech>
  <talker>
    <time.stamp>12:42</time.stamp>
    <name role="metadata">Mr WALLACE</name>
    <name.id>265967</name.id>
    <electorate>Fisher</electorate>
  </talker>
  <para>I rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report, <inline font-style="italic">Contestability and consensus: a bipartisan approach to more effective parliamentary engagement with Defence</inline>, and to commend its key recommendations to the House. As my friend the member for Bennelong has just said, this place works best when its members and senators work together for the Commonwealth of Australia. I wholeheartedly endorse that sentiment.</para>
<para>I recently had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Australian parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's Pacific Regional Conference in the Cook Islands. My topic for that speech was 'What role for parliaments in tackling corruption?' I spoke at length about the many and varied ways in which the Parliament of Australia holds the executive to account and helps to prevent poor administration and inappropriate conduct through our government and our federal bureaucracy.</para>
<para>My colleagues at that conference would rightly have been concerned, however—as the members of this joint committee are—at the effectiveness of our parliament's scrutiny when it comes to the government's record defence investment. This government is currently undertaking the largest ever peacetime investment in its military capability, delivered largely through tenders with the private sector. That investment is some $200 billion, to be spent over the next nine years; it amounts to one of the greatest single items of expenditure for the Commonwealth in the decade to come. Yet parliament's ability to provide oversight of relevant ministers, public servants and the private contractors employed by the Commonwealth is, unfortunately, currently limited. Fundamentally, the parliament lacks information. The public servants and the dedicated service men and women that we meet and take evidence from are no doubt doing all they can to provide us with full and helpful answers. However, far too often the information that the committee identifies as central to our inquiries is information either that is classified or that we are told is commercial-in-confidence.</para>
<para>I've spoken quite a bit about this concept of commercial-in-confidence and how many different tiers of government seem to hide behind the concept of commercial-in-confidence. When it comes to issues of national security, however, I understand that, obviously, we have an obligation to observe issues of intelligence and national security—and when we're talking about defence, the issue of commercial-in-confidence is very important. I would temper that by saying, though, that governments should not hide behind the false veil of this concept of commercial-in-confidence. I'm seeing—not so much with this government, I should hasten to add—a disturbing pattern of state and local governments seeking to hide behind what I would suggest is the very thinly-veiled concept of commercial-in-confidence. Some of us who are more cynical might say that this is purely an attempt by governments to hide the facts from the people who put them there. That is obviously of great concern. I should hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that is the case in relation to this federal government.</para>
<para>Currently, the unavailability of this information to parliamentarians makes meaningful scrutiny of the defence portfolio nigh impossible. A way must be found to strike this balance and restore the parliament's oversight function in this first and most important responsibility of government, which is, of course, to keep its citizens safe. This area of policy is one that is of particular concern to my electorate of Fisher and to our emerging defence industry. When I moved to the Sunshine Coast nearly three decades ago, there were only three industries in our community: tourism, retail and construction. Today, we are seeing the emergence of the defence and high-tech manufacturing sectors in centres like Caloundra and Sippy Downs, driven by the government's record investment and by my own Fisher Defence Industry Initiative.</para>
<para>The government's defence investment represents a major opportunity for the Sunshine Coast and for my electorate of Fisher. My constituents and I imagine that most, if not all, taxpayers would demand that this investment be appropriately scrutinised. They expect us in the parliament to ensure it is well and efficiently spent. Australians expect us to ensure that the greatest possible investment flows to the right products and to the right businesses to meet this country's strategic needs. We need this investment not only to support strong, sovereign defence capabilities but to diversify and strengthen the economies of communities like mine. That's why I passionately support the recommendations made in it.</para>
<para>I believe we need a new bipartisan committee dedicated to scrutiny of defence and defence investment, and provided with the necessary and appropriate levels of access to classified and commercial-in-confidence information. The Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has shown that it can be done. I believe that a new statutory joint committee on defence, similarly modelled, with a wide-ranging remit and access to classified information, with the proper safeguards, is the best way to correct the current impediment to appropriate accountability in our defence investment. Bipartisan agreement on defence matters can have significant benefits in creating a stable policy platform and a consistent, strategic approach. However, our Westminster system specifically invites and encourages the creation of eventual consensus, through what could be described as robust debate. Robust debate requires accurate and full information available to both sides, and the parliamentary committee process gives us the best chance of achieving just that.</para>
<para>On behalf of the House I want to thank Senator Jim Molan for chairing the committee and bringing this report forward and the deputy chair, Senator Kimberley Kitching, for her work. Like Senator Molan I would like to acknowledge the very significant contributions of our former chairs: the Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Linda Reynolds CSC; the Assistant Minister for Defence, Senator David Fawcett; and the most recent deputy, Madeleine King MP. Finally I thank the members and senators of our committee from both sides of our respective chambers for the spirit of deliberation and bipartisanship shown during the creation of this report.</para>
<para>I hope we've demonstrated that, when it comes to the effective oversight of Defence investment, members and senators can and will come together very effectively. There is no greater responsibility, whether on this side of the House or on that side of the House, whether you are red, blue, green, pink or brindle. It makes no difference. We are here to serve the people of the Australian Commonwealth. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast bulk if not all people who sit in this place hold this as their most important and sacrosanct responsibility. We need to have the ability to ask questions and receive answers from those who appear before this committee in a full and frank manner whilst having some protections around security issues. Those protections can be well administered and well catered for through appropriate legislation just as we have done with our Intelligence and Security Committee. It's through those mechanisms that we will help deliver a safer and more prosperous Commonwealth, and I commend the report to the House.</para>
<para>Debate adjourned.</para>
<para>Federation Chamber adjourned at 12:52</para>
<quote><para class="block"> </para></quote>
</speech>
</subdebate.2></subdebate.1></debate>
  </fedchamb.xscript>
</hansard>